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.

So the internet has exploded over the past week. Two tournaments (Feast of Blades and Las Vegas Open) have announced they will be banning, restricting, or modifying certain elements of 40k. I have been objecting to this on my FLGS Facebook group, but decided to make a post here that more clearly articulates my points. Hopefully TO's will read this carefully. For more info read here:
http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/12/feast-of-blades-will-be-enacting-restrictions-and-bans/
http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/12/11/las-vegas-open-poll-results-and-where-were-going-in-the-midst-of-the-current-40k-changes/

NOTE: FoB hasn't come out with the full list of restrictions, so this article will likely be updated.
ALSO NOTE: I am not trying to bash any of the TO's. I realize that running a tournament of this size is CRAZY, and I thank you for the hard work you are putting into it!

I'll try to keep this short...

1. Why the Hate on Daemons?
First and foremost, I couldn't help but notice that nearly any ban or restriction mentioned hurt Daemons in some way. Limit on Psykers? Check! Grimoire banned? Check! Be'Lakor not allowed or uses up an entire ally slot? Check! In short, it seemed to me that for some reason TO's thought Daemons were annoying to play against and so used this ban/restrict list to vent their frustration.

2. Voting for Things In/Out is BAD
This is directed towards the LVO. I am not trying to bash you guys (I watch and enjoy all your batreps), but think about it: If you ask a group of SM players if they want to allow Be'Lakor or the Tau Fire Cadre why on earth would they say yes?! I think asking for player input was cool, but allowing them to vote pretty much just let them say "I don't wanna face this, this, this..." and check the appropriate boxes. People will 90% of the time vote AGAINST what hurts them, that just makes sense. You won't find many Ork players saying that a 2++ rerollable is OK. You cite the approval of FW as support for voting, but I couldn't help notice that FW was voted down in the poll on Dakka (With less than 50% voting for it's inclusion), which actually means the community doesn't want it (Surprise!) but the last BAO played out beautifully with FW. My point is this: People don't want FW accordig to the Dakka Poll, but you guys are running it anyway(it wasn't even a question on the official poll sent out). So it seems that voting here seems kind of trivial as voting against FW is irrelevant but voting against Lords of War and Dataslates matters

3. Where Does It End?
Once you start cutting things where do TO's draw the line for what can be cut? I noticed that Allies were in the Dakka poll recently? C'mon now, it's a year and a half after 6th's release and yet we are talking of canning them? TO's are treading on very dangerous ground here, and there are already people saying they will not attend any tournament with ban lists/restrictions. It's not because they are powergaming morons with little man syndrome that forces them to play the most broken thing, but because they don't want the game changed. 40k has never been balanced. Read about 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. I'm very afraid for how far this crusade on broken units/combos will go. My concern is that TO's are jumping on the ban-wagon(play on words intended) and just start scratching tons of things out. It may seem like over-reaction, but look at the Dakka poll...alot of people voted against Allies AND Supplements. That's crazy! That destroys alot of people's armies and means they either can't play or have to buy a whole bunch of new models.


Those are the main three points. I'll update this if I think of more, but in short I think it is important to note that including everything will shift the meta. Of course it will. But by including everything you already take out alot of power combos. Will people be as likely to run Screamerstar if they see a Shadowsword with every IG player? And before everyone yells "You're saying fix broken units with more broken units" super heavies can be killed. They can be affected by psychic powers. Walkers/Gargantuan Creatures can be locked in combat. They give you VP's. You get a special Warlord Table to roll on that REALLY helps you kill them. All sD weapons are blasts so include a flier or two. FMC's are also fantastic for munching through this big guys. Oh and Grav-Cannons? Sure they only do a HP on a 6, but with 15 shots that are Prescienced and rerolling armor pen you can bet you'll take out 4 or so HP's. And that's without factoring in Missile Launchers. Smart players will make balanced lists and beat cheese through strategy. Look at Ben Mohlie's dual Guardian/Wraithknight list. It didn't seem like much to the internet, but he played well and won.

Anyways that's my rant. Do you guys agree? Or do you think that we should start banning OP things? Both TO's for both the LVO and FoB have said they have cool ideas for the future, so I guess we'll see...Keep calm and keep playing with your plastic manbarbies!



And one last thought: Why is everyone shocked at how powerful sD is? Why are they horrified that a weapon called a Titan Killer killed a Titan? That's like being shocked that a Helldrake killed Space Marines...
And of course you don't get Invulns. Having a cute little Iron Halo won't save you from a shot meant to cripple a Titan... The Revenant has 2 max cup sizes(Double D's). It shouldn't be shocking that a 900 point model can kill two 180 point models? Anyways sorry if I came off as angry(I'm not) or unorganized(I am!). Lemme know what you guys think in the comments!

I see your points, but on point 2 I think your being hyper critical. The game just got hit with more than one game changing supplement, and everyone freaks out in the beginning. It's unfortunate in the timing for the LVO, otherwise we wouldn't see their poll and restrictions. The people who bought their tickets ahead of time to go play in LV were not expecting titans to be "normal" gameplay, nor could they expect so many random data slates to be released. Therefore, why should the people who bought the ticket for the LVO, who want to play competitively, be expected to play with titans? They bought the ticket before they could play with titans and now that they are "normal", we expect them to go spend time and money on them so they can stay competitive? The rules the LVO have set up for their tournament are by no means the end all of rules for all tournaments. They are simply a rule set for the people who could not anticipate the surprises GW threw at us and was the most effective way the TO's thought they could give everyone traveling the most enjoyment. Why complain about 1 tournament you might not even be attending anyways? Why complain about rules most of the people attending the tournament want? No use complaining about it. Move on, and warhammer will work itself out in time. As a side note, I do agree with your points, but everything will work out. Fliers were overpowered and now are normal. Titans will become the same in time. Thanks for reading and nothings personal!

3. Where Does It End?

It ends when GW makes a game that doesn't require such fixes... 6th is by far the most insane edition of 40k since 2nd edition, so it's not surprising you have to reign it in

Did you ever stop and wonder if there are actually rational reasons as to why certain things have been banned, and perhaps maybe the people attending these events aren't just donkey-caves looking for every conceivable way of gaining an advantage?

The 2++ re-rollable is absolutely drop dead broken, almost irrefutably one of the dumbest conventions that's been devised since I've played 40k and there is a strong consensus, also amongst Daemon players, that it is game-breaking.

Noone with a rational train of thought defends the 2++ re-rollable. It is almost a guarantee that your unit is impossible to kill this turn.

Escalation and Stronghold Assault can benefit the armies of everybody and yet nobody wants to see them within a million miles of a tournament setting because they are not even close to balanced. They're terribly written, maybe decent for a fluffy campaign but they have no place in a tournament environment where the players want the rough 1/3 luck, 1/3 skill and 1/3 list writing balance to stay as fine as possible for a fair and enjoyable environment.

With the supplements I would easily say that the balance shifts way out of place, with list writing going to about 50-70%, luck hitting 20%~ and skill being a low factor indeed. With absurd, moronic combos like guided Revanant Titans some games just become an auto-win providing you don't fluff a ton of important, likely rolls.

There is another reason as well; the more of GW's absurdly game-changing implementations we get like Riptides, Super Forts, Super Heavies, Screamerstars, etc you name it, the more monotonous lists get. These things will give potential lists far less diversity as you have to compensate for many things and many units become unfavourable because of their ineptitude at dealing with these threats; in a tournament list you need something to counter every scenario as effectively as possible.

Also, 3), being a slippery slope argument, is inherently fallacious. Your whole post also commits the fallacy of appealing to nature.

I think it is pretty clear to the majority of players who play competitively that something needs to be done. The main debate that is going around is whether to hit the game with large-scale, unilateral changes or to go in with a scalpel.


What we've seen with the LVO and FoB are these two approaches. I think that Feast's early ideas are bad. If you go in with a scalpel, you better be willing to be extremely transparent and calculated about it. The LVO is going a more macro route, which is what the game needs.

Easy fixes:

-No escalation
-No stronghold assault
-Limit of two codices per army list

Boom. We are kept at a pre-Inquisition status quo. However, this still allows for army supplements and data sheets--just in a more balanced way. Furthermore, these are pretty easy to accept changes. Early reaction seems to indicate that a majority of players are against the aforementioned "bans".

6th edition is pretty good otherwise. Yes, Tau and Eldar are too good, but so were GK in 5th. In a few months, we may be whining about Nids, Orks, and Guard. Re-rollable 2+ saves have got to go, but SOTW may solve that. If not, limiting them to a 2+/4+ is pretty reasonable.

toocool61 wrote:
Why complain about 1 tournament you might not even be attending anyways? Why complain about rules most of the people attending the tournament want?

My concern is that voting for what will be included will become common. This opens up the probability for people simply voting against things they don't like, rather than what might actually make sense to ban. I am not planning on attending LVO, but I am planning on attending the next BAO. And if they use the same voting system that means I can count on alot of things getting voted out.

toocool61 wrote:
Thanks for reading and nothings personal!

No worries dude I understand

there is a strong consensus, also amongst Daemon players, that it is game-breaking.

If it is game-breaking why does screamerstar rarely win tournaments? It honestly doesn't scare me, and I have played with it and against it. Something game-breaking is something that win a large majority of its games no matter the matchup, which points to a clear imbalance. The fact that screamerstar can be beaten consistently by a smart player and has several huge weaknesses (No hit/run!) means I wouldn't call it game-breaking, but to each his own.

Escalation and Stronghold Assault can benefit the armies of everybody and yet nobody wants to see them within a million miles of a tournament setting because they are not even close to balanced. They're terribly written, maybe decent for a fluffy campaign but they have no place in a tournament environment where the players want the rough 1/3 luck, 1/3 skill and 1/3 list writing balance to stay as fine as possible for a fair and enjoyable environment.

I am not trying to sound rude here but have you actually played enough games to understand the implications of either? Besides watching two online batreps of escalation? Those hardly prove anything (Remember team0comp's batrep of cronair vs SW?). We need to play these things out and not over-react. If we find that 95% of games with a Revanent Titan are won then yeh, ban or modify the thing, but my point is that TO's are jumping to the ban-wagon(play on words intended) and banning a TON of things. Be'lakor isn't something new that requires a massive investment or list change, neither is codex:inquisition, yet both are banned? Not because they're OP but because players don't wanna play them. All I am saying is that TO's need to be careful on what is banned/restricted and things need to actually be played to determine if they are OP or not.

Also, 3), being a slippery slope argument, is inherently fallacious.

Ad-hominem much? Asking where the ban-list ends isn't unreasonable dude. If people are voting against Allies and Codex Supplements than surely you can see that this needs to be controlled? I am not trying to come off as a radical nuthead. I think there is some misunderstanding here

 Mr.Omega wrote:
The 2++ re-rollable is absolutely drop dead broken, almost irrefutably one of the dumbest conventions that's been devised since I've played 40k and there is a strong consensus, also amongst Daemon players, that it is game-breaking.

Noone with a rational train of thought defends the 2++ re-rollable. It is almost a guarantee that your unit is impossible to kill this turn.

Ok, i'll bite

So have you worked out the odds of daemons getting the 2++ re rollable? 70.5% chance of getting it and getting it off, now factor in not going first and losing half the unit quite possibly more to shooting, and possibly something important like herald with forewarning or grimoire. Factor in later turns passing the grimoire test and pyshic power, and possibly without fateweaver. Then Factor in out of 1850 having 900odd pts in one unit and a pretty weak warlord, over half the army in one combo. Factor in playing someone who knows what they are doing.

That is the reason WHY screamers havent won many, if any, BIG tournies, they are hard to play and yes hard to play against. Some people might not like playing against them, I can say I like playing against spammed wave serpents with my weak daemon troops, or Tau with rule breaking rules. I man up when playing them and play to my ability.

So now you have factored all that in you now have to factor in a 2++ with a reduced re roll to 4++.

People tend to fret when facing screamer councils, its part of the internet hype that makes them do that I think, but if people learned to play the mission rather then their opponent and changed the way they play their list against screamers they wouldnt have much of a issue, I think that is a big factor in people not having fun against them, they cant shoot the big mean unit off the board like they usually can and are forced to play differently and with tactical knowledge. This is why top players dont mind facing screamers as they know this.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

jathomas2013 wrote:


If it is game-breaking why does screamerstar rarely win tournaments? It honestly doesn't scare me, and I have played with it and against it. Something game-breaking is something that win a large majority of its games no matter the matchup, which points to a clear imbalance. The fact that screamerstar can be beaten consistently by a smart player and has several huge weaknesses (No hit/run!) means I wouldn't call it game-breaking, but to each his own.

Agreed JT, I have played with them a lot and against them a lot, I have never lost to them yet.

jathomas2013 wrote:
... If you ask a group of SM players if they want to allow Be'Lakor or the Tau Fire Cadre why on earth would they say yes?

Because a lot of those marine players also play other armies, and not everyone votes entirely out of self-interest. A lot of people are actually interested in improving the tournament scene, not just in boosting their own current army of choice.

Once you start cutting things where do TO's draw the line for what can be cut?

Wherever the TO and /or the players decide it should end.

I noticed that Allies were in the Dakka poll recently? C'mon now, it's a year and a half after 6th's release and yet we are talking of canning them?

I'm not really seeing an issue here. Allies were a part of the core rules in 2nd edition as well... and yet the vast majority of tournaments back then never allowed them. With very few complaints from the players, because most players were as reluctant to deal with the resultant shenanigins as the TOs were.

Allies are great for friendly games where people just want to use what they have. For tournament play, they open all sorts of tinned invertebrate product.

TO's are treading on very dangerous ground here, and there are already people saying they will not attend any tournament with ban lists/restrictions.

Yup, that will happen. Just as people refused to attend tournaments in 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition that didn't allow Special Characters. That doesn't mean that having those restrictions wasn't a good idea... it just means that some players disagree.

Which is the whole point of asking the community what they want, so it can be determined just how many people disagree.

And one last thought: Why is everyone shocked at how powerful sD is? Why are they horrified that a weapon called a Titan Killer killed a Titan?

They're not. They're just horrified at the idea of it being a standard part of the game, instead of confined to Apocalypse, because it is just wildly inappropriate at 40K scale.

jathomas2013 wrote:
1. Why the Hate on Daemons?

Because the lists with re-rollable 2++ units are too powerful, and they're too powerful in a way that makes the game incredibly frustrating (well beyond pretty much anything we've seen before) and not at all fun for a lot of people. Demons don't deserve every proposed nerf at the same time, but they do need something changed. Keeping them as-is makes a few competitive demon players happy, but at the expense of the majority of people at the tournament. And if you look at what has happened in MTG and other competitive games that kind of metagame leads to serious declines in attendance.

If you ask a group of SM players if they want to allow Be'Lakor or the Tau Fire Cadre why on earth would they say yes?!

Maybe you don't, but some people have the ability to vote based on what is best for the game as a whole and don't use a poll as an opportunity to ban their worst matchups and improve their chances of winning.

You cite the approval of FW as support for voting, but I couldn't help notice that FW was voted down in the poll on Dakka (With less than 50% voting for it's inclusion), which actually means the community doesn't want it (Surprise!) but the last BAO played out beautifully with FW.

That's because it's an issue where the local players don't match up with the forum voters. People who actually attend the event are happy overall with FW, and most of the hate comes from people who just vote on forum topics. And you'll see this a lot in real life, FW acceptance varies greatly by area. D-weapons, on the other hand, don't seem to have any support anywhere.

3. Where Does It End?

Do you understand what a slippery slope fallacy is?

And one last thought: Why is everyone shocked at how powerful sD is?

Because it's incredibly stupid design by GW. Somehow they managed to look at all the feedback from Apocalypse players about the previous edition saying that D-weapons, especially titans with D-weapons, were too good compared to other Apocalypse-level weapons and make D-weapons more powerful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jathomas2013 wrote:
If it is game-breaking why does screamerstar rarely win tournaments? It honestly doesn't scare me, and I have played with it and against it. Something game-breaking is something that win a large majority of its games no matter the matchup, which points to a clear imbalance. The fact that screamerstar can be beaten consistently by a smart player and has several huge weaknesses (No hit/run!) means I wouldn't call it game-breaking, but to each his own.

The problem here is that a tournament consists of more than the final winner. Sure, screamerstar might lose in the final game to a good player with an optimized list designed to handle it, but against everyone else who isn't one of those top players it's a frustrating game-ruining balance experience. Even if I have no realistic hope of winning a prize at a tournament I still want to go because it's a fun day of gaming. But when I can expect some of those games to be so fun-destroying that I'd rather just concede and get lunch instead of playing my motivation for attending the tournament is gone. And if you want tournaments to be a fun event for the top players you need to have those big crowds, not just a handful of the most dedicated players fighting meaningless battles in an empty room.

If we find that 95% of games with a Revanent Titan are won

That isn't the relevant standard. Revenant titans (or anything else) could deserve a ban if they only win half their games but reduce the metagame to Revenant vs. anti-Revenant lists.

 JGrand wrote:
I think it is pretty clear to the majority of players who play competitively that something needs to be done. The main debate that is going around is whether to hit the game with large-scale, unilateral changes or to go in with a scalpel.


What we've seen with the LVO and FoB are these two approaches. I think that Feast's early ideas are bad. If you go in with a scalpel, you better be willing to be extremely transparent and calculated about it. The LVO is going a more macro route, which is what the game needs.

Easy fixes:

-No escalation
-No stronghold assault
-Limit of two codices per army list

Boom. We are kept at a pre-Inquisition status quo. However, this still allows for army supplements and data sheets--just in a more balanced way. Furthermore, these are pretty easy to accept changes. Early reaction seems to indicate that a majority of players are against the aforementioned "bans".

6th edition is pretty good otherwise. Yes, Tau and Eldar are too good, but so were GK in 5th. In a few months, we may be whining about Nids, Orks, and Guard. Re-rollable 2+ saves have got to go, but SOTW may solve that. If not, limiting them to a 2+/4+ is pretty reasonable.

I like the easy fix list. While it may make it so I can't run my "dream" army (IG primary/ BA allies/ Inquisition) I understand why it is there and it will be a lot less expensive to change my army to fit that format then to fit the titan format. Was the "no allying with yourself" thing every brought up to keep the Tau shenanigans at bay? And if so, how would that effect the SM codex which has self allying as a large feature of the book?

when i run tournaments i use the below that another poster said works fine for us so far.
-No escalation
-No stronghold assault
-Limit of two codices per army list

3. Where Does It End?

Do you understand what a slippery slope fallacy is?

Yes. But it is a reasonable question. Are you saying kill allies? Than at that point my question becomes even more valid because Allies have been in nearly every 6th ed tournament. I am not trying to be some whiny dude on the internet, but am trying to understand what is "off-limits" to the ban-hammer. It affects my lists. Of course I'm interested in where it stops.

I think for now banning Escalation/Stronghold assault is understandable. I'm not mad about that. What I am concerned about is permanent banning with much of the community only having 2 battle reports to go by.

And for your education, here are 2 more Escalation batreps
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/283048-iron-hands-clan-comapny-ferrauts-battle-reports/page-2#entry3543891

The superheavy didn't influence the game much

jathomas2013 wrote:
Are you saying kill allies?

No I'm not. And judging by the poll results not many other people are. I (and many other people) favor killing the "allies" that don't use up your allies slot and potentially removing the "ally with yourself" option, but I think there's pretty strong agreement that allies according to the core rulebook should stay.

I am not trying to be some whiny dude on the internet, but am trying to understand what is "off-limits" to the ban-hammer. It affects my lists. Of course I'm interested in where it stops.

Your tone certainly doesn't support this. Your OP starts off with the assumption that everyone is banning everything and you need to fight back, not an honest desire to get an answer.

The superheavy didn't influence the game much

Which doesn't surprise me because it was a "fluff" choice, not one of the good superheavies taken in an optimized tournament list. The issue with Escalation is much less about Baneblades and Malcadors and more about D-weapon Revenants and (presumably in the near future) Warhounds.

[quote=Peregrine 567845 6334973 6e2a7a65b40f1b794057fa352dcb053f.jpgYour OP starts off with the assumption that everyone is banning everything and you need to fight back, not an honest desire to get an answer.

Everyone has good points, but I'm a little limited on time, so I'm going to reply directly to jathomas2013's original post. I hope that's cool.

jathomas2013 wrote:

1. Why the Hate on Daemons?

I don't think the hate is directly only at demons. To me, the Feast of Blades announcement seemed like only a few ideas off the top of the TO's head - not an exhaustive list. He did say it was going to be a living document and there would be changes made as time goes one. But essentially I think I agree with you. Banning/restricting just daemons is unfair (more on that later)

jathomas2013 wrote:

2. Voting for Things In/Out is BAD

Um... let's leave democracy debates for another time/place.

jathomas2013 wrote:

3. Where Does It End?

I think Kirasu said it best.

 Kirasu wrote:
It ends when GW makes a game that doesn't require such fixes... 6th is by far the most insane edition of 40k since 2nd edition, so it's not surprising you have to reign it in

Hahaha... but I think you make a point jathomas2013, if you restrict one thing, what to stop people from restricting everything? I say, why not? It's an idea I've been working on for a while.

Consider making everything 0-1 per army, except for troops and dedicated transports:
->It would limit the Heldrake/Riptide/Wraithknight spam I keep hearing about
->AND it would be fair to each army.
->It doesn't exactly solve the starscreamer list, but if Heralds of Tzzentch are also restricted (4 heralds = 1 HQ slot, but each herald is different) it would limit it's power.
->plus it has the added benefit of encouraging A LOT more variety in the various armies people bring
-> and some other benefits that I don't have the time to talk about here

Banning things, of course, is a little trickier.

*runs as people decide to kill the heretic*

The problem with that is that it doesn't address venom spam or, more importantly, serpent spam. Though it address most of the problem builds.

Eventually I think the internet rage over Escalation/Stronghold assault MIGHT blow over. Though I do fully expect D weapons to be banned and the number of fortifications to be limited(Placing 3 bastions, a fortress of redemtion, 2 firestorm redoubts and an aegis might be problematic...). Alternatively(And I think this to be the better approach) is to say that any fortification that cannot be placed as per the BRB cannot be deployed. It automatically would reduce the number of forts people bring(And who would even bring that many?!)

Could be just me, but shouldn't banlists and nerfs only be in place after two conditions have been met? I'll use 2d fighting games as an example:

1. Nerfing a character/list that has proven to be so dominant in the tournament scene multiple times that nothing else could compete.

Example: Phoenix in Vanilla Marvel vs. Capcom 3. Nu in Blazblue. Sagat in Vanilla SFIV. Superman in Injustice. They received nerfs afterwards because of their extremely strong showings and results. They weren't banned, they became the standard to which others are measured against despite a few bad matchups.

Those examples are making me think of the top armies at the moment. Tau, Eldar, Daemons. They are somewhat consistent (except Daemons), they are strong, they have good matchups that equate them to A or S tier if looking at lists. But people knowing how to actually use their armies and play to the mission know the obstacles and contingencies when they expect to face those lists. Low Tier characters in fighting games can potentially beat a higher tier characters based on how their user wields them. Nerfing them now? Not in good form if all that's doing is handicapping the higher tier. That's the equivalent of saying "No Astral Vision for Morrigan in UMvC3. It makes the game 'unfun."

2. Banning characters in fighting games are usually only for when a certain gimmick shows that x character has far too much advantage in regular gameplay.

Example: Justice from Guilty Gear, Akuma from the Original Super Street Fighter II, Meta-Knight in Brawl, Ivan Ooze from the old Power Rangers game.

Those characters have proven that no matter what another character can do. There is pretty much no chance of winning regardless of player skill. Usually these show up after very few runs of playtesting before an event. Much like what happened to the Revenant Titan and it's D weapons. it can be placed here.


Everything else? Actual results should probably be seen first. Having 3 armies in top tier in current 40k I'd say is actually a good thing. It's not like it was 7th Edition Fantasy Daemons anyways.

Lou_Cypher wrote:
1. Nerfing a character/list that has proven to be so dominant in the tournament scene multiple times that nothing else could compete..

The thing is, in order to reach that point, a whole bunch of people have had to suffer through unpleasant games.

If people can see that something is likely to be overly abusive, then banning it before it becomes a problem removes that problem before people have to waste games they paid to play playstesting the game.

The 0-1 limit looks good. Apart from troops and dedicated, every other codex entry would be nerfed. Its good. Very good indeed. But I think that as Lovechunks mentioned, no escalation, stronghold assault and more than 2 codices it will be game-changing alone that..

Lou_Cypher wrote:
1. Nerfing a character/list that has proven to be so dominant in the tournament scene multiple times that nothing else could compete.

This is a bad standard because win/loss record isn't all that matters. You have to consider the effect on the metagame as well. Let's say we have a nice metagame with A, B, C and D as viable top-tier options. Now list E arrives, and is blatantly overpowered. The metagame adapts and now instead of an interesting four-way metagame you have a choice of E and anti-E (since anything but anti-E gets crushed by E). Even if E only wins 50% of the time because of all the anti-E lists the result is that metagame diversity is destroyed, and that isn't much fun. But if you insist on having a dominant win/loss record and ignore that metagame shift then you'll never ban E and you'll suffer through a boring tournament environment until people just stop showing up.

If you look at MTG you'll see this is the case with past bans. An overpowered deck might have had counters available, but the damaging effect on metagame diversity was still bad enough to justify a ban. And the results have justified those decisions.

Lord_Aaron wrote:

Consider making everything 0-1 per army, except for troops and dedicated transports:
->It would limit the Heldrake/Riptide/Wraithknight spam I keep hearing about
->AND it would be fair to each army.
->It doesn't exactly solve the starscreamer list, but if Heralds of Tzzentch are also restricted (4 heralds = 1 HQ slot, but each herald is different) it would limit it's power.
->plus it has the added benefit of encouraging A LOT more variety in the various armies people bring
-> and some other benefits that I don't have the time to talk about here

Banning things, of course, is a little trickier.

*runs as people decide to kill the heretic*

Once again someone has fallen into the trap of placing limitations on the FoC without taking into consideration how it affects anything bar the top armies.

Fair for each army?

SoB only have 2 elites and 2 fast attack choices so while every other army can take 3 elites/Fast Attack choices they are only allowed two. The whole concept of Orks is they field lots of cheap disposable units. Ork strategy is built around the expectation that one of the units will die, good thing I brought two. Necrons & Eldar troop choices have the most powerful dedicated transports in the game and would laugh at these 'restrictions' placed on them.

 Madcat87 wrote:
...SoB only have 2 elites and 2 fast attack choices so while every other army can take 3 elites/Fast Attack choices they are only allowed two. The whole concept of Orks is they field lots of cheap disposable units. Ork strategy is built around the expectation that one of the units will die, good thing I brought two. Necrons & Eldar troop choices have the most powerful dedicated transports in the game and would laugh at these 'restrictions' placed on them.

Very interesting point! Thanks for the input!
I haven't seen the new codexes yet, so thank you very much for pointing these out.
I'm not giving up on my 0-1 everything except troops idea though, but obviously it still needs more work.

 Peregrine wrote:

Lou_Cypher wrote:
1. Nerfing a character/list that has proven to be so dominant in the tournament scene multiple times that nothing else could compete.

This is a bad standard because win/loss record isn't all that matters. You have to consider the effect on the metagame as well. Let's say we have a nice metagame with A, B, C and D as viable top-tier options. Now list E arrives, and is blatantly overpowered. The metagame adapts and now instead of an interesting four-way metagame you have a choice of E and anti-E (since anything but anti-E gets crushed by E). Even if E only wins 50% of the time because of all the anti-E lists the result is that metagame diversity is destroyed, and that isn't much fun. But if you insist on having a dominant win/loss record and ignore that metagame shift then you'll never ban E and you'll suffer through a boring tournament environment until people just stop showing up.

If you look at MTG you'll see this is the case with past bans. An overpowered deck might have had counters available, but the damaging effect on metagame diversity was still bad enough to justify a ban. And the results have justified those decisions.

Are you trying to say 40k shouldnt have a meta?. Also have lists really changed to counter the screamerstar or seer council?. I cant say I see Seer or screamer as E to be frank. as I said before people need to change the way they play, not what they play, when facing these types of lists.

MarkyMark wrote:
Are you trying to say 40k shouldnt have a meta?

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Read that comment again, the point is that sometimes the presence of a certain list/deck/whatever in the metagame warps the metagame into a choice between playing the best list/deck and playing a list/deck designed specifically to beat the best list/deck (even at the expense of losing horribly to anything that isn't the best list/deck, but it will never encounter those other options). The counter might be strong enough to drop the best list/deck's winning percentage well below "dominating", but it still produces a really boring metagame. The solution is to ban the overpowered list/deck so that other strategies have a better chance, resulting in a much more diverse and interesting metagame.

Lord_Aaron wrote:
Consider making everything 0-1 per army, except for troops and dedicated transports:
->It would limit the Heldrake/Riptide/Wraithknight spam I keep hearing about
->AND it would be fair to each army.
->It doesn't exactly solve the starscreamer list, but if Heralds of Tzzentch are also restricted (4 heralds = 1 HQ slot, but each herald is different) it would limit it's power.
->plus it has the added benefit of encouraging A LOT more variety in the various armies people bring
-> and some other benefits that I don't have the time to talk about here:

The problem is that gaming the system does not change the abusive combos, it just slides them over. You still have seer councils with this approach (admittedly, only with a 50% chance of getting fortune). You still have riptides being joined by buffmanders.
In fact, i would argue that such a shift would hurt any possible counters to the above builds, ensuring eldar/tau dominance in the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JGrand wrote:
[b]Easy fixes:

-No escalation
-No stronghold assault
-Limit of two codices per army list

I like this list,
I would like to see "no more than one formation" added to it.
6 broadsides and a riptide with tank hunter and preferred enemy C:SM is fine. 18 broadsides and 3 riptides with those free features starts to get a little silly.

Lou_Cypher wrote:
Could be just me, but shouldn't banlists and nerfs only be in place after two conditions have been met? I'll use 2d fighting games as an example:

1. Nerfing a character/list that has proven to be so dominant in the tournament scene multiple times that nothing else could compete.

2. Banning characters in fighting games are usually only for when a certain gimmick shows that x character has far too much advantage in regular gameplay.


Everything else? Actual results should probably be seen first. Having 3 armies in top tier in current 40k I'd say is actually a good thing. It's not like it was 7th Edition Fantasy Daemons anyways.

Here are my issues/questions.

1.)40k does not havea standard tournament formant...so what might dominate one format may not do so in another (we saw this in early 6th with Cronair dominating some formats and not others).. Do these tournaments have a common format?

2.) Do all tournaments count toward this? I see plenty of people saying that screamerstar does not win tournaments....it has won plenty (at least around me) just not any major ones...do tournaments need to be a certain size? How are we tracking results given different formatting. If we say only really big tournaments count then there are not enough in the space of a year (unless one list played by multiple players wins all of them) to gather any meaningful data. We also don't ever really get a sense for what lists are being played beyond maybe the top 10 in an event. Maybe in lots of events screamer star is going something like 64-8 or something winning a majority of games, and dominating those wins....but not unbeatable....



I think what the 40k community needs to understand is this...40k players (for the most part) are not hard core competitors. Most want to play games that they enjoy, have some chance of competing in, and play with the army they like. Unlike say Video games or Magic...changing your army is expensive and work intensive. If I want to change magic decks I need to spend money (typically less than a 40k army, often less than some 40k models these days), but I don't need to build and paint it. I get cards I play....

The other issue with tournament results is that not all of them will see the results of the change. So we allow super heavies and the one guy I know with a Revnant shows up...only 3ish players are even going to face him...or maybe he is a weaker player who just likes the model....maybe all his games turn into did my titan live? If yes I win...if no I lose...and we know this by turn 2...that does not a good game make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord_Aaron wrote:
I think Kirasu said it best.
Hahaha... but I think you make a point jathomas2013, if you restrict one thing, what to stop people from restricting everything? I say, why not? It's an idea I've been working on for a while.

Consider making everything 0-1 per army, except for troops and dedicated transports:
->It would limit the Heldrake/Riptide/Wraithknight spam I keep hearing about
->AND it would be fair to each army.
->It doesn't exactly solve the starscreamer list, but if Heralds of Tzzentch are also restricted (4 heralds = 1 HQ slot, but each herald is different) it would limit it's power.
->plus it has the added benefit of encouraging A LOT more variety in the various armies people bring
-> and some other benefits that I don't have the time to talk about here

Banning things, of course, is a little trickier.

*runs as people decide to kill the heretic*

I have actually been looking at a similar but slightly different approach

Keep the Regular FOC except go percentile based on points

HQ <= 25%
Elites <= 25%
Fast <= 25%
Heavies <= 25%
Troops >= 25%(in theory you could drop this and just require 2 troops)
Dedicated Transports <=25%
5-10% additional flex spending on Elites, Fast, heavies.

Allies and Inquisition take up part of this %
Units in formations count as their respective slots and count against this %

More or less this curbs most of the abusive builds

Seer Council either cannot include Multiple Farseers, or Barron or be short on Warlocks
Screamer star cannot max out heralds and include fateweaver
Limit on Dedicated transports limits wave serpents and Necron flyers to fairly reasonable levels

The issue with your particular 0-1 method is that it is extremely narrow and does not address things like cronair and serpent spam...meaning likely that serpent spam will rise to the top.

More or less this curbs most of the abusive builds

It also screws over things like Tyranids and several armies who have very poor other slots, such as CSM's near useless elite slot.

Nothing requires you to take those slots (especially if you build in the Flex points)

Where are most good NId lists spending points


Toops= Tervigon not limited.

Elites= if you used your flex here at 2k points you would have 600-700 points to spend. Without flex you have 500...what are you purchasing in this slot that is more than 500 points (9 Hive guard are 450 - 9 Zoans are what around 500)
Fast = Gargoyles are cheap
Heavy support= if you use flex here except 9 carnifexes or 3 Tyranos what gets limited (without it You cannot typically run 3 of any choice...but those are rare.)

So essentially it means no Double Flyrant HQ or Swarmlord + flyrant and that is the only thing that gets hurt for nids at all...as far as I can really see.

Lets look at MVBrandts Nid list (may have changed since he posted this) tha the considered for BFS this year

2k points
Tyranid Single FOC

HQ -240<25%
Parasite of Mortrex - 160
Tyranid Prime - 80

Elites = 360 < 25%
2 Zoanthropes - 120
2 Zoanthropes - 120
2 Zoanthropes - 120

Troops = 979 > 25%
29 Termagants w/ Poison - 174
10 Termagants - 50
10 Termagants - 50
Tervigon w/ Furious, Poison, Claws, Tri Power - 235
Tervigon w/ Furious, Poison, Claws, Tri Power - 235
Tervigon w/ Furious, Poison, Claws, Tri Power - 235

Fast 410 points < 25%

30 Gargoyles w/ Furious - 210
30 Gargoyles w/ Furious - 210

His list from the Previous BFS with Swarmlord also fits the bill.



And CSM are required to take elites in this system why? Count up the percentages minimum 25% troops...+ 25% max in each other category + 5-10% = 125-135%.... so you can leave out entire categories (even more if you spend more on troops.) if you don't like them.

So I might need a more specific example of how this is screwing lots of armies.

It hurts

Screamer star
Ovesastar
Seer Council
Serpent Spam


Are their some lists you cannot build sure....but I don't see it over penalizing most types of lists.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also far less of a penalty to those armies than making everything except troops and dedicated transports 0-1.

Breng77 wrote:
Nothing requires you to take those slots (especially if you build in the Flex points)

Where are most good NId lists spending points


Toops= Tervigon not limited.

Elites= if you used your flex here at 2k points you would have 600-700 points to spend. Without flex you have 500...what are you purchasing in this slot that is more than 500 points (9 Hive guard are 450 - 9 Zoans are what around 500)
Fast = Gargoyles are cheap
Heavy support= if you use flex here except 9 carnifexes or 3 Tyranos what gets limited (without it You cannot typically run 3 of any choice...but those are rare.)

So essentially it means no Double Flyrant HQ or Swarmlord + flyrant and that is the only thing that gets hurt for nids at all...as far as I can really see.

Lets look at MVBrandts Nid list (may have changed since he posted this) tha the considered for BFS this year

2k points
Tyranid Single FOC

HQ -240<25%
Parasite of Mortrex - 160
Tyranid Prime - 80

Elites = 360 < 25%
2 Zoanthropes - 120
2 Zoanthropes - 120
2 Zoanthropes - 120

Troops = 979 > 25%
29 Termagants w/ Poison - 174
10 Termagants - 50
10 Termagants - 50
Tervigon w/ Furious, Poison, Claws, Tri Power - 235
Tervigon w/ Furious, Poison, Claws, Tri Power - 235
Tervigon w/ Furious, Poison, Claws, Tri Power - 235

Fast 410 points < 25%

30 Gargoyles w/ Furious - 210
30 Gargoyles w/ Furious - 210

His list from the Previous BFS with Swarmlord also fits the bill.



And CSM are required to take elites in this system why? Count up the percentages minimum 25% troops...+ 25% max in each other category + 5-10% = 125-135%.... so you can leave out entire categories (even more if you spend more on troops.) if you don't like them.

So I might need a more specific example of how this is screwing lots of armies.

It hurts

Screamer star
Ovesastar
Seer Council
Serpent Spam


Are their some lists you cannot build sure....but I don't see it over penalizing most types of lists.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also far less of a penalty to those armies than making everything except troops and dedicated transports 0-1.

Just before anyone gets all uppity, the list quoted routinely curbstomps eldar, tau, daemons, jetstar, and other builds run by GT winning and Team America players on a routine basis.
Just to try and prevent someone who thinks double-flyrant is good from derailing. Brendan you know not to use individual list examples for a point in a forum thread!

Very true....people are likely to just tell me that it is not a good lits . I would have written my own but here at work I don't have my nid dex in hand.

I'm also not sure I would even go fully in with my idea unless I wanted to run a comped event on that scale of comp...I just find it a bit better than the 0-1 ideas going around...and lots of people have responded (in other places) that it Hurts X faction, or type of list too much...and not one has proven really to be true.

I'll also not argue the merrit of whether Double Flyrant is good or not...more my point is that it is not the only good list, so curbing it does not invalidate current nids.