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.

Trying to build a bit on what Reece did, I think the following are really the questions that need to be addressed for a standardized North American tournament format.

Question 1: Allow Escalation or Not?
The real issue here is whether to allow D-weapons, in my opinion. Without D-Weapons, my suspicion is that Lords of War aren't too ridiculous. There's a reason why AdeptiCon doesn't have the Gladiator this year, and it starts with A and ends with pocalypse. I guess that means there's three options here: (1) Allow escalation, (2) Disallow Escalation, or (3) Allow escalation except for models armed with D-Weapons.

Question 2: Allow Strongpoint Assault or not?
I think there are really three options here. (1) Fully allow, (2) Disallow, or (3) Allow with the exception of the massive fortifications (AV15 fortifications /w D weapons). My initial inclination is that 3 is the way to go, because there's some valuable changes in Strongpoint Assault (like exploding fortifications that are removed, being valid targets from the beginning of the game, etc.) but D-weapons are just bad for the game.

Question 3: Digital Codexes/supplements
Again, I'm not talking about requiring people to have print copies here, but rather whether codexes/supplements that are ONLY available digitally should be allowed. '

Question 4: Allow/Disallow Formations
Formations, defined as supplements that allow units to take additional units that are outside the normal force org/ally structure. Essentially, this would mean things like the formation datasheets, as well as codex inquisition.

Question 5: In search of a "tournament" force org chart.
I see a couple of potential options here. (1) RAW - standard force org (SFO), + allied force org. (2) SFO, allies must be incorporated into the SFO. (3) SFO+Allies for everyone (essentially allowing all codexes the ability to ally with themselves)

Question 6: 2+ rerollables - what to do about them?
Only options I can see are this (1) do nothing, (2) change the mechanics for rerolls when the initial save is a 2+.

So this poll is going to look ugly as hell, but please try to pick only one answer for each question. Lets see what the interwebs think!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My votes:
1) Disallow escalation. I may be biased here, but as a former Gladiator TO, I remember the nightmare that occurred the one year we allowed Reaver Titans. The sheer dominance of that single unit was ridiculous and in our opinion unfun to the extent that we modified the tournament rules to effectively ban that model.

2) Allow strongpoint assault w/o massive fortifications. Played a game using the new rules last night, and they seemed cool. D-weapons, however, are just wrong in my opinion.

3) Disallow digital-only supplements. They're totally cool, but with the time constraints in tournaments, I think its unfair to require that people keep up with everything released digitally. I'll admit that this is the least important to me.

4) Ban formations. They give ridiculously unfair advantages to players by essentially making the force org table optional.

5) I honestly don't know here. I guess I'd prefer allowing people to ally with themselves - again, it seems unfair that those who play single-codexes are effectively penalized for doing so.

6) Do nothing. Yes, I used the screamerstar with Brandon at Da Boyz doubles and won, and yes, it really wasn't the most fun thing to do either for my opponents or even for ourselves. But how the heck do you change a core game mechanic like that for a single unit, without also having to do so for any other unit. So what happens if a terminator-armored model gets a 2+ re-rollable somehow, etc. And the fact is, that the screamerstar (and the jetseer council) has counters. In addition, I think that these are the most likely to be minimized by the upcoming Tyranids codex.

I do not see the point of these allow or disallow posts. It is not like expansions for 40k are a new thing.

Was there a big freak out when these came out?
-Planet Strike
-Cities of Death
-Death From the Skies
- Spearhead

They provide us as players with new ways to enjoy our hobby. Why then is this craze going on now? This mass panic? Baffles me. Each of the Expansions is a similar but separate animal than the original.

At no time before was there a mass hysteria about the expansion ruining the tournament setting. Why? Because it was an expansion.

I do not see why Escalation and Strong hold assault are any different.


Digital content .. now there is something I can see discussing. Because as far as I know the digital items are not clearly marked as expansions or as extensions of the general rules and/or codexs.

Because Stronghold and Escalation aren't labeled Expansions. They are labeled as supplements which are different.

Oh, and most digital items are clearly marked. CODEX: Adeptus Sororitas. CODEX: Inquisition, SUPPLEMENT: Iyanden.

This polling is to ensure the maximum enjoyment for the maximum amount of people attending a tournament. It is needed because aside from edition changes, GW has had the most changes ever in such a short time occurring within an edition. Getting the pulse of the players and their opinions who will be attending the event is critical to its success.

 Centurian99 wrote:
Question 1: Allow Escalation or Not?

Absolutely not. Superheavies lead to black and white games where either the superheavy dies immediately and you lose a one-sided game, or the superheavy crushes everything and you win a one-sided game. Sure, taking a Malcador probably won't do that, but the minimal benefits of allowing heavily restricted superheavies into the game really don't justify the extra work required to make Escalation even remotely fun or balanced.

Question 2: Allow Strongpoint Assault or not?

Yes, but no Apocalypse fortifications/weapons. Same reasons as Escalation, but at least the book does have some normal-40k fortifications that would be appropriate.

However, this depends on those new fortifications having rules that actually function (unlike the core rulebook ones). If they're more of the same half-finished garbage that needs a 10-page FAQ to resolve all the rule problems then no, we don't need more fortifications in the game.

Question 3: Digital Codexes/supplements

Yes, assuming TOs are willing and able to handle situations like "my ipad broke, now my rules are all gone". If those potential problems aren't a factor then whether a book is digital-only or not is irrelevant, it should be evaluated on its content instead of its publication method.

Question 4: Allow/Disallow Formations

No. The FOC exists for a reason. Besides the obvious balance concerns these formations do a lot of damage to the idea that each army has its own unique gameplay concept, and massively increase the potential for rule problems between the 3-4 different armies in a list.

Question 5: In search of a "tournament" force org chart.

RAW, standard + allies (and double FOC at 2000+). I don't see any compelling reason to change this, so go with the standard rules and don't ban any armies people want to use. If there are any concerns with specific allied combinations they should be handled individually, not with blanket changes.

Question 6: 2+ rerollables - what to do about them?

Change them somehow to make them much less effective. I don't know exactly what change would be best, but these lists need to disappear. Even though it might in theory have counters and not automatically win the tournament it still produces a lot of games that are not fun at all for the other player and ruins their day. There's really no justification for keeping it beyond fear of crossing that line and admitting that your tournament uses house rules.

Question 1: Allow Escalation or Not?

I don't see how it can be allowed. D-weapons are just too powerful.

Question 2: Allow Strongpoint Assault or not?

I haven't seen everything from this yet, but the massive fortifications seem like they need to be out, simply for the sake of logistics.

Question 3: Digital Codexes/supplements

People need to quit crying about this. I have a crappy black and white Kindle and can throw pdf files on there. If people are sticklers for buying all of the codices, then one can always buy and print them out. Also, new Kindles and other e-readers are pretty cheap. 40k is an expensive hobby in general, so I don't really understand the people who are already dropping $50 on print codices getting all up in arms about buying an e-reader.

Question 4: Allow/Disallow Formations

Disallow because they make the game too silly. I don't necessarily think they break the game, but they move the game too much in the director of "pick whatever you want-hammer 40k." It now becomes possible to get 4HQs (via the Inquisition Codex), 8 Elites (using Tau formation, Inq, and allies), and 6 Heavy Support (Tau formation+allies). Let that sink in.

Question 5: In search of a "tournament" force org chart.

I think single FOC including allies could be pretty fun to test out. While it doesn't solve all the game's issues, it does limit some abusive builds and requires players to think harder when constructing armies. Limiting armies to two books is another option. Another is to drop the point limit for competitive 40k to force some tough choices.

I will say this, I believe that the solution to most of the game's problems can be accomplished through the answer to this question.

Question 6: 2+ rerollables - what to do about them?

This is a tough one. FAQing Fortune to be an additional 4+ rather than a flat out re-roll is solid. So would FAQing the Grimiore to work based on a Daemon's base inv save.

Thing is, there are 2+ re-rollable saves that aren't a big deal. A random Precog Termie Libby, Laughing Autarch ect. Those units are lame, but not Seer Council/Screamerstar lame. I do think we need to wait for Nids to make a decision here.

Question 1: Allow Escalation or Not?

No, at least not until they provide some additional options for other armies, as it is largely imperial only./

Question 2: Allow Strongpoint Assault or not?
I would like to say yes except for massive fortification but that leaves void shields in. If you include void generators in the banned list, I say bring it.

Question 3: Digital Codexes/supplements
Sure why not.


Question 4: Allow/Disallow Formations
I haven't seen anything too funny here

Question 5: In search of a "tournament" force org chart.
I don't think this is vital

Question 6: 2+ rerollables - what to do about them?
Option B. But not sure how, would need to do some playtesting.

Nice work on this Centurion!!

I would like to see the 2++ rerollable changed to a 2+ 4+ reeroll.

Steiner... I dont see void shields as necessarilly being unbalanced on my first glance. Am I missing something?

To Bill - excellent job with the questionnaire. This is what we need to sort it out.

For 75 points you get something that has to be broken twice, in return you get a free turn for your flying monsterous creatures to not be flying, your seer councils not to be fortuned, bikes/raiders not to be moving, your titan to not get shot, your invisible unit to not be invisible, your grimore to not be up, raider . Basically it can negate all the disadvantage of giving up turn one . It can also go down in a couple of shots but at a minimum it is 35 points for two free wounds/hull points. And has the potential to be much much more.

steinerp wrote:
For 75 points you get something that has to be broken twice, in return you get a free turn for your flying monsterous creatures to not be flying, your seer councils not to be fortuned, bikes/raiders not to be moving, your titan to not get shot, your invisible unit to not be invisible, your grimore to not be up, raider . Basically it can negate all the disadvantage of giving up turn one . It can also go down in a couple of shots but at a minimum it is 35 points for two free wounds/hull points. And has the potential to be much much more.

So they are all first turn alpha strikes you are thinking of, it also gives a place for your squishy troops, placers to go if not much BLOS on board, if get seized on, and if facing a gunline it may acutally make them have to move, all advantages IMO.

My answers based on a average tourny I would expect to attend

Q1, No to Esclation

Q2. No so far, its too early to tell as we havent had a good chance to look at these, but the book does have new building rules (you can now shoot at un occupied buildings for example). The D weapon no IMO.

Q3. All supps fair game

Q4. Formations. Again too early to tell, what else will come out in the next 17 days?, overall I would say yes

Q5, Torn on this one, for the average tourny, yes to allies RAW, if the TO wants to balance things out then no (Would only accept balancing things out if a LOT of changes were made not just say no 2++ as that is far from all it needs).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Centurian99 wrote:
Question 1: Allow Escalation or Not?

Absolutely not. Superheavies lead to black and white games where either the superheavy dies immediately and you lose a one-sided game, or the superheavy crushes everything and you win a one-sided game. Sure, taking a Malcador probably won't do that, but the minimal benefits of allowing heavily restricted superheavies into the game really don't justify the extra work required to make Escalation even remotely fun or balanced.

Question 2: Allow Strongpoint Assault or not?

Yes, but no Apocalypse fortifications/weapons. Same reasons as Escalation, but at least the book does have some normal-40k fortifications that would be appropriate.

However, this depends on those new fortifications having rules that actually function (unlike the core rulebook ones). If they're more of the same half-finished garbage that needs a 10-page FAQ to resolve all the rule problems then no, we don't need more fortifications in the game.

Question 3: Digital Codexes/supplements

Yes, assuming TOs are willing and able to handle situations like "my ipad broke, now my rules are all gone". If those potential problems aren't a factor then whether a book is digital-only or not is irrelevant, it should be evaluated on its content instead of its publication method.

Question 4: Allow/Disallow Formations

No. The FOC exists for a reason. Besides the obvious balance concerns these formations do a lot of damage to the idea that each army has its own unique gameplay concept, and massively increase the potential for rule problems between the 3-4 different armies in a list.

Question 5: In search of a "tournament" force org chart.

RAW, standard + allies (and double FOC at 2000+). I don't see any compelling reason to change this, so go with the standard rules and don't ban any armies people want to use. If there are any concerns with specific allied combinations they should be handled individually, not with blanket changes.

Question 6: 2+ rerollables - what to do about them?

Change them somehow to make them much less effective. I don't know exactly what change would be best, but these lists need to disappear. Even though it might in theory have counters and not automatically win the tournament it still produces a lot of games that are not fun at all for the other player and ruins their day. There's really no justification for keeping it beyond fear of crossing that line and admitting that your tournament uses house rules.

Peregrine advocating for house rules? Well I never!

Jokes aside, he hit the nail on the head. And I like the idea of 2+ rerollable invuls turning into 4+ on the reroll.

 Happygrunt wrote:
Peregrine advocating for house rules? Well I never!

As I've said before I'm fine with having house rules. What I object to is people pretending that their house rules are the rules provided by GW.

 Centurian99 wrote:
Trying to build a bit on what Reece did, I think the following are really the questions that need to be addressed for a standardized North American tournament format.

Question 1: Allow Escalation or Not?
The real issue here is whether to allow D-weapons, in my opinion. Without D-Weapons, my suspicion is that Lords of War aren't too ridiculous. There's a reason why AdeptiCon doesn't have the Gladiator this year, and it starts with A and ends with pocalypse. I guess that means there's three options here: (1) Allow escalation, (2) Disallow Escalation, or (3) Allow escalation except for models armed with D-Weapons.

I say allow it. I'm not scared. I'm not planning on buying any super heavies any time soon either. I also don't own any already.

Question 2: Allow Strongpoint Assault or not?
I think there are really three options here. (1) Fully allow, (2) Disallow, or (3) Allow with the exception of the massive fortifications (AV15 fortifications /w D weapons). My initial inclination is that 3 is the way to go, because there's some valuable changes in Strongpoint Assault (like exploding fortifications that are removed, being valid targets from the beginning of the game, etc.) but D-weapons are just bad for the game.

Again I say go for it. If people start bringing their own terrain to events then that can take some of the pressure off of the TO to have so much terrain on the boards to start with.

Question 3: Digital Codexes/supplements
Again, I'm not talking about requiring people to have print copies here, but rather whether codexes/supplements that are ONLY available digitally should be allowed. '

Allow them. Are you going to not allow the sisters codex? As far a "I broke my device I have no rules" even if you're using them on your tablet you should have a printed copy of your relevant rules in case something happens to it and so your opponent can have a copy during your game. I wouldn't want to be handing over my tablet to someone else.

Question 4: Allow/Disallow Formations
Formations, defined as supplements that allow units to take additional units that are outside the normal force org/ally structure. Essentially, this would mean things like the formation datasheets, as well as codex inquisition.

I say allow it. I havn't seen any that I want to run so I probably won't be using them personally any time soon but again I'm not scared.

Question 5: In search of a "tournament" force org chart.
I see a couple of potential options here. (1) RAW - standard force org (SFO), + allied force org. (2) SFO, allies must be incorporated into the SFO. (3) SFO+Allies for everyone (essentially allowing all codexes the ability to ally with themselves)

RAW leave it alone already. I don't think any of the volunteer watchdogs have the time to "balance" the game any better then they already are.

Question 6: 2+ rerollables - what to do about them?
Only options I can see are this (1) do nothing, (2) change the mechanics for rerolls when the initial save is a 2+.

Again nothing is needed here.

People complain about x army being strong but new releases and supplements like these can shake up the meta and keep everyone on their toes without having to re invent the wheel for every tournament. I say stop over thinking it and just play the game. If it is a casual game then you and your buddy can play with 10 hvy slots for all anyone cares. If it is a tournament game then suck it up and expect the worst list and plan for it. We all have access to the rules right now but if we start houseruling everything that comes out GWs doors then that adds more paperwork to an already large stack of rules to read and familiarize ourselves with. Just leave it alone already.

How many years did we have to suffer through all of those threads that read "GW hasn't released any rules for my army in 15yrs why can't they go faster whaa whaa" or something similar. Guess what? GW is releasing rules and Codecies like crazy. We may even have all of our Codecies updated within a single edition(fingers crossed). With the exception of my Dark Eldar all of my armies for 40k and Fantasy have current edition books. I for one am happy they are sending more rules our way.

Question 1: Allow Escalation or Not?
No. Maybe at some point in the future my opinion will change, but the C'tan and Revenant are way, way too good. Some Str D isn't even so bad, as it costs a ton and is limited (Lord of Skulls/Stompa CC attacks, Shadowsword gets one large blast for something like 450 points) but the ones like the Titan where it's spewing 4 large blasts per turn and moves 36"? That's too good IMO and will see the game become even more Eldar-Tau centric than it already is. If we ban all things with Str D, that essentially just leaves the Harridan, any non Shadowsword IG tank, the Obelisk and the Tigershark. Well, from those, the Harridan will be stomping over everything (12 S10 AP3 shots, S10 vector strikes, transport for gargoyles, T8 W8 3+ FNP) and there's only a few of the IG tanks I would risk using when they give 3VP up on death. You could perhaps readd some of the others without their Str D options (so the C'tan without wave of withering/transliminal slide, the thunderhawk without turbo laser destructor) but then you have a huge issue with the C'tan being nigh invincible - it takes 54 broadsides to kill one on average. I can't see a way to balance that, so either you accept it all or none of it IMO. I'd rather none.

That said, I would not be opposed to going to a tournament which only banned the C'tan and the Revenant. It would doubtless incite a lot of hatred from players but they're the only two units which I've seen used and thought "wow, that's just stupid". The others are already limited enough by what they can do that I doubt it'd be a huge issue. As I say, the issue there would be the Harridan but if you can deal with a Wraithknight, you can probably deal with a Harridan (plus they're dead easy to tarpit for something that costs so much).

Question 2: Allow Strongpoint Assault or not?
3 would be my first choice. Here's my rub - with escalation, most stuff in this book is worthless; you just instantly wipe it off the face of the earth. Without, AV15 is impossible to kill for many armies and you have to eat a ton of Str D large blasts. It goes back to the basic issue of Str D being too good - the face it instantly detonates any building on a 2+ is absurd and ruins even apocalypse games. Why they changed it from just an instant pen is beyond me. The rest of the book seems really cool though, so there's that. Ultimately due to terrain set up issues at tournaments, I reckon we'll just see this flat out banned, but we'll see.

Question 3: Digital Codexes/supplements
I don't see why not. Now that they're in ebook format, they're not hard to get hold of and most people should have access.

Question 4: Allow/Disallow Formations
Sure. I mean, I dislike what they do, but disliking it isn't something I could willingly justify a ban to myself with. I don't like many things in the game, but they aren't banned so it would be hypocritical to not allow this IMO.

Question 5: In search of a "tournament" force org chart.
RAW for the same reason as above. If you comp this, you don't stop abusive builds, you just change them. In particular, it doesn't bother Eldar/Tau much at all, which is already top dog but kills the viability of a few other choices. I don't see the point.

Question 6: 2+ rerollables - what to do about them?
I don't know what to do about these. Ideally, we'd go back in time and prevent them existing. These need to go because not only are they no fun to play, they're also way too effective and will win every tournament you put them in - even with just weight of odds, someone will consistently get luck and makes saves just slightly above average. I'll let people who know the game better decide on this.

I voted to allow everything. Let's keep this game goofy.

It's too soon to tell yet the direction the game is going. What if the new Tyranids book has gargantuan creatures, strength d, and things using apoc-templates right there in the codex? Do we allow those things but disallow escalation?

1. D-weapons have no place outside Apocalypse. I don't care so much about allow/disallow the units, but D-weapons gotta go.

2. No apocalypse bullcrap.

3: Yess, allow. We had WD codexes for decades... It is ok to have them.

4. Formations are dumb... add nothing and just increase spamming. Again, an apocalypse thing. Anything Apocalypse needs to be kept out.

5: Allies are the problem, either allies with battle bros for all, or nobody.

6. I am not sure about rerolls.

I did not vote on the other one because I know I am not attending the next event. I am happy to add in a vote here but my initial response (before studying and playtesting for our format) doesn't fit in the options:

Allow everything, points cap per unit of 450 points.

Q1 - Allow, also see below.

Q2 - Allow, also see below.

Q3 - ALLOW, it is 2013 and they are legitimate rules.

Q4 - Allow, it is 2013 and they are legitimate rules. If you are worried about a 5 Riptide army winning everything then your Points cap and Missions should take care of that issue.

Q5 - Standard.

Q6 - Strength D takes care of this pretty well with official, printed rules! No "house rules" and additional info below.


Before getting a chance to study all the new content and actually play with it before forming a proper opinion...

I think the easiest way to tailor the rules to your event and not twist it to favor anyone in particular is the Points value. Whether it is the Army total or max unit size, you can achieve a very fair level of "balance" with the one area that is SUPPOSED to be variable. I am not in favor of "house rules" that usually are changing the game based on feedback that TO's claim is for the good of the event but usually is based on a minority of players including their friends, the local play style, the frequent complaints of a select few (squeaky wheel).

A 450 point cap per unit in an 1800 point army for example will eliminate Strength D from being taken (which happens to be 25%). Why 1800 and not 1850? Well, the Shadowsword has the cheapest Strength D in the newest books and the numbers mentioned are needed to remove the ability to buy one.

 Tironum wrote:

Allow everything, points cap per unit of 450 points.

I am not in favor of "house rules" that usually are changing the game based on feedback that TO's claim is for the good of the event but usually is based on a minority of players including their friends, the local play style, the frequent complaints of a select few (squeaky wheel).

A 450 point cap per unit in an 1800 point army for example will eliminate Strength D from being taken (which happens to be 25%). Why 1800 and not 1850? Well, the Shadowsword has the cheapest Strength D in the newest books and the numbers mentioned are needed to remove the ability to buy one.

Do you not see how these contradict each other? You're not in favour of house rules chosen by a TO, yet want house rules?

Not only that, but the points limit is hugely biased. Let's look at what you can take for that:
-Banehammer (bad)
-Banesword (pretty good)
-Doomhammer (good)
-Obelisk (utter garbage)

That's it. Essentially, you've just said "Play IG? Have a superheavy! Don't? Sucks to be you!" Str D also can't "take care" of 2++ rerolls if you set the points deliberately to a limit where you can't take Str D. You could also take the SM super heavy which stomps all of these and has melta immunity if you play in a FW area. If you want to restrict this much, there is no reason to play Escalation at all.

Eyjio wrote:

 Tironum wrote:

Allow everything, points cap per unit of 450 points.

I am not in favor of "house rules" that usually are changing the game based on feedback that TO's claim is for the good of the event but usually is based on a minority of players including their friends, the local play style, the frequent complaints of a select few (squeaky wheel).

A 450 point cap per unit in an 1800 point army for example will eliminate Strength D from being taken (which happens to be 25%). Why 1800 and not 1850? Well, the Shadowsword has the cheapest Strength D in the newest books and the numbers mentioned are needed to remove the ability to buy one.

Do you not see how these contradict each other? You're not in favour of house rules chosen by a TO, yet want house rules?

Not only that, but the points limit is hugely biased. Let's look at what you can take for that:
-Banehammer (bad)
-Banesword (pretty good)
-Doomhammer (good)
-Obelisk (utter garbage)

That's it. Essentially, you've just said "Play IG? Have a superheavy! Don't? Sucks to be you!" Str D also can't "take care" of 2++ rerolls if you set the points deliberately to a limit where you can't take Str D. You could also take the SM super heavy which stomps all of these and has melta immunity if you play in a FW area. If you want to restrict this much, there is no reason to play Escalation at all.

Taking that part out of context I agree 100%.

Eyjio, I did miss part of that first line, and your quoting helped me see that so don't take it the wrong way but I think it works better if you quote in context and not cut and paste it together.

It should have read:

"Allow everything, points cap per unit of 450 points if 1800 points or less (25% and scaled down based on the army points cap)."

I don't see point limits as a house rule, instead part of a tournament structure (just like the point total, multiple FOCs, missions, etc.). I consider tournament specific FAQs that change the rules of the game as a house rule (like Adepticon's Drop Pod hull point issue this year). A points limit on the other hand can be applied to all armies with as close to an even hand as possible. There will always be ways to abuse a system so a simple limit across the board is more favorable to me than a unit by unit restriction (I think I am remembering something silly from the Fantasy ETC a while back where every army book had pages of restrictions).

The points limit example I provided is a possible solution (limited Comp) for a large amount of tournaments. I was simply offering an alternative to banning legitimate books and it can easily create a theme to a tournament's structure.

Furthermore, I am all for playing with limited super-heavies, large fortifications and Strength D in SOME events. Clearly, as a TO, you cannot allow a Revenant titan to be taken in a 1250 point event even though you could (RAW) build a legal FOC. In a 2000 point event with plenty of time for rounds, it can see some real opposition though.

As far as your comment on bias, the Escalation book could not have been more biased than any other supplement to the game since Rogue Trader. Many of the IG options are close to the same price as 10 terminators while the Stompa and Revenant (best in the book?) do not see a Warhound counterpart. It is not a great book (I think there could have been many more additional units for the size and price of the book) where on the other hand Stronghold Assault is fantastic and even fixes some of the more pressing concerns about how to use fortifications (where do I put my quad gun when I buy an Aegis Line?). That same point limit cuts out Strength D for fortifications as well for those who are concerned about limiting their presence.

I also expect to see many additions to Escalation and Stronghold Assault as more codexes are updated. This is just the beginning of all the expansions of the game we will see very soon.

We will never see a standardized tournament system so instead we are here discussing options. Each event will wind up picking and choosing which of these options they will apply and I doubt many will match.

Just to point something out...all the individual components of the screamer star are less than 300 points (Fateweaver for 300, Screamers for 225, and each herald around 150).

Looking at your selections is your assumption that:

A: Approved for 40k Forge world is in?

or

B: Approved for 40K Forge World is out?

since you do not list it at all and the title is "Which Options Should be Used in a Standardized Tournament?"

I think forge world is a separate question that's been discussed ad nauseum.

 Centurian99 wrote:
I think forge world is a separate question that's been discussed ad nauseum.

It is, but the complaints about forgeworld came in three varieties.

1. It wasn't official GW material
2. It wasn't accessible to the vast majority of gamers
3. It was poorly balanced and warped the game considerably

A lot the digital is also just as poorly balanced and much less accessible for people who don't use or can't afford tablets.

I'm not saying they're the exact same thing, but there are some interesting parallels going on.

Accessibility is the key, in my opinion. Forgeworld is far less available, both as rules and as models, than even digital stuff is.


Edited to account for current results (12/12/13):
Well, this has only been up for 24 hours, but there's already some interesting trends.

#1 - Escalation in Tournaments

It looks like there's strong support for the position that Escalation has no place in tournaments, with "Disallow" getting more votes (57) than the other options combined. (17/27/1). That's 55% of the votes in favor of banning escalation outright.

#2 - Stronghold Assault in Tournaments

"Allow except for Massive Fortifications" is winning here, but there's no clear majority winner so far. Since there's such a strong result on the Escalation question, I think that as more people read through Stronghold Assault, there will be a swing towards a consensus here (since one of the main reasons for disallowing massive fortifications is that they all come with D-Weapons), but it'll be interesting to see how this develops. 38 out of 93 votes (41%) for Allow w/o Massive Fortifications, but disallow is a close second at 33 (35%).

#3 - Digital Codexes

Overwhelming support for digital codexes with 81 out of 97 votes (84%).

#4 - Formations

Another case of strong support for the position that supplements which allow for additional units outside the normal force organization structure should be disallowed in tournaments, at 61 out of 95 votes (64%). Formation datasheets and Codex Inquisition would fall into this category.

#5 - Force Organization Chart

Overwhelming support for the RAW force org chart as well, with 79 out of 104 (76%). Standard force org chart + allied force org chart only if you include allies. Don't like this personally, as it seems to penalize people who want to do pure codex armies, but oh well.

#6 - Re-rollable 2+ Saves

Pretty much no consensus here, even with the "do something" votes all consolidated into one. Lowest total votes as well, with 31 voting against doing anything, and 27 voting in favor of doing something.

So basically, we've got 2 options with overwhelming support, 2 options with strong support, 1 option with weak support, and one in which there's no consensus.

Interesting. If I was running a tournament, I'd be giving strong consideration to the 2 options with overwhelming support, taking a close look at the other things (perhaps with some playtesting) and not doing anything about #6, but that's just my opinion.

The real issue with rerollable 2+ saves is the invulnerable kind. Armour and cover can be stripped (although with difficulty sometimes). My suggestion to fixing these is making forewarning give a 4++ that can't be modified in any way. The only rerollable 2++ that will exsist is baron, fateweaver and any grimoired daemon during a warp surge (non reliable enough to build a tactic around).

Fortune should be dealt with as a change to the mechanic of fortune itself. Change it to a special 4+ ignore save that can be taken in addition to other saves similar to the Eldar titan holofield.

Rerollable 2+ cover from invisible tzeentch daemons and mantle Eldar is dealt with by a plethora of cover ignoring or reducing abilities. And rerollable 2+ armour is limited to the rare gift of mutation CSM prince and precog psykers in termi armour.

I voted: Allow Escalation, allow strongholds, allow digital codexes in full, allow formations, play force orgs according to RAW, and allow rerollable saves as written.

I think that cyclical change and the addition of new game mechanics are part and parcel to this game. While we could dig our heels in and refuse to adapt any further, I think that would be like a Magic: the Gathering TO deciding he was only going to run events in the current card cycle. To me, the stopping point seems kind of arbitrary, and the whole notion seems to run counter to the idea of a balanced game. Continued cyclical rules alterations are part of what makes this game great. And especially when it comes to competitive events, I don't want to be soft-handed.

It'd kind of wound my pride to go home with a #1 tourney slot but always know in the back of my mind that I only one because the local daemons player wasn't allowed to field his 2+ rerollable unit. Refusing to play any of these mechanics in a friendly game? Hey, more power to you. I support anyone picking and choosing the games that they are going to enjoy. But when it comes to a competition, I'm an adult, and I don't need to play my games in Little League format.

 Jimsolo wrote:
While we could dig our heels in and refuse to adapt any further, I think that would be like a Magic: the Gathering TO deciding he was only going to run events in the current card cycle.

It's not at all like that. It's the equivalent of what actually happens in MTG: after it has been clearly demonstrated that a card or combination of cards is bad for the game the cards are banned. Sometimes you just get into a situation where A, B, C and D are well balanced and have an interesting metagame, but E is so overpowered that it makes them all irrelevant and reduces the metagame to E and anti-E. By banning E you open up the diversity of the format and make things much more interesting. This is something with a lot of experience behind it, and the results justify the ban decisions.

It'd kind of wound my pride to go home with a #1 tourney slot but always know in the back of my mind that I only one because the local daemons player wasn't allowed to field his 2+ rerollable unit. Refusing to play any of these mechanics in a friendly game? Hey, more power to you. I support anyone picking and choosing the games that they are going to enjoy. But when it comes to a competition, I'm an adult, and I don't need to play my games in Little League format.

You might feel that way, but in much more serious competitive games like MTG it has been pretty well understood for a long time that sometimes having "the best X color/army/etc can bring" in the game is bad for the game as a whole. In the bad old days of combo winter nobody complained that banning the incredibly bad balance mistakes* would ruin the fun because they wouldn't be facing the best blue could bring, they were glad to finally be able to have a game that lasts more than one turn. I think in 40k people are so used to the idea of bad comp that does unjustly exclude the best (but fair) lists that they don't really understand the idea of limited bans/modifications that improve the quality of the game.


*Seriously, if you think 40k balance is bad it doesn't even come close to the state of MTG at that time. Even in the "only the most recent few sets" format combo decks could regularly win games before the other player even got a turn.