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.

In my view the focus of anyone house-ruling for tournaments (or anything else) should not be on nerfing or limiting the ruleset or the units in any way. An FAQ exemplifying things a bit for those that need might be fine but no more than that. Trying to find a middle ground where every army can fit in and play equally is not possible due to the simple fact of GW's release cycle and the inherent power creep that naturally is due to that GW is a business that needs to make money. We the players and especially those who want to play competitively needs to reconcile with the fact that all tools aren't equal and in many cases, some tools just get the job done better, for awhile, then you might need to switch to another tool.

Instead the focus should solely be on designing the missions and the way points are awarded. It could be a predetermined but randomly selected mix of elements from Eternal War and Maelstrom etc, valuing flexible lists where each army is given a chance at its own unique way of winning. This is where all efforts should be focused, finding a mission-system that awards players to create lists made of a variety of units. Believing that e.g. only static fixed missions are the solution to sorting out the best General in 40k is folly. If that is the case we will be better of playing with chess rules where each army is no more than a cosmetic layer.

Of course 4 Wraithknights and 80 scatterbikes will surely still dominate no? I think the Eternal War and Maelstrom mission goals already present can be expanded upon in different ways to even things out, either by the way you choose or select them or some other way. Say you earn additional points if e.g. 2+ units containing at least 8 models each hold an objective for 3+ rounds. Or you need 3 different unit types to to cap this objective, Or only flyers can score certain objectives etc. Or you win if you control 5 objectives simultaneously with troops for a round or two. In my view stuff like that would be way more productive and interesting to see explored a bit more than nerfing stuff.

Currently, my solution to the ITC problem is simple. I modify it in the following way (which is just one of a dozen ways to skin the cat so i am sure some will not like it):

Three Detachments allowed, and if you take three, the third must be a CAD. The "Super Detachments" do not count for or against the limit. 0-1 Super heavy/Gargantuans.

Solves a ton.

The LVO had a top table player using SIX detachments... justified by the fact that they were "in" the Super Detachment! I'm just saying. The ITC not counting them as separate detachments is a problem.

If a format or group wants to balance 40k for tournament play, they'll have to get down in the weeds and actually fix the game.

Banning a handful of formations, tweaking some ambiguous rules, and limiting army construction only shifts the balance. The game needs a dramatic overhaul, down to how the basic rules work together and the point costs of quite literally everything.

Anything less will always run into the same wall. The core is rotten. Band-aids only cover so much.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
It's hard to lose big with Eldar, they are an army where not much can go disastrously wrong.

thats a big part of the problem, Eldar are an army that, ostensibly, should go disastrously wrong if not well thought out and played well. Theyve had so many buffs and have so much multirole weaponry and support elements that they really cant fall apart.

Wraithknights (and other Wraith units) and Scatbikers sure, but the rest of the Eldar codex is universally T3. Massed Bolter fire is a serious threat to most Eldar infantry.

To some, but with many having 3+ saves, and lots of psychic support to reroll failed saves or generate/enhance cover saves, and particularly that T3 eldar infantry are usually the smallest component of most armies, its not teally a factor.

The reason Eldar units can seem multirole is because of the game prioritizing medium-strenght high-ROF weapons, which I why Warp Spiders are so powerful.

right, and Eldar have tons of this sort of firepower and its been significsntly enhanced in the last two years.

Fire Dragons can kill a vehicle dead, but unless they have some cover they're dead next turn.

sporting 3+ saves now, often with psychic support to reroll saves or get cover, and the almost complete lack of ability to fail to lill their targets when sporting BS5 and "AP0", theyrr much hardier than most equivalents and vastly moreso than they were in previous editions.

Eldar have great psychic powers, but if you have a similar amount of psychic power or know how to deny well you can mitigate their power.

not every army has such psychic abilities, most cant match Eldar, and those that can cant do so as cheaply.

 Blacksails wrote:
If a format or group wants to balance 40k for tournament play, they'll have to get down in the weeds and actually fix the game.

Banning a handful of formations, tweaking some ambiguous rules, and limiting army construction only shifts the balance. The game needs a dramatic overhaul, down to how the basic rules work together and the point costs of quite literally everything.

Anything less will always run into the same wall. The core is rotten. Band-aids only cover so much.

aye, the whole ruleset needs a fundamental reboot, everything else is largely just a bandaid on a gunshot wound

 Jancoran wrote:
Currently, my solution to the ITC problem is simple. I modify it in the following way (which is just one of a dozen ways to skin the cat so i am sure some will not like it):

Three Detachments allowed, and if you take three, the third must be a CAD. The "Super Detachments" do not count for or against the limit. 0-1 Super heavy/Gargantuans.

Solves a ton.

The LVO had a top table player using SIX detachments... justified by the fact that they were "in" the Super Detachment! I'm just saying. The ITC not counting them as separate detachments is a problem.

The top player didn't have six detachments. ITC limits you to 3. They include the super-detachments, which was specifically voted in by the community, but just because you houserule things differently doesn't sub-formations suddenly become their own detachmentsfor everyone else.

It's also not "the ITC problem". It's the 40k problem. The ITC is just one possible set of tweaks that have proven to be more successful at building a tournament scene than anything else out there. It's not perfect by any means, but it's far better than default 40k, and pretty much all of the issues stem from the flaws of core 40k itself.

Letting the mega formations count as one is a joke in and of itself. I love that allies are an official thing but I hate the abuse it has allowed people to bring to the table.

Having space marines backed up by some guard is cool, fluffy and thematic. Or chaos being able to have demons march with marines.

Thunder Wolves backed by grav cents, grey knight librarians and other super friend nonsense is one of the reasons I've thought about giving up. Those armies would never happen in universe and that bothers me.

Aye, the allies sillyness is awful. I'm having extreme trouble trying to recall any army I've actually encountered on a table that was used allies for fluff purposes, it's pretty much always just to grab someone else's cool toys, and almost always in ways that really just do not fit the background and that reek of "gaminess".

There can be a middle ground. For example The two most frequent allies I take with my marines are the Dominus Maniple and some sort of inquisitor usually my counts as solomon lok for who I have a custom model for and his merry band of misfits. Both give me something for the win but doesn't feel like I only took these to smash face.

 DarkLink wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Currently, my solution to the ITC problem is simple. I modify it in the following way (which is just one of a dozen ways to skin the cat so i am sure some will not like it):

Three Detachments allowed, and if you take three, the third must be a CAD. The "Super Detachments" do not count for or against the limit. 0-1 Super heavy/Gargantuans.

Solves a ton.

The LVO had a top table player using SIX detachments... justified by the fact that they were "in" the Super Detachment! I'm just saying. The ITC not counting them as separate detachments is a problem.

The top player didn't have six detachments. ITC limits you to 3. They include the super-detachments, which was specifically voted in by the community, but just because you houserule things differently doesn't sub-formations suddenly become their own detachmentsfor everyone else.

It's also not "the ITC problem". It's the 40k problem. The ITC is just one possible set of tweaks that have proven to be more successful at building a tournament scene than anything else out there. It's not perfect by any means, but it's far better than default 40k, and pretty much all of the issues stem from the flaws of core 40k itself.

Its the ITC problem. They could choose to count them as the SIX detachments they are. And they are. or they can count them as NOT six. They choose to see it as NOT six. That is their problem.

Banning allies puts you into mono builds and boring play. The armies I played this past weekend were diverse and ran the gambit:

Corpse thief claw + Venom Spam detachment
CSM with Necron allies
Baronial Detachment
Pinion BC + Skyhammer detachment
Mono Nurgle Drone deathstar
Space wolves + IG artillery detachment

That was quite a different array for 6 games.

I would say as a suggestion to help players and create a tactical sense, instead of re-rolling a double that it allows the player to choose the other maelstrom objective from the list of six. At least it puts luck in your hands 18% of the time.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Letting the mega formations count as one is a joke in and of itself. I love that allies are an official thing but I hate the abuse it has allowed people to bring to the table.

Having space marines backed up by some guard is cool, fluffy and thematic. Or chaos being able to have demons march with marines.

Thunder Wolves backed by grav cents, grey knight librarians and other super friend nonsense is one of the reasons I've thought about giving up. Those armies would never happen in universe and that bothers me.

 Blacksails wrote:
If a format or group wants to balance 40k for tournament play, they'll have to get down in the weeds and actually fix the game.

Banning a handful of formations, tweaking some ambiguous rules, and limiting army construction only shifts the balance. The game needs a dramatic overhaul, down to how the basic rules work together and the point costs of quite literally everything.

Anything less will always run into the same wall. The core is rotten. Band-aids only cover so much.

100% agree.

The problems can't be solved by limiting formations, or limiting SH or allies, or using more KP missions or Maelstrom at the top/bottom of turn or whatever. They can go part way to addressing the problems, but when you see that an Eldar Scatterbike CAD gets through 99.99% of restrictions people want to use...

The problems are in the points levels of units; whether they be individual models or the designers not accounting for force multipliers.

PERSONALLY (After playing a few ITC, ETC and Australian events) I find the Australian comp system (www.communitycomp.org) to be the best way I've encountered. Not perfect, but it gets down to the level of targeting each problem unit/combo.

So, I'm slowly working on compiling a list data base, currently for the LVO. You can find it in my signature, it's a great source for seeing what the frequency of certain things in the game is. Also, any help would be highly appreciated as it's rather hard to track down all the lists on my own D:

 Blacksails wrote:
If a format or group wants to balance 40k for tournament play, they'll have to get down in the weeds and actually fix the game.

Banning a handful of formations, tweaking some ambiguous rules, and limiting army construction only shifts the balance. The game needs a dramatic overhaul, down to how the basic rules work together and the point costs of quite literally everything.

Anything less will always run into the same wall. The core is rotten. Band-aids only cover so much.

While true, this isn't something the ITC can really do at this time, but maybe in the future they can. They've clearly been testing the waters more with their changes, both in buffs and nerfs, but even that gets so much hate I can understand them being hesitant.

 Tinkrr wrote:

While true, this isn't something the ITC can really do at this time, but maybe in the future they can. They've clearly been testing the waters more with their changes, both in buffs and nerfs, but even that gets so much hate I can understand them being hesitant.

Anybody changing anything with any sort of 'authority' or pull is going to get flak, its the nature of game design for the masses. Everyone has a vision and while many of those visions can be excellent, ultimately only one can be used. All it takes is a strong group committed to making a decision and having thick enough skin to wade through the gak and find the actual useful feedback.

I think they already have the ability to do an overhaul as they have more weight than most groups or individual posters here. They have a solid grasp on the game to make a good go at it too. There are some dakkanaughts I'd trust more to make the right changes that I'd play, but that's another story .

 thejughead wrote:
Banning allies puts you into mono builds and boring play. The armies I played this past weekend were diverse and ran the gambit:

Corpse thief claw + Venom Spam detachment
CSM with Necron allies
Baronial Detachment
Pinion BC + Skyhammer detachment
Mono Nurgle Drone deathstar
Space wolves + IG artillery detachment

That was quite a different array for 6 games.

I would say as a suggestion to help players and create a tactical sense, instead of re-rolling a double that it allows the player to choose the other maelstrom objective from the list of six. At least it puts luck in your hands 18% of the time.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Letting the mega formations count as one is a joke in and of itself. I love that allies are an official thing but I hate the abuse it has allowed people to bring to the table.

Having space marines backed up by some guard is cool, fluffy and thematic. Or chaos being able to have demons march with marines.

Thunder Wolves backed by grav cents, grey knight librarians and other super friend nonsense is one of the reasons I've thought about giving up. Those armies would never happen in universe and that bothers me.

I love the ally system don't get me wrong, where I put my blame is people abusing what should be an awesome option

Just ban all formations. Straight CAD only single source, no allies....wont solve everything, yeah eldar are stronger than Orks codex...guess what, everyone DOESN"T get a trophy, but it's a big step in the right direction.

 quickfuze wrote:
Just ban all formations. Straight CAD only single source, no allies....wont solve everything, yeah eldar are stronger than Orks codex...guess what, everyone DOESN"T get a trophy, but it's a big step in the right direction.

I would dearly love to go back to this as the standard.

I was ok with the alternate FoC's that the early 7E books had, they still largely held to the same confines as the original FoC and had some real drawbacks (e.g. GK's only have 2 HS slots instead of 3), but the formations and mega-detachments, and allowance of multiple detachments and allies sillyness just took a dump on everything.

Well I don't know, it's made by a bunch of competitive pancakes to encourage competitive pancake behaviour written by a contemporary group of people for a game that can decide if it's an old traditionally functioning slow table game, or a lightning fast modern one because it can't let go of old game mechanics or stick with older ones that worked.

ITC is bad because 40k's rules are bad and the people that write don't want to rock the boat and do anything radical because that would upset their play base which is everyone that wants to go to NOVA or the LVO or any of a number of other tournaments this year by doing something crazy like make CC work or nerfin shooting or monsters into the pavement.

I think that if ITC wants to live up the being this saviour of 40k that people try and make it out to be or as fair as they claim it to be, they would probably want to get on levelling that playing field out much more as a fair game doesn't need excuses to hide its unfair nature, a balanced saviour of the game doesn't need "well it's better then the alternative even if it's still bad" to justify being used

I don't want to see allies go away fully because several books become useless.

Inquisition, Harlequins, Scions, Knights, both Ad mech, and Legion of the Dammed stop working with out allies. Formations as a concept arn't terrible its a limited number of them that need re-balance.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I don't want to see allies go away fully because several books become useless.

Inquisition, Harlequins, Scions, Knights, both Ad mech, and Legion of the Dammed stop working with out allies.

Most of these really have no business being armies of their own,and really should just be inherent supplemental options for certain books that fit into their normal lineup. e.g. an Inquisitor should just be an HQ choice for an IG army for example, a Knight a straight LoW choice for Imperial armies, while both AdMech books should really just be a single unified book. while Harlies should be sub-elements of Eldar/DE armies. That would allow people to take them in a far more balanced and background adherent way without opening up as much sillyness for abuse. Scions would be *real* easy, just allow a Scion command squad as an HQ choice that unlocks stormtroopers as Troops as opposed to just Elites, voila.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

While true, this isn't something the ITC can really do at this time, but maybe in the future they can. They've clearly been testing the waters more with their changes, both in buffs and nerfs, but even that gets so much hate I can understand them being hesitant.

Anybody changing anything with any sort of 'authority' or pull is going to get flak, its the nature of game design for the masses. Everyone has a vision and while many of those visions can be excellent, ultimately only one can be used. All it takes is a strong group committed to making a decision and having thick enough skin to wade through the gak and find the actual useful feedback.

I think they already have the ability to do an overhaul as they have more weight than most groups or individual posters here. They have a solid grasp on the game to make a good go at it too. There are some dakkanaughts I'd trust more to make the right changes that I'd play, but that's another story .

The problem isn't so much the hate itself, it's that if you change too much, too quickly, no one will follow you. You need to introduce things slowly and acclimate people to the change, until they're used to you making those changes.

Eldar are fine in the ITC. Wraithknights are limited to 1 model, warp spiders are nerfed to 1 jump a turn.

Str d is slightly reduced in effectiveness
Invisibility is nerfed
Both of the above also hurt eldar

The problem is nothing to do with eldar needing more nerfs
White scars and ultramarine are good
Dark angels and space wolves are good (space wolves are getting even better)
Demons are good and getting slightly better
Tau are good and just need a few ITC rule changes
Ad mech is good and getting much better soon both from gw and fw.
Necrons are good
Dark eldar are like the most used ally competitively and they are getting an update soon.

Everyone else just need updated codex's which has nothing to do with ITC.
Astra Militarum, orks, tyranids, chaos marines and blood angels are the oldest codexs.

 quickfuze wrote:
Just ban all formations. Straight CAD only single source, no allies....

I'd also add back that only Troops (but not their Dedicated Transports) can score again.

gungo wrote:
Eldar are fine in the ITC.

Statistically speaking, this isn't true:

There were 22 Tau players total, meaning 7% of the field. There were 5 Tau players in the top 50, or 6 if you count the multiple top 50s players making it 6 out of 53, meaning the top 50 was either 10% or 11% Tau, based on which you choose.

There were 44 Marine players, with only 5 or 6 in the top 50/53, meaning they had 10% or 11% of the top 50. Despite having a showing twice as high as Tau, they had less than half as many placing players in the top 50. (Derp: CSM)

There were 42 Eldar players in the event, with 10 or 13 in the top 50, meaning they had 20-26% of the top 50. More than double the Tau representation, with slightly less players than double that of Tau. (Correction: Accidentally counted a DE as Eldar)

Other armies in the top 50 (using the 53 figures):

Necrons (5): 9.4%
Dark Angels (5 out of 11 players): 9.4%
Renegades (5 out of 7 players!): 9.4%
Cult Mech (3): 5.6%
Daemons (3): 5.6%
Tyranids (2): 3.7%
Grey Knights (1): 1.8%
CSM (1): 1.8%
Inquisition (1): 1.8%
SoBs (1): 1.8%
Dark Eldar (1): 1.8%
(Source: http://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/lvo2016 )

That's not to say Eldar are face roll OP, but they are a bit too good and the numbers represent that. They need to go from something like 60% win rate to 55% win rate like the other top armies. It's only a 5% difference, but it's an important one.

Edit: Also, RiTides did this same thing for the top 20, Marines and Tau stay constant at percent of top 20, but Eldar go up to 30%.

 Vaktathi wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I don't want to see allies go away fully because several books become useless.

Inquisition, Harlequins, Scions, Knights, both Ad mech, and Legion of the Dammed stop working with out allies.

Most of these really have no business being armies of their own,and really should just be inherent supplemental options for certain books that fit into their normal lineup. e.g. an Inquisitor should just be an HQ choice for an IG army for example, a Knight a straight LoW choice for Imperial armies, while both AdMech books should really just be a single unified book. while Harlies should be sub-elements of Eldar/DE armies. That would allow people to take them in a far more balanced and background adherent way without opening up as much sillyness for abuse. Scions would be *real* easy, just allow a Scion command squad as an HQ choice that unlocks stormtroopers as Troops as opposed to just Elites, voila.

So your essentially suggesting allies with out calling it that. There is no way to represent key pieces of 40k fluff without either allies or duplicate unit entries. Both have problems.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, the allies sillyness is awful. I'm having extreme trouble trying to recall any army I've actually encountered on a table that was used allies for fluff purposes, it's pretty much always just to grab someone else's cool toys, and almost always in ways that really just do not fit the background and that reek of "gaminess".

eh, if we limit rules by the fact that competative players will break them, then the game becomes super boring overall.

Change the allies rules then?

Remove battle brothers - change them all to allies of convenience.

Stops the super friends death stars, stops deep striking wraithguard... still allows the theme lists to run guard with marines - just not allowing the 50 man blob to gain marine rules

 Massaen wrote:
Change the allies rules then?

Remove battle brothers - change them all to allies of convenience.

Stops the super friends death stars, stops deep striking wraithguard... still allows the theme lists to run guard with marines - just not allowing the 50 man blob to gain marine rules

This creates issue for the ad mech armies as well as inquisition. For instance under the above rules my Several admech formations stop working well and loan inquisitors are not a real option.

Why are we still debating Imperium when it's on par we the Tau despite the changes made to the Tau?

The only list that needs any toning down is Eldar, and even then not all that much, just enough to put it in line with Tau and Marines really.

 Vaktathi wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I don't want to see allies go away fully because several books become useless.

Inquisition, Harlequins, Scions, Knights, both Ad mech, and Legion of the Dammed stop working with out allies.

Most of these really have no business being armies of their own,and really should just be inherent supplemental options for certain books that fit into their normal lineup. e.g. an Inquisitor should just be an HQ choice for an IG army for example, a Knight a straight LoW choice for Imperial armies, while both AdMech books should really just be a single unified book. while Harlies should be sub-elements of Eldar/DE armies. That would allow people to take them in a far more balanced and background adherent way without opening up as much sillyness for abuse. Scions would be *real* easy, just allow a Scion command squad as an HQ choice that unlocks stormtroopers as Troops as opposed to just Elites, voila.

The Inquisition, Grey Knights, Sisters of Battle, Militarum Tempestus and Imperial Knights should all be rolled into one codex (which I always preach) since they're basically different elements of the same army. The option to make "pure" armies should still be there (and this is where the whole FoC shenanigans would shine; by granting bonuses to using them for a pure army to compensate for the lack of certain elements, like Psybolts for free on all units in an all GK army that otherwise lack decent Anti-armor) but all of them really have no business being separate on their own (ok maybe Imperial Knights, but not the others). Then from there just do what they use to do with the "-hunter" dexes and let you take them in other Imperial army's FoCs without using a compulsory choice. That was a system that worked.

Harlies suffer from the fact that there's just not that many models right now, and GW's refusal to make rules for nonexistant models compounds that. However they sort of step on the toes of the Dark Eldar, who are also fragile glass cannons, and the DE has a far larger range to work with.

As for AdMech, they're one army in all but name. GW just needs to actually update the book to make them one army (and possibly give them an exclusive Knight) and give them some vehicles and they'll be up to par with any other imperial army.

 quickfuze wrote:
Just ban all formations. Straight CAD only single source, no allies....wont solve everything, yeah eldar are stronger than Orks codex...guess what, everyone DOESN"T get a trophy, but it's a big step in the right direction.

Haha, this is so silly. Take away allies and formations and Eldar will be the only competitive army to play. They are the only codex that is good without the use of formations. No army can match scatbikes as troops. No army has a better LOW. Arguably the best psyker and thus the best HQ. Necrons become crippled, SM become mono-build (centurion deathstars), bye bye BA/SW/Skitarii/Cult Mechanicus/Inquisition. The books arent written with CADs in mind. The codexes are now written with formations in mind, not a traditional FOC.