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.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:

I am taking from this you have never played in a Major GT. All of the major events have very defined terrain deployment that is balanced. Nova, Adepticon, all Frontline gaming events on the West Coast. .

Do I need to go to a major GT to have an opinion? Do I need to win one of those to have my voice carry any weight? Is that what you are saying?

DarthDiggler wrote:

Do I need to go to a major GT to have an opinion? Do I need to win one of those to have my voice carry any weight? Is that what you are saying?

To have an informed opinion on how the logistics and fairness of terrain interacts with a GT format... Yes.

No. What I am saying is that the majority of major events do place their terrain, and this is what I am referring too. You are alway entitled to your opinion. It's just a matter of how your opinion applies to the bigger picture.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:No. What I am saying is that the majority of major events do place their terrain, and this is what I am referring too. You are alway entitled to your opinion. It's just a matter of how your opinion applies to the bigger picture.

As has been shown Adepticon does not place their terrain. They didn't place it when I won the Gladiator at Adepticon, they didn't place it when I won the Team Tournament at Adepticon? I did not place terrain permanently when I ran the Adepticon Gladiator for two years and as you can read from Janthkin, they did not place it this year. Permanent placing of terrain, especially on the 'top table' where one person can play for several games in a row does not in any way constitute a fair and balanced approach. One player gets all the experience on a table, with past judges rulings fresh in their mind, while new players come onto the table wide eyed and behind the 8 ball.

It also makes the game very repetitive and boring. IMO this type of set up is not playing 40k, it's playing a hybrid game called Battle Points.

A few things, like 'pick warlord traits' 'no random charge rnages' 'no mysterious objectives' reminds me of times I've played people who griped about playing anything other than annihilation in 5th. The random elements can have a more than negligible effect on the game, and being able to adapt and take advantage of those variables makes for a more interesting experience.

Portugal Jones wrote:A few things, like 'pick warlord traits' 'no random charge rnages' 'no mysterious objectives' reminds me of times I've played people who griped about playing anything other than annihilation in 5th. The random elements can have a more than negligible effect on the game, and being able to adapt and take advantage of those variables makes for a more interesting experience.

I dunno... the issue is tourneys are not the same as 'interesting' casual play. Blood Bowl events have similar changes to the core rules where people can show up where they basically choose a 'skill pack' opposed to letting them end up randomly as games go on. This means you may end up with less interesting things like a Goblin with Block or a mutated minotaur, but it makes the game cleaner in a tourney format to just let people show up with that Black orc with Block by letting players choose thier skillpack.

I can see how there are very valid ways to restrict the core rulebook for tourney play. When trying to make something equal and fair across 256 participants, something can be set for taking some of the blatant randomness out of the system. I just don't thinkw e have determined which aspects are important and which are pointless filler rules which add nothing to the game. (like magical swamps)

keithb wrote:would TOs consider (for 2000+ points games) allowing the expanded FOC for Tyranids if they are going to allow allies for everyone else?

Why?

Has it been proven that Tyranids are underpowered in 6th edition?

Do we have to change rules now because some armies can do something some other armies can't?

Portugal Jones wrote:A few things, like 'pick warlord traits' 'no random charge rnages' 'no mysterious objectives' reminds me of times I've played people who griped about playing anything other than annihilation in 5th. The random elements can have a more than negligible effect on the game, and being able to adapt and take advantage of those variables makes for a more interesting experience.

I think that is a matter of opinion.

If you think that is more interesting, then you are entitled to that.

If you want a more balanced competitive event that runs smoothly, then I think a few things need to removed or changed (Though I am opposed to removing random charges.) For Example: How does a judge enforce any rules on mysterious terrain / random objects if the dice accidentally get removed / bumped and there becomes a disagreement as to what it was. We re-roll the effect? It suddenly switches from a positive effect to a negative effect and my game is highly disrupted. I don't think this is fun for anyone. I think there could be a way to make it work, but if that place cannot be reached, then removing random events from terrain and debris would be an acceptable to me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarthDiggler wrote:

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:No. What I am saying is that the majority of major events do place their terrain, and this is what I am referring too. You are alway entitled to your opinion. It's just a matter of how your opinion applies to the bigger picture.

As has been shown Adepticon does not place their terrain. They didn't place it when I won the Gladiator at Adepticon, they didn't place it when I won the Team Tournament at Adepticon? I did not place terrain permanently when I ran the Adepticon Gladiator for two years and as you can read from Janthkin, they did not place it this year. Permanent placing of terrain, especially on the 'top table' where one person can play for several games in a row does not in any way constitute a fair and balanced approach. One player gets all the experience on a table, with past judges rulings fresh in their mind, while new players come onto the table wide eyed and behind the 8 ball.

It also makes the game very repetitive and boring. IMO this type of set up is not playing 40k, it's playing a hybrid game called Battle Points.

I was mistaken about Adepticon, so my apologies on this, I was not there, so I shouldn't speak about it. Also, I agree with you that set terrain allows for the top table guy to have an edge. I mentioned this at the BAO and mentioned it should be random tables instead of numeric order based on standings.

I still think my point is valid and others agree, the Fortress of Redemption is to massive to be used in competitive play, but if the more seasoned TOs disagree with me I will accept this.

I am not saying it is my way or the highway, its far from it. I am just answering the question of the OP, with what I think will work for competitive play. For home games, we use all the randomness and it is good fun, but I have seen how much random tables can impact the game before it begins and that is a little scary to me for the competitive environment. I am also excited to see the list variety that can be opened up by allowing things like spells and warlord traits to selected. More available strategies lead to more viable armies, and I think that in the biggest picture that is what is best for competition; More viable armies.

Blackmoor wrote:

keithb wrote:would TOs consider (for 2000+ points games) allowing the expanded FOC for Tyranids if they are going to allow allies for everyone else?

Why?

Has it been proven that Tyranids are underpowered in 6th edition?

Do we have to change rules now because some armies can do something some other armies can't?

If it was a rule change it would be because *one* army can't do something every other army can. You're right in that it hasn't been proven they are underpowered (time will tell) but as the only army not to be able to take 8 Troops (ie scoring units) they do has a disadvantage from the get go.

Well i for one they don't ban anything.

I've just bought a freakin' Fortress of Redemption!

its in the rulebook so should be allowed as far as i am concerned.

Tyrnaids will be just fine in this edition, I think. Give it time, their power is in the more subtle rules.

I have been in communication with some of the big event TOs in America and everyone I have talked to is on the same page.

We're having a conversation as a group soon and I think the end result is going to be a Tournament Guideline that anyone can feel free to use.

For now, we want more data but I am relatively certain a lot of the random stuff is going to be marginalized or taken out as it is anathema to competitive play.

We'll seem but you guys can expect an organized front in at least the US tournament scene to try and galvanize things and keep the fun tournaments we all love going strong.

I would like to second that nids are better than people are saying. The secret, is gargoyles.

I for one will not go to any tournaments that just make up a bunch of house rules. If a TO wants to disallow Forts, then fine.

Let's not start picking and choosing what rules we do and don't want to follow. If you wanted to still play 5th the go back to that. Or 4th Ed for that matter.

Part of the fun in 40k is some of the random quirkyness, lets give the game a chance before we start hacking it appart into some other game. Just my 2 cents!

We don't want to change the game anymore than we need to, but some of this stuff just flat out is not suitable for tournament play. We don't want to rewrite the rules at all, really. It is a bummer that 100% of the TOs I have talked to feel like at least some of it needs to go.

While you like the randomness, and a lot of people do, it inherently makes a competition less fair when done the way it is in the missions, powers, terrain, etc. For people who look at the game as a competitive exercise, randomness is not as appealing as it may be to others such as yourself.

I think you can have fun playing the game both ways, but some of it is better suited for competitive play, some of it for casual play. That is what we are trying to figure out.

This is harsh but if you don't like random and want a competitive exercise, play chess.

The five objective scenerio needs work but most place don't use book missions anyways for scoring purposes (and with 18 missions it is unlikely an event will use all of them). Taking away random elements just gives an advantage to general who create a plan and stick with it. Random elements create an advantage for generals that are better at adapting to the unexpected.

Your assertion that randomness makes a competition less far is also incorrect. Randomness by its very nature is fair (assuming unweighted dice). It has just as much chance of increasing the difference between a good player and a less good player as it does of decreasing the difference. ( Except of course, I would also argue as above that adapting is a key skill so it actually is a bigger advantage for the good player over the bad but that is skill based and not random).

Finally I would strongly suggest you don't create a tournament guideline, at least not yet. All it will do is discourage others from trying some of the items you may not like. What is the benefit? You can run your tournaments anyway you like and if you all run them the same so be it but anything that is seen as trying to create a standard will cause more harm than good early on. You are creating a problem because you have a solution.

For the 10-16 player local tournaments I run, I will probably run them about the same. Make up my own missions based somewhat on point value of the armies. I will use some of the ideas available in the book, as that is what they are there for.

Random forests? Probably not.

Allies in large point tournaments, not in smaller ones. Same as I was doing with Named Characters. Probably the same with some of the Fortifications. Being that I advertise a local tournament at least 4 weeks in advance, this will allow non imperium armies to model something useful if they want to.

Since I have a 5th Ed tournament to run this weekend, I have not had a lot of time to read and test all the new rules. I have a couple months to sort it out.

I saw someone above suggesting that random charge ranges be removed from a tournament...obviously a TO is allowed to do anything they'd like, but I really think this is a poor idea. Having random charge distances is NOT in the same leage as random terrain, warlord and objective abilities.

Random charge ranges are a manageable random element, and most importantly one that both players equally have to deal with. Now that the game has pre-measuring, random charge ranges mixed with overwatch shooting removing the closest models means that whether or not you want to go for the charge actually beomces a real tactical decision based on the knowledge of what distance you are likely to be able to charge based on the bell curve.

This is very similar to the random nature of the cards in texas hold-em poker. You get your starting hand and sometimes you know your best bet is to go all-in knowing full well that there is almost always some chance that the remaining cards can cause your hand to be beat. However, good players know what the odds are, and as a good player you just put yourself in positions where the odds are strongly in your favor and if you get unlucky at that point, that's just the way things go.

However, I agree that random Warlord, terrain and objetive abilities are an issue and need to be removed. The reason why is because they create imabalance between players and games. For example, in one game a player could roll a really amazing Warlord Ability, really amazing objective abilities for the ojbectives on their side of the table, while their opponent can roll a terrible Warlord ability and terrible objective abilities for the ojbectives on their side of the table.

When this happens, a player can find themselves at a tremendous disadvantage in that game by absolutely nothing at all that he did. In other words, it is possible for the game to effectively be won or lost by a really crazy combination of Warlord, terrain and objective abilities, which is a poor evaluation of player skill. This is even more excaserbated in a W/L/D tournament format, because even one bad game means you're effectively out of the running.

However, I do think completely removing especially Warlord and objective abilities completely from the game is the wrong thing to do. While Warlord Traits can most certainly be used to make powerful unit combinations even more powerful, I think they also can allow some lesser unit combinations to actually become worthwhile when otherwise it would be questionable.

So personally I'd like to see tournaments either just allow players to pick their Warlord Trait before each battle, but some other optional ways to allow Warlord Traits without the randomness could be:

• Players have to pick a single Warlord trait to use for every game in the tournament (although this will likely compromise any trait that is tied to objectives as not every mission uses these).
• Players have to pick one Warlord Trait from each of the 3 disciplines, and then get to choose one of those 3 for each of their games.


Similarly, I think some of the mission objective abilities, especially the 'Skyfire Nexus' was designed as a way to get some extra anti-flyer mojo into the game and simply removing those rules completely therefore helps to strengthen flyers. Therefore, I think tournaments should dictate which objective abilities are in use in the missions, but they should still be included.

For example, all the objectives palced in the no-mans land (not in either deployment zone) could automatically be 'Skyfire Nexus' or you could even just say that all the objectives in no-mans land can be any objective ability the controlling unit wants it to be, chosen when the unit first moves into range.

But by assigning this ability to the objectives in no-mans land you still give flyer heavy armies a chance to control those objectives to deny their opponents the chance to use the ability.

I'm realy torn by this. I hate random game length but when I start going down the road about it being a big factor, some sarcastic friends (what better kind?) start to ask if I just want to take all dice out of the game and play chess.

Having digested it for less than a week, I don't like GW adding even more random factors to the game. Yes, I realize that every turn involves a ton of dice. But in a way that is my point. Lots and lots of blasting and whacking should even out the odds, but a single roll for a Warlord Trait or a Psy Power can change the game heavily.

I'm curious to see how some of the big events handle this and how players accept the new randomness.

@Steinerp

Sigh.

I am so, so tired of this argument.

But, here we go again.

Random, when applied equally to everyone SOUNDS fair, but in application within the context of this specific game, it is potentially very unfair.

Why?

Random objectives: Mine blows up, yours twin links your guns. Please explain to me how this is fair.

Your answer: Because it could happen to either player.

My response: True, but it didn't. Now you have an advantage that you gained through sheer luck, and I have a disadvantage I got through sheer luck.

Now compound this with multiple, similar variables (and their are tons in this rule set) and you can end up with a situation where you have lost before the game starts.

That may be wacky, wild fun to you, but to me it isn't.

In a competitive environment where victory is decided often by tiny advantages and a lucky toss of the dice here or there, huge starting advantages like these can and will decide the game before the players have done anything. When two players of equal skill and equal lists meet, these wacky, random events will tip the scales unfairly.

That isn't fun or fair to people with the mindset I just described. We want a level playing field where skill determines victory as much as possible. The old system favored flexible play, too, no plan survives contact with the enemy as the saying goes.

And I do play Chess, but I prefer 40K. I can accept a certain level of randomness (it is fun), but I like to play the game a certain way, and lots of people agree. You may not, which is totally fine and I respect your opinion.

Maybe you should organize a GT and you can run it the way you think best. If a lot of people like your ideas, they will grow the way ours have and then everyone wins as there are a multitude of events to go to.

Given current army lists it is a huge advantage to go first but we can't play two games with each opponent alternating who goes first in tournament to ensure fairness either. I don't think Warlord, Psychic, or other random effects on a game make it any less competitive than the roll to go first or the roll to see if you hit or not. It's a dice game, it will be random. I think being able to overcome what the dice do to you is more telling of your gaming ability than trying to make the most level playing field and roll more over average than your opponent does. I'm not arguing for or against anything I just want to be sure that we don't lose flavor in the interest of being the most fair. I am more likely to have a bad tournament game with a boring mission/game than a TFG/tabling.

The same dice that roll the perfect combo of Warlord and Psychic traits for your opponent will also roll him a snake eyes on that Turn 5 charge... just watch. It's a dice game.

@Yakface

Ninja'd me!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Bladewalker

You are helping our point, actually.

That first turn is huge, now, bigger than ever before.

Now one guy gets that, 3 objectives or beneficial objectives, beneficial night fight, and the game goes the right length for him.

He is most likely going to win before you have done anything. These variables stack and can add up to a huge advantage/disadvantage before you have even moved a model.

Yes, if you are the Napolean of minis maybe you can overcome this, and it is gratifying to do so, but more often than not it means you just lost because of nothing you did. That pisses people off so much, as a TO I know the worst thing you can do is have an auto-loss mission as people get (justifiably) upset by this. These rules make almost every mission have the potential to create auto-loss scenarios.

That just isn't fun. At least not to me.

Reecius wrote:Random, when applied equally to everyone SOUNDS fair, but in application within the context of this specific game, it is potentially very unfair.

He's right, though -- randomness is inherently fair, precisely because it's random. Your argument isn't about fairness, really; what you (and I) want is a tournament environment which relies predominantly on skill rather than luck to choose its champions. In order to provide this environment, we do as much as possible to reduce the role randomness plays in determining which players win their games: we set terrain with an eye for equality in each deployment zone; we modify or eliminate rules that give weight to randomness; and we build tournament systems which allow good players a way to win bad matchups.

Is it unfair that I might roll 57 results of a 1 in a single game? No; it's random, and it could have just as easily happened to my opponent. Good tournaments understand that the only way to provide a dynamic play experience that rewards skill above anything else is to include a limited amount of randomness into each game -- otherwise we'd be using charts to see how many of my 12 BS4 weapons hit rather than rolling dice.

One example of limiting the role of randomness in tournament play is the fact that the Golden Throne Grand Tournament will use rules for Mysterious Forests, but the first time either player rolls on the chart all forests on the board begin using that rule. The final result is still random, but it affects both players equally and therefore the more skilled player should be able to deal with it more effectively.

Lets be honest and open.

Game Workshops makes a game called Warhammer 40k.They have released a 6th edition of the rulebook.

Run your tournaments anyway you want but if you decide on your own to not allow ALL of the rules in it please do not associate the game made by Game Workshop called Warhammer 40,000 with it.... It's not honest, not trying to piss anyone off but it's the truth.

I do not care how big or how long you have had your tournaments running, there is no middle ground and using such words as balance or avoiding "randomness" sounds silly considering the game content.

If you are not "up" to handling the rules as they are written in the 6th Edition rulebook (ALL of them) just admit defeat and do something else like chess or checkers...

I for one will skip any tournament whose organizers pick and chose which rules they will allow.

If someone wants to bring their own terrain they should be allowed to use it. Crying "that's unfair is rather inane since they spent points on it. That was the whole idea after all..

If I run a tank heavy force do I get to cry "that's unfair when it turns out my opponent has a lot of lascannons in his force?

You either allow allow of the rules or you do not, if you do not how can you say you are running a 40k tournament?

Getting rid of random warlord traits... I don't know. At least give them a try first?

I feel like having a set warlord trait is going to make for some scary, scary warlords... some of those benefits are insane!

Imo, on warlord traits- random or nothing. Hope you playtest it thoroughly before coming to a decision on what you want to do with that one, Reece.

@Rob

I did state that I was willing to accept a certain amount of randomness in the game, and that I also felt it was fun. However, with a system that has it built in in determining the results of actions that is more than enough for the reasons you stated.

With your example of the random terrain that can be true, but there are other variables to consider, too. For example, what if the player only has a forest to use for cover but a detrimental result is rolled that really hurts their army but doesn't hurt the other army (static shooting units getting hit every turn in a forest for example, vs. a mobile army that doesn't care) you still don't have a situation where the more skilled player wins. If they had the exact same terrain and the exact same army, you would, but 40K is diverse on purpose and therefore, you get inequities like this that just aren't fair.

I agree with you that we all strive for fairness as a goal, but these random effects by their very nature are unfair.

As someone who mostly does local tournaments, what about these ideas?

Warlord Traits : Roll on the table, you are permitted to add or subtract 1 with the 1 wrapping around to 6.

Roll 1 tends to be the opposite of roll 2. If you get either, you get what you want. If you didn't want 3 or 4 (again, they are likely paired abilities), you can do 2 or 5.

Mysterious Terrain: Take advantage of the rulebook option to roll once for the entire table and have all forests fit that description. The TO could even have an official 'your game is Brainleaf Forest and Industrial Ooze' when they setup teams.

Allies: Just let it happen. They look gamebreaking on paper, but it's not like players had 300 points laying around that they could eliminate without caring. A farseer and minimum guardian squad sounds like a winner, but those 200-250 points have to come from somewhere!

As someone who plays armies off the curve (CSM, Daemons, Tau), it's my opinion that by removing randomness from the game that you set the power curve in favor of certain armies.

Need to control the center of the board? You just biased assault. Make Nightfighting predetermined? You just biased towards Tau and Dark Eldar.

The missions like Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring are to punish players who take overly specialized list. No Fast Attack - How do you overcome it? Does your Heavy Support bleed kill points - how do you overcome it?

Truthfully, every tournament I've seen I look at the format and can immediately see that some lists are just biased favorably.

@RiTides

Oh, it's not just my decision, trust me. We are listening to a lot of input and we are waiting to get some meaningful data, first. No one wants to just shoot form the hip on some of this stuff before seeing how it plays out in practice, even some of the random stuff. I just see potential for very un-fun games with it, is all and I am voicing my opinion.

As with Warlords as you pointed out, you can get some crazy bonuses where the other guy gets nothing at all....not exactly fair.

@Reecius
I suspect you are correct that you are correct when you say "first turn is huge, bigger than ever" By your argument isn't it unfair that someone gets first turn due to a single die roll? I am willing to bet that the win percentage modifier in people who get turn 1 would turn out to be larger and more significant than any warlord or terrain result.

The inverse of your argument about first turn, night fight and random game length is, someone gets turn 1 but is hurt by night fight and game length that his opponent gets. By taking away these other random elements, you are making the remaining random elements even more important. You are decreasing the number of random elements but not their overall importance.

Feth wrote:Lets be honest and open.

Game Workshops makes a game called Warhammer 40k.They have released a 6th edition of the rulebook.

Run your tournaments anyway you want but if you decide on your own to not allow ALL of the rules in it please do not associate the game made by Game Workshop called Warhammer 40,000 with it.... It's not honest, not trying to piss anyone off but it's the truth.

I do not care how big or how long you have had your tournaments running, there is no middle ground and using such words as balance or avoiding "randomness" sounds silly considering the game content.

If you are not "up" to handling the rules as they are written in the 6th Edition rulebook (ALL of them) just admit defeat and do something else like chess or checkers...

I for one will skip any tournament whose organizers pick and chose which rules they will allow.

If someone wants to bring their own terrain they should be allowed to use it. Crying "that's unfair is rather inane since they spent points on it. That was the whole idea after all..

If I run a tank heavy force do I get to cry "that's unfair when it turns out my opponent has a lot of lascannons in his force?

You either allow allow of the rules or you do not, if you do not how can you say you are running a 40k tournament?

Really, bro? Come on, this is way, way too far out on the fringe. You are being ridiculous.

Almost no tournament has run straight 40K out of the book, ever. In 5th we got as close as we have ever gotten (and we started out running nearly straight book missions in our events, but had to modify them for fairness and to nearly universal appreciation by our attendees), but pretty much every tournament I have ever been to or read about has modified the game in some way. Whether it be a comp system, sports system (none of that is in the rules) paint system, modified missions, etc. the game just isn't designed for tournament play out of the box.

Reecius wrote:As with Warlords as you pointed out, you can get some crazy bonuses where the other guy gets nothing at all....not exactly fair.

I agree, but I have to point out the other side- like any table GW makes, some items on the table are a lot better than others, because the idea was to roll for it.

If you just let people choose, then outflanking armies are going to have all their units with acute senses, deathstar unit armies are going to have their key unit buffed with counter-attack / furious charge / whatever they need...

I just think that if you're going to change warlord traits, you need to get rid of them entirely.

As an example: my drop pod army could choose to reroll all my reserve rolls. This would enable me to get in almost everything, unless my opponent happens to have taken the -1 modifier trait, since it's on a 3+ now, right? And reroll my troops to delay their coming in to claim objectives... all without having to pay for it.

I just feel like being able to count on what warlord trait you're getting, defeats the point of warlord traits, and it would be better to just bar them rather than let the person choose. You'll also have logistical problems at a large event where people haven't chosen, or haven't noted it on their army list to show which one they're taking, etc.