Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think it would be extremely lame, and would not attend such a tournament.

 Necroshea wrote:
You could just have a "Hostile Air Space" special rule. If you zoom you roll on a chart. On a 1 you get shot out of the sky and lose the model and all unit in transport.

Are you being serious?

1/6 chance to be utterly destroyed everytime you wish to move? Including coming on from reserves?

Lets take away Invuln saves too. And psychic powers.

A more 'sensible' rule for "Hostile Air Space" would be something along the lines of:

Hostile Air Space:
Whenever a Flyer enters play from Reserves it takes an automatic Str8 Ap- hit on its Front Armour.

(I feel this would represent the aircraft dropping through masses of Flakk fire as it swoops in for a low-level strafing run)

And even then, it's still a bit silly to use.

Hostile Air Space is literally the worst idea I've ever heard regarding proposed rules.

Hostile land space: All infantry take a Str 3 AP- hit when they are deployed representing hostile artillery barrages. That will show those horde players who ruin it for everyone by taking longer to deploy and move!

 snooggums wrote:
Hostile land space: All infantry take a Str 3 AP- hit when they are deployed representing hostile artillery barrages. That will show those horde players who ruin it for everyone by taking longer to deploy and move!

I never do this, but I exalted this post.

Well played, sir.

Wow, utter reading comprehension failure. I said if you zoom it happens. You don't have to zoom. Instead of dealing with a spam list of things you might have trouble hitting, you have to deal with vehicle spam that is much less oppressive. If the opponent wishes to zoom, the rule takes effect.

I run a squadron of vendettas, and this rule wouldn't bother me in the least. Considering the point of the rule is to stop fliyer spam builds, and how some of you are taking it like an insult, I think it's safe to assume that the rule was concieved because of people like you in the first place.

Actually, you do have to zoom. Speaking of reading comprehension...

Funny thing is, these special missions to hurt flyers and horde are straight up out of GWs play book. If they still had 'ard boys, we would see those exact missions and then people would say " ard boys is true competition! Adapt or die". Apparently it doesn't have to be fair to be competitive, just arbitrarily set by GW to be competitive.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Actually, you do have to zoom. Speaking of reading comprehension...

Well that isn't entirely true. While the Ork, Necron, and I believe Eldar planes don't have the option to hover the others I believe do... Yay Imperials! I agree with you that I do not like the rule and think that it would be simpler to just allow more skyfire options opposed to this.

If you want a tournament that isn't ruled by WAAC players, then reward soft scores (Painting, Presentation, Sportsmanship) and make them just as important as battle points. Don't go about banning an entire unit type from the game. That just makes your event seem incomplete.

nkelsch wrote:
Funny thing is, these special missions to hurt flyers and horde are straight up out of GWs play book. If they still had 'ard boys, we would see those exact missions and then people would say " ard boys is true competition! Adapt or die". Apparently it doesn't have to be fair to be competitive, just arbitrarily set by GW to be competitive.

GW was smart enought to realize this game shouldnt be played as a sport. Hopefully in time the idea takes hold...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

If you do this, its no longer Warhammer. Its "HowIthinkthegameshouldbeplayedhammer"

You just described the majority of tournaments actually.

Most have arbitrary limits, requirements and rules addendums...

Such as?

I have found the tournaments I attend to only have rules clarifications for things GW has neglected in their FAQs. I have never encountered "arbitrary limits, requirements, and rules addendum". I have encountered arbitrary and poorly designed scenarios that have skewed a tournament toward a specific army build, book etc but scenarios aren't any of the things you mentioned.

Where the scenarios optionl? IF not then they are in effect an arbitrary requirement...

@Rain

I bet you'd be much more enjoyable to discuss things with if you didn't make a point to sound like you live in OT, ready to argue and make any small desperate jabs you can.

I admit, I'm not familiar with flyers outside of IG. No one in my local meta uses them , only IG and MC's. In light of that, no, my idea would not work, as it would favor certain armies over others, when all of the mentioned armies have an advantage over those with no AA defenses.

I agree that limiting is better than banning, as no one except those who use forge world ever expect to be told they can't use their painted figures.

 SkaerKrow wrote:
If you want a tournament that isn't ruled by WAAC players, then reward soft scores (Painting, Presentation, Sportsmanship) and make them just as important as battle points. Don't go about banning an entire unit type from the game. That just makes your event seem incomplete.

Soft Scores?

You mean the stuff that shouldn't matter in a competitive environment?

 TheCaptain wrote:

 SkaerKrow wrote:
If you want a tournament that isn't ruled by WAAC players, then reward soft scores (Painting, Presentation, Sportsmanship) and make them just as important as battle points. Don't go about banning an entire unit type from the game. That just makes your event seem incomplete.

Soft Scores?

You mean the stuff that shouldn't matter in a competitive environment?

we all know that a true competitive game requires an uneven playing field where people have large advantages before the dice are rolled. The more skill is eliminated through imbalance, the better measure of competitive skill it is right?

 Necroshea wrote:
@Rain

You have my attention.

 Necroshea wrote:
I bet you'd be much more enjoyable to discuss things with if you didn't make a point to sound like you live in OT, ready to argue and make any small desperate jabs you can.

Amusing. You said this:

 Necroshea wrote:
Wow, utter reading comprehension failure.

I responded, in the context that unless a unit has a specific special rule stating otherwise, the only move they can ever make is a zoom.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

 Necroshea wrote:
I admit, I'm not familiar with flyers outside of IG.

I'll just let that stand on its own.

nkelsch wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 SkaerKrow wrote:
If you want a tournament that isn't ruled by WAAC players, then reward soft scores (Painting, Presentation, Sportsmanship) and make them just as important as battle points. Don't go about banning an entire unit type from the game. That just makes your event seem incomplete.

Soft Scores?

You mean the stuff that shouldn't matter in a competitive environment?

we all know that a true competitive game requires an uneven playing field where people have large advantages before the dice are rolled. The more skill is eliminated through imbalance, the better measure of competitive skill it is right?

How is it an uneven playing field when literally everyone has the same options? It's not like the second you buy a Tau codex you're stuck fielding Fire Warriors until the end of time.

You're never going to remove imbalance from a faction-based game, especially when the rules are always written by different people. WAAC players trend towards the local optimum because it works, and once you're there the only difference is pure skill. Changing the field via whatever the whims of the balance czar carebears of the week simply shifts where that optimum is, and they're still going to faceroll you. All of these discussions boil down to "the faction I'm sticking to without qualification deserves new gak to make up for the stuff <most recent codex> got", or "<most recent codex> got cool gak that I can't have, they shouldn't be allowed to have it until my army gets it". feth that noise. Reconstruct your forces, take allies, learn probability, adjust your fething tactics. Yeah, there are above average lists out there, but people on Dakka complain like they're insurmountable because they're fielding the same damn models against a new enemy and expecting to not have to adapt.

This game operates on two levels - the strategic and the tactical. Feeling out your metagame and reacting accordingly is an important component of competitive play of any similar game. Every strategy has a counter, although some of them might require buying and painting new units to stay on the bleeding edge. If you're not willing to do that, stop chasing the idea that you can play competitively. It's like MtG - every few months you need to throw out most of if not all of your deck and rebuild to stay competitive. Yeah, that's expensive to do with wargames, and that's why 99% of play is casual. It's simply more enjoyable to most people to field whatever they feel like. But the second you start trying to affect competitive play because you, the casual player, can't compete with these heavily optimized lists and tactics... it's like walking into someone else's house uninvited and demanding that they cater to what YOU want.

nkelsch wrote:
Funny thing is, these special missions to hurt flyers and horde are straight up out of GWs play book. If they still had 'ard boys, we would see those exact missions and then people would say " ard boys is true competition! Adapt or die". Apparently it doesn't have to be fair to be competitive, just arbitrarily set by GW to be competitive.

I don't really know where you get this idea from, the general consensus I remember is that 'ard boyz was laughable as a "competitive" event and the only reason anyone paid any attention to it was the prizes.

And sure, those proposed missions are right out of 'ard boyz, but that's because 'ard boyz missions were embarrassingly poor game design. GW trapped themselves in a corner with the whole "ZERO COMP, ZERO PAINTING, BRING YOUR HARDEST LISTS RAR!!!!!!!" marketing of the event, so when they wanted to add comp they had to add it to the missions and pretend that it was still a no-comp event. Someone who doesn't suck at competitive game design, on the other hand, would have made appropriate changes through bans/errata/etc to fix the game properly instead of making a clumsy attempt at "fixing" it without admitting that there was ever a problem.

I hate to keep bringing it up, but look at competitive MTG: does WOTC use special game scenarios that punish "overpowered" decks? Of course not. If a deck is too powerful and breaking the game they admit there's a problem and the offending cards. And yet somehow they still have a very competitive and balanced game.

 Ostrakon wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 SkaerKrow wrote:
If you want a tournament that isn't ruled by WAAC players, then reward soft scores (Painting, Presentation, Sportsmanship) and make them just as important as battle points. Don't go about banning an entire unit type from the game. That just makes your event seem incomplete.

Soft Scores?

You mean the stuff that shouldn't matter in a competitive environment?

we all know that a true competitive game requires an uneven playing field where people have large advantages before the dice are rolled. The more skill is eliminated through imbalance, the better measure of competitive skill it is right?

How is it an uneven playing field when literally everyone has the same options? It's not like the second you buy a Tau codex you're stuck fielding Fire Warriors until the end of time.

You're never going to remove imbalance from a faction-based game, especially when the rules are always written by different people. WAAC players trend towards the local optimum because it works, and once you're there the only difference is pure skill. Changing the field via whatever the whims of the balance czar carebears of the week simply shifts where that optimum is, and they're still going to faceroll you. All of these discussions boil down to "the faction I'm sticking to without qualification deserves new gak to make up for the stuff <most recent codex> got", or "<most recent codex> got cool gak that I can't have, they shouldn't be allowed to have it until my army gets it". feth that noise. Reconstruct your forces, take allies, learn probability, adjust your fething tactics. Yeah, there are above average lists out there, but people on Dakka complain like they're insurmountable because they're fielding the same damn models against a new enemy and expecting to not have to adapt.

This game operates on two levels - the strategic and the tactical. Feeling out your metagame and reacting accordingly is an important component of competitive play of any similar game. Every strategy has a counter, although some of them might require buying and painting new units to stay on the bleeding edge. If you're not willing to do that, stop chasing the idea that you can play competitively. It's like MtG - every few months you need to throw out most of if not all of your deck and rebuild to stay competitive. Yeah, that's expensive to do with wargames, and that's why 99% of play is casual. It's simply more enjoyable to most people to field whatever they feel like. But the second you start trying to affect competitive play because you, the casual player, can't compete with these heavily optimized lists and tactics... it's like walking into someone else's house uninvited and demanding that they cater to what YOU want.

funny you reference MTG which bans cards, adjusts by reliving or limiting overpowered cards and strives to maintain a balance which 40k doesn't event attempt to do and actively says their came cant be played in a competitive fashion.

I also don't have to spend weeks assembling and painting magic cards to use them and it isn't as if specific colors in mtg are unusable for having an entire faction of overprinted, old broken rules and lacking options units. When magic updates all the colors get equal and balanced rerelease a and additions.

Everything that makes mtg able to be actually fair and competitive is totally missing in 40k which shows just how ignorant "adapt to die" is. You say it is as simple as taking allies but the allies matrix is beyond broken as some factions lack battle brothers or any codex which make synergy between allies and core units non-existing while other armies not only get synergy but game breaking combos which dominate. Add in fortifications which due to different balistic skills, some armies are more equal than others... Paying the same points for something which hits half as much.

Claiming list building as a skill is also laughable. Tourneys are not about who can download the best net list and shows no skill. All of your suggestions are empty platitudes. Learning probabilities doesn't make your units work better, just helps you see how unfair and imbalanced the game really is. It isn't goi g to make a grossly over costed unit work better or take codexes which are 2edition old with broken rules be worth their points and compete fairly.

But your answer is throw your old codexes in the garbage, break out the credit card and buy the new army of the week or become meat for the grinder right?

And you then say "don't come into other people's house uninvited and blah blah blah." Well that is exactly what you are advocating. It is the TOs house, his guests don't like how the 6th edition meta is unfair, and they choose to change the game to attempt to make it better for them in their own house... And because you advocate only one way of playing, you are the one kicking in the door to their house and saying "line up for your bullets to the head because I paid for an advantage by tactically making the flavor of the month top army and I deserve to beat you today."

Your delusion of personal skill and ignoring of imbalance is disturbing. There are hardly any events that are run which don't have comp, tweaks, missions or FAQs which boil down to a shift in the meta to how that group or TO feels the game should be played. The community is better off for these differences as it allows people to see what works and what doesn't. What every reasonable person can agree to is 40k is not designed for competitive play, is incapable of being a true test of skill due to imbalance and that changing the meta doesn't make the event any less competitive, just shifts the meta. As people run variety of events, the "better" meta changes spread, the bad ones die. But to think that intelligent educated people who see the glaring imbalance should simply pretend it is not there simply doesn't work. If you honestly believe the random location the meta falls after every codex release is fair and a legitimate example of balance, then enjoy carving notches on your Shillelagh and believe your wins are based on skill and not influenced by a imbalanced and sometimes broken gaming system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

I hate to keep bringing it up, but look at competitive MTG: does WOTC use special game scenarios that punish "overpowered" decks? Of course not. If a deck is too powerful and breaking the game they admit there's a problem and the offending cards. And yet somehow they still have a very competitive and balanced game.

but wotc actually supports and promotes competitive play and makes their system designed for it. And when they make mistakes and imbalance pops up, they address it.

Games workshop has never fixed a unit via increasing or decreasing stats or power due to balance, only due to fixing rule interpretation. GW has never changed a point value due to imbalance or changes in the meta... Only misprints.

So how is GWs explicit architecture of an imbalanced, unfair game, and no attempt to ever address it somehow make it equally as competitive and fair as MTG?

As soon as people realize the system is not balanced and every codex can't compete equally, then reasonable people can play a flavor of 40k which best suits their goals. Shifting the meta doesn't make it any less competitive. And it is ok to shift the meta,WOTC does it as they care. GW doesn't care about balance or competitive play.

nkelsch wrote:
So how is GWs explicit architecture of an imbalanced, unfair game, and no attempt to ever address it somehow make it equally as competitive and fair as MTG?

Err, what? I think you've just completely missed the point of what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that 40k is as competitive as MTG (which would be insane), I'm arguing two entirely different things:

1) That mission-based comp (for example, the proposed "every turn on a 1 your flyer dies" mission) is stupid as hell and incredibly poor game design. If balance issues to exist, the solution is to learn from real competitive games (like MTG) and use bans and/or errata to fix them (whether it comes from the TO or from the publisher), not to make awkward special mission rules that effectively say "no X allowed" but in a less efficient way.

2) That GW's mission comp with 'ard boyz (just like everything else about 'ard boyz) is an example of laughably bad game design. GW trapped themselves by marketing 'ard boyz as an extreme competitive no-soft-scores-no-comp event, and so when it became obvious that balance changes were needed they were limited to mission comp because it was the only option that let them pretend that they weren't using comp at all.

Fortunately a third-party TO isn't limited by the stupidity of GW's marketing department, so they can use the far superior option of bans and/or unit rule/point changes to fix balance issues (if/when balance issues exist).

nkelsch wrote:

 Ostrakon wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 SkaerKrow wrote:
If you want a tournament that isn't ruled by WAAC players, then reward soft scores (Painting, Presentation, Sportsmanship) and make them just as important as battle points. Don't go about banning an entire unit type from the game. That just makes your event seem incomplete.

Soft Scores?

You mean the stuff that shouldn't matter in a competitive environment?

we all know that a true competitive game requires an uneven playing field where people have large advantages before the dice are rolled. The more skill is eliminated through imbalance, the better measure of competitive skill it is right?

How is it an uneven playing field when literally everyone has the same options? It's not like the second you buy a Tau codex you're stuck fielding Fire Warriors until the end of time.

You're never going to remove imbalance from a faction-based game, especially when the rules are always written by different people. WAAC players trend towards the local optimum because it works, and once you're there the only difference is pure skill. Changing the field via whatever the whims of the balance czar carebears of the week simply shifts where that optimum is, and they're still going to faceroll you. All of these discussions boil down to "the faction I'm sticking to without qualification deserves new gak to make up for the stuff <most recent codex> got", or "<most recent codex> got cool gak that I can't have, they shouldn't be allowed to have it until my army gets it". feth that noise. Reconstruct your forces, take allies, learn probability, adjust your fething tactics. Yeah, there are above average lists out there, but people on Dakka complain like they're insurmountable because they're fielding the same damn models against a new enemy and expecting to not have to adapt.

This game operates on two levels - the strategic and the tactical. Feeling out your metagame and reacting accordingly is an important component of competitive play of any similar game. Every strategy has a counter, although some of them might require buying and painting new units to stay on the bleeding edge. If you're not willing to do that, stop chasing the idea that you can play competitively. It's like MtG - every few months you need to throw out most of if not all of your deck and rebuild to stay competitive. Yeah, that's expensive to do with wargames, and that's why 99% of play is casual. It's simply more enjoyable to most people to field whatever they feel like. But the second you start trying to affect competitive play because you, the casual player, can't compete with these heavily optimized lists and tactics... it's like walking into someone else's house uninvited and demanding that they cater to what YOU want.

funny you reference MTG which bans cards, adjusts by reliving or limiting overpowered cards and strives to maintain a balance which 40k doesn't event attempt to do and actively says their came cant be played in a competitive fashion.

I also don't have to spend weeks assembling and painting magic cards to use them and it isn't as if specific colors in mtg are unusable for having an entire faction of overprinted, old broken rules and lacking options units. When magic updates all the colors get equal and balanced rerelease a and additions.

Everything that makes mtg able to be actually fair and competitive is totally missing in 40k which shows just how ignorant "adapt to die" is. You say it is as simple as taking allies but the allies matrix is beyond broken as some factions lack battle brothers or any codex which make synergy between allies and core units non-existing while other armies not only get synergy but game breaking combos which dominate. Add in fortifications which due to different balistic skills, some armies are more equal than others... Paying the same points for something which hits half as much.

Claiming list building as a skill is also laughable. Tourneys are not about who can download the best net list and shows no skill. All of your suggestions are empty platitudes. Learning probabilities doesn't make your units work better, just helps you see how unfair and imbalanced the game really is. It isn't goi g to make a grossly over costed unit work better or take codexes which are 2edition old with broken rules be worth their points and compete fairly.

But your answer is throw your old codexes in the garbage, break out the credit card and buy the new army of the week or become meat for the grinder right?

And you then say "don't come into other people's house uninvited and blah blah blah." Well that is exactly what you are advocating. It is the TOs house, his guests don't like how the 6th edition meta is unfair, and they choose to change the game to attempt to make it better for them in their own house... And because you advocate only one way of playing, you are the one kicking in the door to their house and saying "line up for your bullets to the head because I paid for an advantage by tactically making the flavor of the month top army and I deserve to beat you today."

Your delusion of personal skill and ignoring of imbalance is disturbing. There are hardly any events that are run which don't have comp, tweaks, missions or FAQs which boil down to a shift in the meta to how that group or TO feels the game should be played. The community is better off for these differences as it allows people to see what works and what doesn't. What every reasonable person can agree to is 40k is not designed for competitive play, is incapable of being a true test of skill due to imbalance and that changing the meta doesn't make the event any less competitive, just shifts the meta. As people run variety of events, the "better" meta changes spread, the bad ones die. But to think that intelligent educated people who see the glaring imbalance should simply pretend it is not there simply doesn't work. If you honestly believe the random location the meta falls after every codex release is fair and a legitimate example of balance, then enjoy carving notches on your Shillelagh and believe your wins are based on skill and not influenced by a imbalanced and sometimes broken gaming system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

I hate to keep bringing it up, but look at competitive MTG: does WOTC use special game scenarios that punish "overpowered" decks? Of course not. If a deck is too powerful and breaking the game they admit there's a problem and the offending cards. And yet somehow they still have a very competitive and balanced game.

but wotc actually supports and promotes competitive play and makes their system designed for it. And when they make mistakes and imbalance pops up, they address it.

Games workshop has never fixed a unit via increasing or decreasing stats or power due to balance, only due to fixing rule interpretation. GW has never changed a point value due to imbalance or changes in the meta... Only misprints.

So how is GWs explicit architecture of an imbalanced, unfair game, and no attempt to ever address it somehow make it equally as competitive and fair as MTG?

As soon as people realize the system is not balanced and every codex can't compete equally, then reasonable people can play a flavor of 40k which best suits their goals. Shifting the meta doesn't make it any less competitive. And it is ok to shift the meta,WOTC does it as they care. GW doesn't care about balance or competitive play.

WotC rarely has to ban cards in its most popular constructed formats. It releases the next set, makes some generally minor banlist adjustments to older formats (equivalent to something getting FAQd by GW realy) and that's about it. Most standard environments will have 3-4 top decks with minor variations and everything else is unviable for competitive play outside of functionally casual gak like FNMs.

List building is absolutely crucial to not sucking in whatever environment you play in. If there really was a true optimum list it would be all you see WAAC players running.

Learning probabilities absolutely helps you perform better. Sucking at math is why players charge the wrong units, and shoot at the wrong target. Knowing what gaussian distribution says about enemy threat range is crucial. If you really think all it does is "helps you see how unfair and imbalanced the game is" then you probably just suck at basic, middle-school level discrete prob.

Yeah, MTG is a different beast as far as investment is concerned (at least time-wise) but that's precisely why you shouldn't get into competitive play unless you're prepared to deal with the format as-is. Don't like shelling out cash for new units to adjust to the new metagame every time a codex comes out? Why the feth are you playing competitively then?

The problem here is individual TOs deluding themselves into thinking they're capable of balancing 40k by simply making it conform to what they want it to be. It's presumptuous as feth and encourages stupid little bubbles of whiners to circlejerk about how things feel broken when the game as a whole is actually relatively balanced - it's really only the older codices that are ever far behind the curve. I've taken the neutral position - play the game as defined by the fething rules. Everyone has access to the same things by default, and arbitrarily limiting a different set of things according to the whim of armchair developer TO Fred to armchair developer TO Hank to armchair developer TO Tiffany just empowers people who should probably stick to casual games anyway as you're free to houserule as much as you want there.

I think the MTG analogy is only cool if you think that only having 3-4 decks which change radically every time WotC releases a new set is a good thing.

Variety is a good thing. We have all these different armies in 40k, would you like it if you only ever saw 3-4?

Is your tournament still enjoyable if you only see those lists/armies every single time? Maybe for those who kick on pure skill vs skill only, but to me it would get boring. The last tournaments I attended limited flyers to 4 only and I saw every single army represented (and most of the space marine codexes).

I laud any attempt to provide more variety in absence of GW changing its ways in how they release/design.

Just write the tournament setting fluff appropriately:

"Operation: Skyfall - The world of Tempesta Majora was once an Imperial Hab World, with hives towering almost to orbit and extending many klicks below ground. Huge armies converged to claim the world for their own, and slowly, decade by decade, the world became a hellish Warworld, condemned to seemingly never-ending battle.

Until Skyfall.

Maybe the Emperor was angered by what he saw. Maybe some minor god of Chaos decided to have a bit of fun. Maybe some especially insane Ork Mekaniak scorched the sky with his latest ill-conceived master weapon. No-one knows, but all that fought there were now trapped.

The sky burned, churning with chemical fury. No flying machine could navigate it. No dropship fly could through it. Orbital bombardments were swallowed up by the sky. Teleporters delivered writhing piles of screaming flesh and bone instead of valiant warriors.

But still the factions fought on, for the enemy was still at their door..."

If the 12 people that come to your store every week want to play a no-fliers tournament, then have a freaking no fliers tournament. Asking DakkaDakka is rather silly.

There's nothing wrong with a themed tournament now and again.

 ph34r wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
BTW, ph34r, don't be a dick, I'm looking for constructive criticism.

"stop deciding things you can't deal with are imbalanced; stop further imbalancing the game"

Seriously this.

The OP literally posted that his 5th edition army started to suck because 6th edition came out. That is his justification for banning a unit choice. If anyone is a man-baby it's the OP. What will you do when a new codex drops for your army and your favorite unit sucks? What is your plan then because that is what you are doing now but on an edition scale?
Welcome to 6th edition OP. The rules have changed. There are flyers now. Cover saves have also changed. Wait till you read the section about snap fire and assaulting. You will gak a train.


Also, the Necron Airforce list sucks and the Space Wolf vs Necron video you watch 100 times and has you frothing at the mouth is the perfect example of who you are trying to be. The Space Wolf player played a great 5th edition list in 6th edition. That list is no where near as good now and he played it very poorly. He never focused his fire at all when, statistically, he should have killed 1.3 flyers a turn. Or he could have won the game turn one by killing all the Necrons on the table. All like 5 of them. Statistically, he could have done this too.

You say you want constructive criticism? How about this. Don't try to gain an unfair advantage in 40k by outlawing units you don't like because you havent figured out how to deal with them. Update your list to deal with them and kill them on the table. Good on you for getting a Defense Line. That's a great start. Remember that you can ally with just about anyone. Some on those 'anyones' have flyers. So take an allied flyer. I do.

I have commented on something like this in the past. As a former TO myself I found it my responsibility to structure missions that would balance what I expected to see at the tourney. You can give each player a token that can be used as a reward for a single unit, something like skyfire or tank hunter or scoring. You can have environmental effects like acid rain (-1 armor save) or solar flares (glancing hit on all vehicles on roll of 4+).

Point is that there is a lot that you can do as TO to balance the armies, you just have to make sure that whatever you do is even-handed across all armies represented. This is not neccessarily easy, it often took a month or more for my design partner and I to develop fun mission that were balanced. But all of our events were great and had a lot of positive feedback because we didn't just fall back on banning what we felt was abusing the current rules.

Interesting thing about all of this. Early on I've seen the meta approach with each addition. In this case going comp would tone down the flying circuses a great deal without banning flyers from a tournament.

But people would complain just the same.

I really have a great deal of sympathy for many of the TO's who try to organize an event only to get monkey poop slung back at them.

 Kwosge wrote:
. Remember that you can ally with just about anyone. Some on those 'anyones' have flyers. So take an allied flyer. I do.

If you are an imperial player. My Codex, Orks, has no battle Brothers and Nids has no allies. My ADL costs the same as everyone else but is statistically inferior due to my BS. My max number of flyers in a force org is 3, and 2 of the 3 variants are useless against other flyers. It is kinda hard to tell and ork player that he needs to take an ADL, spam 3 dakkajets and take 10+ lootas just to have a hope at standing up to these 5+ flyer armies. And then the rest of his list is that much poorer for having to invest in so much AA which isn't even that good at AA in the first place. To play in a tourney, the best static is to keep your head down and pray you don't face flyer spam... that is not fair to players and not fun when people don't have the units or the rules at their disposal to play fair games because GW doesn't maintain their game.

If I was allowed to take flakka trukks, My Codex copes much more easily... It allows me to defend myself against air while keeping with the synergy of an assault army and KFF opposed to Dakkajets which really screw with Ork gameplans, especially when you have Ghaz and use his Waaagh for ork actions and his 2++ and you practically need waaaaghshooting for dakkajets to reliably take down other flyers. Hell, Ork Kannons with the skyfire missiles which no one has would have also worked.

Seems like simple codex updates from GW would have prepared an aging game system for fliers... and they missed the boat.

Don't get me started on how imbalanced and unfair the Allies matrix is...

I think Orks are fine in this edition- many changes help them. And you don't need battle brothers to have useful allies.

My next army is going to be Nids, whenever Trollforged sculpts/ships all those bugs . I'd love allies, but them's the breaks!

 RiTides wrote:
I think Orks are fine in this edition- many changes help them. And you don't need battle brothers to have useful allies.

My next army is going to be Nids, whenever Trollforged sculpts/ships all those bugs . I'd love allies, but them's the breaks!

If you keep your head down and pray for no flyer spam... It still doesn't make Flyerspam hard for orks and other armies unless they load up on massive lootas or tri-dakkajets because PKs and deffrollers are nullified.

And while you don't need battle brothers, other people's allies are 'even more useful for no additional points' so while you can use them, you are still at a disadvantage. All of those little unbalanced things add up and you then get armies which are just easier to play, statistically superior and have synergies which make other codexes poorer in comparison.

I just don't see how arbitrary things that work differently depending on your codex for the same points is 'fair'. Why is my ADL BS2 for the same points as someone who has one at BS5. Why is my ally harder to use and integrate into my army than my opponent who has the same units but as battle brother. None of that was done due to power or balance... Just arbitrary GW narrative design.