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

I've been following threads on multiple websites about how 40k is no longer balanced or no longer fun because of Escalation. Every thread about this subject has been trying to find out what to do about the new "cheese" in 40k. I actually find this amusing as I thought 40k was mostly a "cheesy" game. A lot of the armies that you find in GT's wouldn't be played in a friendly enviornment because they are not fun to play against. The wailing that has been going on over the addition of super heavies is amusing considering how broken the system was before. Eldar allying with Dark Eldar, Blood Angels with Necrons, Tau with Space Marines. Before 6th edition people would have thought this silly. Each codex is supposed to be designed with certain flaws. For example: the Tau don't do close combat well but they do shoot quite well. Now with allies, flaws in any codex can be covered up or eliminated entirely.

Now, to be honest I play WFB mostly but I have played in 40k GT's. As a WFB player I have accepted that comp scores are a part of any GT. Everytime the idea of adding comp scores to GT's came up people howled and said that the game didn't need it because 40k was balanced. Now, people are saying that Escalation has broken the game. Why? 40k GT's usually allow everything, with the occasional banning of FW, to be played. I don't see why that is a problem now. If Jetseers are broken, if Screamerstars are broken, why allow them at all? Because the mantra of 40k players and tournament organizers has been that 40k is balanced and that it will be alright after the smoke clears. I see the same reasoning when it comes to Escalation. One expansion doesn't break a game.

When it comes to FW, I don't see why it isn't allowed with the current state of affairs. The first arguement that usually came up was that not everyone had access to the FW books. Isn't that the same issue now due to the plethora of digitals books htting the street? If I don't want to buy the digital book I have to wait 2-3 months before a hard copy book is released. If I play in a GT in the meantime I could possibly run up against someone using a digital book. I will have to trust them to be honest with me about their army. And how about the new dataslats that are being released. They are official, right? There are so many digital books out there without a hardcopy duplicate that it can be hard to follow.

Now, I gone on for a while about the current state of affairs. My final observation is that 40k GT's and players can go one of two ways.
1. They allow everything and stand by the "40k is balanced" rule and come what may or
2. They start a form of comp scoring in GT's.

If you say we aren't going to do comp, guess what happens? The minute things are banned is when you have started putting a composition system into play.

Thank you for adding to adding to the ever increasing number of threads of which I'm going to try and keep track of.

From what I've seen (watching Reecius' and others) battle reports it really only seems to be Strength D that is the problem. Some of the games with Superheavies without strength D looked quite fun actually.

Please don't start new threads, when existing threads are already discussing the topic at issue.

We try to avoid fragmenting conversation when possible.