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.

Competitive Player's Edition 2.0


Goals:

Balanced
Streamlined
Quicker
Easier
More fun


Ideas:


Force Org changes: Minimum 1 Troop choice for every 500 points, and each minimum choice must have at least 10 models.
Imperial guard platoons count each infantry squad as 1 troop choice for these purposes. Double Force Org Chart on 2001+.

0-1 on ANYTHING that is not a troop choice. Therefore you could have 3 Fast Attack Choices, just not 3 Heldrakes
(insert abusive unit here) This solves both Eldar and Necron transport abuse, as well as the triple-(abusive whatever)
problem. One abusive unit is a rough customer, but 3+ is ridiculous.

Allies: for fun only! Not at a competitive event!

Warlord traits: Select them, except Special Characters whose are specifically listed. Psychic powers would still have to be
rolled for, because some of them are just too devastating to be guaranteed.


Movement:
Running is done in the movement phase, but still precludes shooting without appropriate psychic power or USR) Eldar can still
do shoot, then run(instead of doing running in movement phase)


Shooting:
Shoot values rather than Ballistic skill. I.E. instead of converting BS to what you need to roll just tell the player
what they need to roll. i.e. Ballistic Skill 6 is: 2+/6+ and Ballistic Skill 3 = 4+.

The rest of the Shooting phase changes are more to do with "realism" than speed play. But other changes more than balance out the time factor.
1. Roll to hit
2. Opponent rolls saves
3. Number of Failed saves = rolls to wound.
4. successful wounds = casualties = removed from table

Elevated position: The enemy take cover saves at -1 when fired at by units 2 floor(6 inches) above them.

Assault:
No pile in moves at initiative. Everyone in the engaged unit within 6" inches of enemy fights.
Casualties are removed from rear by owning player(removing from base causes so much trouble!) not unlike 5th edition.

Failed assaults: unit moves forward X inches equal to highest die roll
for charge distance, like Warhammer Fantasy. Pile in only at the end of combat, if the enemy is not destroyed or running.

Challenge mechanic is for independent characters only...who wants to watch sarges fight it out?
The Big Boys are the ones who should be fighting challenges! Also, once per game. Challenges should be special,
not a thing everybody does all the time.



Top abusive unit nerfs:
1. D-weapons: Str 10 ap1 Ignores Cover, (Invulnerable saves are allowed)
2. Grimore of True Names: banned
3. Marker lights - reduces cover by -1(doesn't stack) still boosts Shoot value(Ballistic Skill) per expended markerlight.
4. Revenant save reduced to 5+, and movement reduced to 12 inches per turn. Yes, it take three nerfs to rein this badboy in!
5. DLCs and Codex supplements are banned from competitive play! Forgeworld test units, banned! Crisis suits as troops would be outrageous in CPE(Competitive Players Edition)
6. Max squad size of 5 for bike version of the Warlock council

Buffs!:
1. Landraiders convert first Penetrating hit into a glance. Landraiders should not be first blood!
2. Imperial guard have supporting fire Ala' Tau. Infantry only though.
3. Tyranid Warriors/Shrikes/Raveners are toughness 5 and 6 wound models are toughness 8.
4. Space Wolves get Space Marine Flyers...but must pay extra 2 ppm for extra close combat weapons on the Grey Hunters.
Blood claws are 1+(required)
5. Kabalite armor(Dark Eldar) is a 4+ Save and Wych dodge works in shooting phase as well; Flickerfield is a 4++ invulnerable save which goes to 5+ if failed.
6. Sniper Rifles are +1 to BS, Pinning as well as Rending on a 4+.
7. Leman Russes have 4 Hullpoints.

List that can't happen with these changes:
1. Revanent just eats your lunch and the rest of the army stays home list
2. Serpent Spam
3. Nightscythe Spam
4. Riptide Spam
5. death and pillage by markerlights Tau
6. Droppod spam

Lists that are promoted these changes:
1. Infantry based armies
2. armies with lots of troops and fewer elite forces
3. fewer cut and paste units(only troops could be identical, which is more realistic anyway! Faceless dog soldiers should be in troop units!
4. Guard vehicle squadrons
5. Seer council is still OP...but you would only face one of them(No duplicates outta troops).
No Baron/seer council shenanigans however. Max squad size of 5 for bike version should reign it in a bit.



Before anybody acts like I've kicked their favorite puppy, have you tried playing balanced fun lists?
I have 6 different armies and have had several more. I'm not wish listing for advantage here, because it would do me no good.
Tournament style match-ups are just so rock/paper/scissors today and I am so tired of it. Winning and losing based solely on
army selection is just boring. The most fun I've had playing Warhammer in the last 15 years was teaching new players how
to play with 1 tactical squad each. The goal is to make the whole game as fun and balanced as those teaching games. It's a
humongous task and one I don't want to do alone. Please contribute ideas; constructive criticism is welcome. Abuse is not.

Games workshop clearly has no interest in making a balanced game. Their goal is to sell as many models as possible,
but they have such a short-sighted take on it they forgot what motivates people to buy their product: FUN!

If the game is not balanced to have an even chance of winning, who wants to play? Even the players with the superior armies
aren't having much fun when they blow through the enemy like nothing. If there is no challenge, there is no point. That is why their stock prices have plummeted(on top of a poor economy and outrageous prices); If the game isn't fun,
why do I need more models?

Well, you ruined Sisters of Battle quite nicely with these rules. Since they have an extremely limited count of unit types, you have assured that with this blanket 0-1 limit that my armies will struggle to make higher points levels and be effective, and they will always look exactly the same.

To say nothing of it being a force that would lose a huge portion of points in units that cannot effectively play into my plans. I like shooting armies and this forces me to use at least 2 expensive, useless melee units that die easily.

I appreciate the effort, but blanket rules almost never work.

Well since he bans DLC he's banning Sisters outright, I guess he's not concerned with them.

Also note that the Revenant's Eldar Titan Holo-Field rule is not a save so not affected by your nerf at all.

Banning the Grimoire only hurts the lesser Daemon God's units more. I mean Bloodcrushers can be semi-useful with the Grimoire, but without... big point-sink that has no defence. Only Tzeentch units can get the re-rollable 2++ easily, no need to nerf all the other Gods.

Ah, didn't even see that. Then it is much easier to dismiss this, good catch, Shandara.

These changes kill a lot of fluffy lists that are not "powerful" net lists. What if I wanted to run a warrior based army for my tyranids (which I do by the way) I have an illegal army as I can't have a troop choice with a min size of 10. Or what if I am playing ravenwing and can only have 6 bikes, an attack bike and a landspeeder as troops? Or I am playing deathwing and can only have 1 squad of deathwing knights.

Fluff list killed by these changes:
1. Warrior based Nids
2. ravenwing
3. crimson fists
4. vehicle heavy iron hands.
5. Farsight enclaves (crisis troops outrageous really?)
6. tau scout cadre (only 1 group of stealth suits and pathfinders allowed)
7. Imp fist gun line (only 1 dev squad or pred tank)
8. Nid monstrous creature spam (also troop tervigons are illegal)
9. Mobile tau (fish of fury style) only 1 each of devilfish/hammerhead/skyray
10. Any SM chapters fighting together
11. Any chaos god that is not Tzeentch (Grimore is only stupid good with tzeentch)

Well thats all I can think of at the moment. So lets continue on to your other comments.

 Madness! wrote:
Competitive Player's Edition 2.0

Top abusive unit nerfs:
1. D-weapons: Str 10 ap1 Ignores Cover, (Invulnerable saves are allowed) I agree with this
2. Grimore of True Names: banned Not needed as it kills list from the other gods
3. Marker lights - reduces cover by -1(doesn't stack) still boosts Shoot value(Ballistic Skill) per expended markerlight. I like this but reducing cover should stack. you are using multiple tokens for it and thus not buffing your BS
4. Revenant save reduced to 5+, and movement reduced to 12 inches per turn. Yes, it take three nerfs to rein this badboy in! Doesn't help and isn't needed with the D-weapon change. A revenant will still kill or almost kill 2 units a turn
5. DLCs and Codex supplements are banned from competitive play! Forgeworld test units, banned! Crisis suits as troops would be outrageous in CPE(Competitive Players Edition) So those of us who like the farsight fluff are punished because of O'vesa?
6. Max squad size of 5 for bike version of the Warlock council Mildly helps

Buffs!:
1. Landraiders convert first Penetrating hit into a glance. Landraiders should not be first blood! Fluff wise sure but game wise why?
2. Imperial guard have supporting fire Ala' Tau. Infantry only though. um kindof random but okay
3. Tyranid Warriors/Shrikes/Raveners are toughness 5 and 6 wound models are toughness 8. I myself have suggested this and after discussion come to the conclusion that it is not the proper solution
4. Space Wolves get Space Marine Flyers...but must pay extra 2 ppm for extra close combat weapons on the Grey Hunters. flyers sure not a problem there but why the cost increase?
Blood claws are 1+(required) why?
5. Kabalite armor(Dark Eldar) is a 4+ Save and Wych dodge works in shooting phase as well; Flickerfield is a 4++ invulnerable save which goes to 5+ if failed. can't comment never fought DE
6. Sniper Rifles are +1 to BS, Pinning as well as Rending on a 4+. So my kroot and scout snipers now laugh at everything in the game except vehicles
7. Leman Russes have 4 Hullpoints. Fine with me


Lists that are promoted these changes:
1. Infantry based armies Why is this better? yeah 5th was a parking lot for many but why is this better?
2. armies with lots of troops and fewer elite forces again why is this better
3. fewer cut and paste units(only troops could be identical, which is more realistic anyway! Faceless dog soldiers should be in troop units! sure realistic in 40k
4. Guard vehicle squadrons can be done already
5. Seer council is still OP...but you would only face one of them(No duplicates outta troops).
No Baron/seer council shenanigans however. Max squad size of 5 for bike version should reign it in a bit.

FirePainter has pretty much covered all the major points I would think.

Oh, your move to stop Serpent Spam wouldn't work as it's a dedicated transport choice for troops. Also, even if you did come up with a workable way to limit the number of Wave Serpents, it would really go against the fluff to have fast, hit-and-run Eldar armies restricted to foot-slogging.

Wave Serpents need a point cost hike. Not a cap on numbers.

Price hike or shield-shooting nerf.

perhaps limiting dedicated transports would be unnecessary if we changed the serpent shield back into what it was before(Str reduced to 8 max). Still dead hard with a 4+ cover save(from equipment). This would also allow dark eldar to do what they do in the fluff...all piratical and everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Warrior based nids could be fixed...by making it 10 wounds instead of 10 models...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as Whitescars wrecking face...I dunno. How do we fix that? any Ideas?

But what if I want to put Avengers in a Falcon?

Or a 5man Scout squad of Marines?

Or a reasonable WraithGuard as troops?

Or field Corsair Wasps?

Bottom line in many of these threads is, I think, that some individual models/combos need a nerf.

For instance, nerf serpent's shooting, and most of Eldar falls in line. 6" on that shot would make it overpriced but workable. Hiking the price kills non-bike lists, and redesigning the game throws everything else off.

(The Stars would need nerfs too)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(White Scars would be nerfed into the ground because you can't take 10 model Biker squads, they cap out at 9... So they'll need 2 scout or Tac troop squads.)

Some of the issues regarding the balance of troops/elites can be solved simply by changing the objectives. If you need to hold objectives for a period of time, rather than just "at the end of the game", 3-man endgame jetbikers stop being a thing

Good thread. I don't agree with every detail but it's a fine start.

Thank you, Lord_blackfang. Not exactly issuing imperial decree here; just throwing ideas out there and hoping others will help me with their ideas. Wouldn't have caught on the the ravenwing/deathguard/Tyranid warrior army problems with my ideas on my own. I'm sure there is more problems I haven't spotted yet, and I hope others chime in. I'm willing to revise, revise and revise again and drill down on what will work and make the game more fun, easier and quicker, with an occasional nod to "realism" where possible.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't really expect consensus...just hoping for "Hey, that is a good idea!". Maybe developers will lurk through, and modify the next version of the game in a positive way. That is all I can hope for really.

 Madness! wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Warrior based nids could be fixed...by making it 10 wounds instead of 10 models...

Troop tervigons are still illegal. In addition you now force deathwing into 10-man squads and they can't combat squad which leaves them hindered in target saturation and return fire. The main problem with the 1 of any choice is that it assigns the same value of a riptide to a pyrovour, of wave serpents to rough riders, of screamers to dark talons, of night scythes to rhinos and so on.

Other issues that I have thought of include:
1. 10 wound troop choices kill MSU armies (unless you have combat squads and even then)
2. In general all troop choices are not created equal and thus emphasising troops simply re-orientes which codex is the most powerful.
3. not all units have equal value or synergy
4. While different you can still do things like 1 brood of 3 zoanthropes instead of 3 broods of 1. Yes it has different abilities but that is the point your limits reduce choice without looking at the reasons behind each units power.
5. biker armies still illegal
6. why are all supplements treated as equally bad. O'vesa stars are broken. crisis toops are not, Iyandan is not broken niether are the two SM supplements or inquisition (although highly biased and bad in implementation 55pt divination really?)
7. you do limit spam ability but not all spam is created equal ork horde spam is a lot different from landraider spam
8. alpha strike armies are removed (this is not a problem with the idea of the army it's a problem with the IGOUGO system)

I apologize if my post seem jaded or one sided (basing things off the 4 codexes I know best). I just feel that most of these changes do not address the real issues of the games cheese and poor balance

Likewise, under this system, Sisters are still banned. And even if they were allowed, they're pretty much forced to have no strategy in their army given their limited selection of units.

It seems to me that the goals presented are overly-ambitious for a tournament FAQ; small arms in 40k (plain, simple, ordinary bolters, shuriken catapults, lasguns, pulse rifles) are fairly weak; so long as the rules are such that there are units small arms can't actually hurt you can't really make line infantry very relevant.

Moving on from there, though, I do concede that there are some rules patches that would make the game run much more effectively; I do not, however, agree with the assertion that making non-Troops units 0-1 would help. It's indiscriminate, it doesn't solve the underlying problems with the units, it doesn't help with units that are broken by themselves, and it biases the game towards armies with more useful unit selections and/or better Troops. Specific changes to specific weapons, rules, and units would be significantly more useful; let's go through the most popular things to gripe about today:

Jetbike Seer Council. Fast, hard-hitting, very difficult to kill. Biggest problem: Stacking Conceal, Fortune, and Protect for rerollable 2+ cover, 2+ armour, and 4+ Invul. Simple patch: Only one Blessing power may be active on a unit at once. This doesn't hurt most less-psychic-dependent armies, it cuts you back to either rerollable 4+ cover/3+ armour/4+ Invul OR 2+ cover/3+ armour/4+ Invul OR 4+ cover/2+ armour/4+ Invul, not all three at once.

Markerlights: The gripe: Too easy to take away cover saves. Two successful 4+ rolls to hit and the next unit shooting at them doesn't care about cover. I agree with the assessment that changing it around to dropping the cover save by one for each Markerlight counter would be a good way to go about it; it's more granular and doesn't mess about with the paradigm of the game as much.

Revenants, D Weapons: Very simple patch: No Escalation. It was a dumb book in the first place; there's literally no good reason to have it beyond "we can sell more $500 FW models!". Leave the Superheavies and Destroyer weapons to Apocalypse. As a sidenote with these nerfs you've still left me with a 320pt Lynx, six hull points, 4+ Invul, the capacity to move as a Flyer if it doesn't shoot, and an 18" Torrent Hellstorm template that wounds on 3+ at AP2. Not to mention most Baneblade variants, a nine-hull-point Thunderhawk with a battle cannon and thirty angry Death Company in an Assault Vehicle, the nigh-unkillable Tesseract Vault with its cheapest and least terrifying gun being a Strength 6/AP2 Hellstorm template, and all sorts of other nightmarish horrors over years of Apocalypse and Imperial Armour rules.

Codex Supplements: Most of the supplements do almost nothing beyond moving one unit that shouldn't necessarily be Troops to Troops and adding some extra wargear that's usually not that useful. I'd suggest a compromise here; it's true that Crisis Suits in Troops are silly, but the Tau have some very limited options in Troops in terms of what they can actually stand a chance of killing. I'd suggest going to the Corsairs list in Mymeara and their system of permitting a single non-Scoring Wasp squadron in Troops per Corsair squadron; Farsight Enclave can get one non-Scoring Crisis team in Troops per Fire Warrior team, Black Legion can get one non-Scoring Chosen unit in Troops per CSM squad, etc.

The Farsight Bomb: Broader nerfs to Deep Strike being unlikely (you'd take away Deathwing as a playable force, for one thing), my idea on this one is to rewrite how Through Boldness, Victory works. Instead of just saying no Scatter when Deep Striking you place a marker on the board immediately following deployment; scatter it a full 2d6". If it lands in difficult or impassible terrain or within 1" of an enemy model it's lost. Once the final position of the marker is determined leave it in play, any friendly Tau unit deploying by Deep Strike within 6" of the marker does not scatter. This makes it riskier to pull off since you can lose the marker, it limits the utility of the rule since you can only pull it in one place, and it lets the enemy know where you have to land if you want to not scatter.

Dataslates: One per detachment, limit it to the parent army, and include an overhead charge. The idea here is to make them cool and interesting special formations you can take alongside the army but not make them crazily overpowered extensions to the army list; the Tau Riptide/Broadsides with Tank Hunters formation is a cool idea, but you've got to stick an overhead charge on it such that by the time you finish paying for your dataslate units, the cover charge, and the additional Elites/Heavy Support units you've opened up you'd be at the point where you could just as easily have taken a second detachment and purchased them the normal way.

Wave Serpents: Take away their Shooting attack and make no other changes, you've still got a well-armed and durable fast transport.

Unequal access to Flyers/Skyfire: This is honestly one of the biggest advantages of the Allies system; GW's not about to change their release model (I'm not going to go into that here) so allowing older Codexes to take a few units from the newer Codexes allows them to get in on the airplane game. I wouldn't argue, however, with permitting all Space Marine books equal access to Storm Talons (maybe with an exception for DA since they've already got an interceptor, though the Nephilim desperately needs S7 on its mega bolter and missiles) and Stormravens; most everyone else who isn't either Orks (who could use S7 Supa-Shootas), Tyranids (who need a gun with Skyfire), or Sisters of Battle (who need a plastic flyer, I recommend a plastic Thunderbolt with a baby version of the Marauder's flamer bombs) is doing fine.

Mission objectives: I would agree that the missions in the core rulebook aren't well-designed in terms of last-minute victory-snatching by super-fast Scoring units; GW has already published a better objectives system in Apocalypse 2013. At the end of every turn check on each Objective, the person who controls it gets a point. The most points at the end of the game wins. The biggest bonus, though, is the idea that you can gain additional benefits from holding Objectives; Apocalypse allows you to 'spend' VP to activate certain Strategic Assets. While that's not necessarily a perfect system having a game where one of the objectives is, say, the control room of a gun battery and the guy who holds it with a Scoring unit can have that unit fire the autocannon on top would be a fantastic example of a way to integrate objectives into the game more effectively. The problem is that this requires preparation and more careful mission-writing rules; this would require some thought/work.

Minimum Troops choice 10 models is a dumb idea; you cut out a lot of fluffy and interesting armies (Deathwing, Ravenwing, White Scars, and Saim-Hann being the most interesting but people have gone over this point above). I get that you're trying to avoid the army with ten naked Scouts, thirty Assault Terminators, three Storm Talons, and three Thunderfire Cannons, but the no-Troops army goes away the instant you cut down the scarily broken by comparison non-Troops units and rewrite the scenario such that objectives are more central for more of the game. If it's really bugging you, I suppose you could suggest increases to minimum squad sizes, though all that would do is make an already-expensive game more expensive and limit players' tactical options in smaller games.

 Madness! wrote:



Force Org changes: Minimum 1 Troop choice for every 500 points, and each minimum choice must have at least 10 models. Unnescessary.

0-1 on ANYTHING that is not a troop choice. Therefore you could have 3 Fast Attack Choices, just not 3 Heldrakes
(insert abusive unit here) This solves both Eldar and Necron transport abuse, as well as the triple-(abusive whatever)
problem. One abusive unit is a rough customer, but 3+ is ridiculous. Solves no problems. Most of those are dedicated transports. Also, 0-1 is far too limiting. 0-2 is more reasonable.

Allies: for fun only! Not at a competitive event!Absolutely. Allies do far too much damage in competitive play.



Top abusive unit nerfs:
1. D-weapons: Str 10 ap1 Ignores Cover, (Invulnerable saves are allowed) Hear, Hear.
2. Grimore of True Names: banned Fine. Painful for Daemons, but they shouldn't have to rely on one piece of wargear.
3. Marker lights - reduces cover by -1(doesn't stack) still boosts Shoot value(Ballistic Skill) per expended markerlight. Not stacking is stupid, it makes very little sense gameplay or fluff wise.
4. Revenant save reduced to 5+, and movement reduced to 12 inches per turn. Yes, it take three nerfs to rein this badboy in! You went a little too far. The revenant needs to be quicker than an average superheavy. Perhaps just 18".
5. DLCs and Codex supplements are banned from competitive play! Forgeworld test units, banned! Crisis suits as troops would be outrageous in CPE(Competitive Players Edition) Far too radical. You've banned allies, and nothing alone in supplements are all that abusive. Also, DLCs are fine.
6. Max squad size of 5 for bike version of the Warlock councilNot enough of a nerf. Remove the option for jet bikes from far seers altogether.

Buffs!:
1. Landraiders convert first Penetrating hit into a glance. Landraiders should not be first blood! Just awful. No real justification.
2. Imperial guard have supporting fire Ala' Tau. Infantry only though. Keep those types of rules codex-specific
3. Tyranid Warriors/Shrikes/Raveners are toughness 5 and 6 wound models are toughness 8. First rule, fine. Second, Broken.
4. Space Wolves get Space Marine Flyers...but must pay extra 2 ppm for extra close combat weapons on the Grey Hunters.
Blood claws are 1+(required) How is that a buff?
5. Kabalite armor(Dark Eldar) is a 4+ Save and Wych dodge works in shooting phase as well; Flickerfield is a 4++ invulnerable save which goes to 5+ if failed.Fine.
6. Sniper Rifles are +1 to BS, Pinning as well as Rending on a 4+. Rending on 4+ is too much, the rest is fine.
7. Leman Russes have 4 Hullpoints. Why, they aren't nearly as large as a land raider or monolith?.

I absolutely love the idea though.

Wow, excellent post AmonaderRake. In particular "one active buff per unit" would help to shift the game away from the buff/nerf heavy meta I dislike so much.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Some good ideas here. Though, it requires some codex rewriting which is not likely to happen soon.

Limiting slots is not a great idea cause there are some armies that will be severely crippled with such a limitation. For example, orks with battlewagons, sob with exorcists, etc. And this are definitely not top-tier armies. And if you disallow them to take multiple of this fairly effective (but not broken) units, the codexes will be reduced to being unplayable vs even remotedly ballanced lists.

So i see the problem in poor codex and general rules writing and not the force org system on the whole.

What can we do without rewriting a ton of rules and repricing/rearranging broken/underpowered units? I see one good decision that will help the ballance without hurting anyone. Limiting the use of most troublesome models for the appropriate ammounts.
Example:
Helldrake/Night Scythe - 1 model per 750 pts
Vendetta - 1 squadron per 750 pts
Doom Scythe - 1 model per 1000 pts
Riptide/Wraithknight - 1 model per 1000 pts
Wave serpent/Battlewagon - 1 model per 500 pts
Herald of Tzeench - 1 model per 900 pts (? not sure bout this one)

And so on.

Basically what you do is taking a troublesome spammable models and limit the max ammount of them that's possible to field in a game. Thus, you won't see 3 riptides/4 wave serpents/4 battlewagonz in a 1k pts game. This models are still very effective but are not spammed so this will also inspire more different combinations and not plain copy-paste win-lists.

When rules change this list can be easilly redone unlike gamewide changes. What do you think about such approach?

Basically when I read this I don't get "Competitive" I get, Nerf edition. I agree with you that changes need to be made, but you swing much too far in the other direction. You limit the number of good builds in each book, penalize armies with expensive troop choices, and overly nerf several things.

 Madness! wrote:
Competitive Player's Edition 2.0

Ideas:


Force Org changes: Minimum 1 Troop choice for every 500 points, and each minimum choice must have at least 10 models.
Imperial guard platoons count each infantry squad as 1 troop choice for these purposes. Double Force Org Chart on 2001+. Just NO, troops are fine as is, requireing more in this way makes armies with cheap troops much much better.

0-1 on ANYTHING that is not a troop choice. Therefore you could have 3 Fast Attack Choices, just not 3 Heldrakes
(insert abusive unit here) This solves both Eldar and Necron transport abuse, as well as the triple-(abusive whatever)
problem. One abusive unit is a rough customer, but 3+ is ridiculous. Again No, fix the abusive units, it has been pointed out that several armies (like sisters) have limited choices, and more have limited good choices, also hurts armies like SW or Daemons that are allowed multiple HQs in one slot, by limiting that advantage

Allies: for fun only! Not at a competitive event! Nope, allies are ok...if you want to restrict at all I would change battle Brothers to not allowing ICs to join other squads, but still counting as friendly

Warlord traits: Select them, except Special Characters whose are specifically listed. Psychic powers would still have to be
rolled for, because some of them are just too devastating to be guaranteed. To me this diminishes some of what you pay for in a special character, choice of warlord trait. I prefer the roll once on multiple tables thing, some warlord traits are really very good as well (borderline Broken), by rolling on multiple tables you diminish the chance of getting something useless while still diminishing some abuse.


Movement:
Running is done in the movement phase, but still precludes shooting without appropriate psychic power or USR) Eldar can still
do shoot, then run(instead of doing running in movement phase) I can see where this could speed things up, but it removes a lot of tactical options, maybe I want to run a unit infront of another to get cover after shooting you (and not giving you cover.) Maybe I want the option to shoot a bunch of units at a single unit, but if it dies I still want to be able to run those that have not shot etc...


Shooting:
Shoot values rather than Ballistic skill. I.E. instead of converting BS to what you need to roll just tell the player
what they need to roll. i.e. Ballistic Skill 6 is: 2+/6+ and Ballistic Skill 3 = 4+. Competitive players don't have a problem with the BS chart this change is not needed

The rest of the Shooting phase changes are more to do with "realism" than speed play. But other changes more than balance out the time factor.
1. Roll to hit
2. Opponent rolls saves
3. Number of Failed saves = rolls to wound.
4. successful wounds = casualties = removed from table

Elevated position: The enemy take cover saves at -1 when fired at by units 2 floor(6 inches) above them. NO to all of the above, it takes longer and there is no mathematical difference, as to the elevated postion thing, TLOS, you should not get a bonus if I am still obscured, if you see over things, you don't grant cover....

Assault:
No pile in moves at initiative. Everyone in the engaged unit within 6" inches of enemy fights.
Casualties are removed from rear by owning player(removing from base causes so much trouble!) not unlike 5th edition. Removing from rear, removes choice from where the wounds go, and strategy from the attackers placement. Really there is not a huge issue with how it currently works.

Failed assaults: unit moves forward X inches equal to highest die roll
for charge distance, like Warhammer Fantasy. Pile in only at the end of combat, if the enemy is not destroyed or running. Not needed but ok, I feel though that this would need a limit to actually being able to make the charge.

Challenge mechanic is for independent characters only...who wants to watch sarges fight it out?
The Big Boys are the ones who should be fighting challenges! Also, once per game. Challenges should be special,
not a thing everybody does all the time. So what about MC characters like DPs they are not independent. I am not a big fan of challanges, why not remove them entirely.



Top abusive unit nerfs:
1. D-weapons: Str 10 ap1 Ignores Cover, (Invulnerable saves are allowed) Just no to escalation, but if I were fixing D I would make it ignores invul, but give them varied strength values
2. Grimore of True Names: banned No, not needed, just make it Improves to 3++ max, far more balanced and fair
3. Marker lights - reduces cover by -1(doesn't stack) still boosts Shoot value(Ballistic Skill) per expended markerlight. Allow stacking, 2 lights removes 5+ cover, but if I have a 2+ cover save you need 5 lights to fully negate it...totally fair.
4. Revenant save reduced to 5+, and movement reduced to 12 inches per turn. Yes, it take three nerfs to rein this badboy in! again just no escalation Jervis himself said it was like Planetstrike...leave it to non-competitive games.
5. DLCs and Codex supplements are banned from competitive play! Forgeworld test units, banned! Crisis suits as troops would be outrageous in CPE(Competitive Players Edition) Character Dataslates OK...no to formations, or make them part of the regular FOC (if you take this combo in your FOC, you get X special rules), Supplements are fine.
6. Max squad size of 5 for bike version of the Warlock council NO limits are bad

Buffs!:
1. Landraiders convert first Penetrating hit into a glance. Landraiders should not be first blood! Why not, what happens when I glance it to death turn 1 with Gauss? Still fist blood. If you want to make a change it should be to the vehicle damage rules.
2. Imperial guard have supporting fire Ala' Tau. Infantry only though. NO, supporting fire is a bad rule, and IG squads are massive, having multiple blobs overwatch is crazy powerful.
3. Tyranid Warriors/Shrikes/Raveners are toughness 5 and 6 wound models are toughness 8. Still probably not, They don't all need toughness 8, and while I'd like to see warriors buffed, I think buffing units is the wrong way to go.
4. Space Wolves get Space Marine Flyers...but must pay extra 2 ppm for extra close combat weapons on the Grey Hunters.
Blood claws are 1+(required) No
5. Kabalite armor(Dark Eldar) is a 4+ Save and Wych dodge works in shooting phase as well; Flickerfield is a 4++ invulnerable save which goes to 5+ if failed. No
6. Sniper Rifles are +1 to BS, Pinning as well as Rending on a 4+. So sniper kroot, are BS4, and Deathmarks are BS 5? no thanks
7. Leman Russes have 4 Hullpoints. Meh

Essentially you don't have to make that many changes to make the game Competitive. Here is the short list of changes I think you would make to do so.

1.) Grimoir = max 3++
2.) Fortune = 4+ FNP
3.) Marker lights= -1 cover per light used
4.)Redact Heldrake 360 degree FAQ
5.) Serpent Shield needs a nerf. possibly make it 1 shot and then no shield at all after it is used, or remove scatter laser twin link from it.
6.) A unit may only be effected by 1 Tau signature system at a time. (So no ignores cover, twin linked, tank hunting)


For a start...your list reads more like "I think the game shoudl be played like x, rather than making the game competitive.