A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning

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.

**Sidstyler**

Experiment 626 wrote:
So much Daemon hate... I coulda sworn this was actually a Fantasy thread, until someone mentioned Taudar/Eltau.

Feth, and here I thought being a Daemon player couldn't possibly make me any more of a pariah.
Apparently though, Screamerstar is now considered to have completely 'broken' 40k.

Try being a Tau player, it's much worse. Not only do you still have the pariah thing going, but it's lasted literally since their release in third edition and hasn't relented. There are people on a near daily basis arguing that Tau shouldn't even exist, even though they've been in the game for over a decade now, before even getting into the rules...but no one has ever wanted them to have competitive rules, either, because it means losing to "dirty Tau" and the possibility of seeing them on the table more than they'd prefer (which is never).

Marine players don't think any other army in the game should be anything more than fodder for their bolters. To this day Marine players are still sour about fire warriors having a better basic gun than theirs, even though fire warriors never get used and are in the running for one of the worst troop choices in the game.

At least as a Daemon player you don't have to put up with stupid, bs arguments about how your army "doesn't belong" like I do. No one in their right mind would argue that daemons have no place in 40k, lol.

**Experiment 626**

Sidstyler wrote:
Experiment 626 wrote:
So much Daemon hate... I coulda sworn this was actually a Fantasy thread, until someone mentioned Taudar/Eltau.

Feth, and here I thought being a Daemon player couldn't possibly make me any more of a pariah.
Apparently though, Screamerstar is now considered to have completely 'broken' 40k.

Try being a Tau player, it's much worse. Not only do you still have the pariah thing going, but it's lasted literally since their release in third edition and hasn't relented. There are people on a near daily basis arguing that Tau shouldn't even exist, even though they've been in the game for over a decade now, before even getting into the rules...but no one has ever wanted them to have competitive rules, either, because it means losing to "dirty Tau" and the possibility of seeing them on the table more than they'd prefer (which is never).

Hey now, I love Tau!
Not only are you guys funny looking fish-goat-people, but your sheer ignorance of the true horrors of the galaxy, (especially Pink Horrors who shoot better than you!), whilst arrogantly looking down your collective noses at humanity & even the Eldar as 'superstitious barbarians' is absolutely hilarious!
How can I hate a race that makes me chuckle so much?! I mean, you guys tried to negotiate "for the Greater Good" with the Tyranids!

Sidstyler wrote:
Marine players don't think any other army in the game should be anything more than fodder for their bolters. To this day Marine players are still sour about fire warriors having a better basic gun than theirs, even though fire warriors never get used and are in the running for one of the worst troop choices in the game.

At least as a Daemon player you don't have to put up with stupid, bs arguments about how your army "doesn't belong" like I do. No one in their right mind would argue that daemons have no place in 40k, lol.

Marine players in general I find get grumpy when any Xenos race/Chaos player hands them back their shiny power armour on a smouldering platter... Notice the first initial comp ideas for Feast of Blades? All aimed squarely at Daemons first and foremost, with hints of likely nerfing Tau & Eldar as well (and Helldrakes, just keep Chaos under their booted heel).
Yet nothing to harm Hammernators or Grav-gun spam. (not that I believe those things are broken in any way, but it's more the principal of the matter)

All through 5th Xenos got bent over backwards by the Imperial war machine, with Orks being the only ones to really make a go of it. But now that we have our own toys it's a whole different matter.
Where was the outrage and cries for 'balance' when GK's basically invalidated both Daemons & Tyranids and pretty much reduced Orks to just their Kanwall?! Oh right, all the ones crying for comp now were playing GK's, or SW's or IG - go figure.

**Sidstyler**

I mean, you guys tried to negotiate "for the Greater Good" with the Tyranids!

I don't recall that ever happening. Source?

But anyway, yeah, 5th edition was the most "balanced" the game has ever been, but there's no denying that it was heavily in favor of Marines/Guard. They had the most and often the best updates, while xenos either went through the entire edition with no update at all or got a gakky non-update that left them worse off than they were (Tyranids, Dark Eldar)...Necrons were the only exception and even now they're really not that great anymore. Xenos sucked a fat one, but all the IoM books were pretty balanced with each other (at least until GK fethed everything up). I still think that if every race was updated in 5th, and all were given equally competitive rules (instead of the Marines getting the best of everything and the game designers suddenly forgetting how to do their jobs when it comes time for a xeno book) it would have been the best edition. It still had problems but I think they were relatively easy fixes...hull points wouldn't have been an unwelcome addition I don't think, would have helped reign in "parking lots" without making vehicles crap.

**Matt.Kingsley**

Honestly, the no Escalation, No Strongpoint and no more than 2 'dexes would be a good starting point.

The only other thing I'd add would be 2+ re-rolls are changed to a 2+/4+ save.

While, as a daemons player, I may be biased, but that many daemon nerfs? we aren't Taudar level OP! WE have like 2 good lists, both relying on the 2+ re-roll gimick. Yep, nerf every daemon list because of 2...

**Breng77**

Elric Greywolf wrote:
Alright. I'd vote against your comp, then, based on both these sample lists. And I'll say why:

As to the GK list, with a Grand Master you can make D3 additional units scoring. This makes a GK player able to get by in a game with less Troops than other armies. I've already got up to four scoring units (with Combat Squads), and now I can add another PAGK unit and/or Dreadknight(s)?
Pouring points into my Troops is, in this meta, a silly option. I have very expensive Power Armour (20pts/model), and my other choice is Termies (40pts/model, no Storm Shield option). With all the plasma and grav-guns running around, I may as well just sweep my expensive models off the table. Sure they're good at shooting...but when a Command Squad can pop out of a Drop Pod and annihilate my 450pt troop choice in one round of gravity goodness, I wouldn't say that's a good option. Protecting them in a LR means I've already used up 14% of my Heavy option at 1850, or 13% at 2000. I should be taking Psyflemen and Dreadknights, but I can't because of the flex problem. I NEED SUPPORT, from HQ and Elite and Fast and Heavy, and I need the ability to get more than 25%.

And with Daemons:
Let's just stick with mono-Khorne lists, since no one's throwing fits about playing against them. Khorne Dogs is a tactically viable option that definitely doesn't need any nerfing. Yet at 1850 I'm limited to 28 Hounds (34 with 5% flex), meaning I can't even get two full units! Lame. ALSO, if I want to take two Heralds on Juggernauts (one for a Hound unit, one for my Juggernauts unit), Karanak, and a Bloodthirster for my HQ choices (again, pretty common and pretty expected at this point), that'd put me at ~38% in HQ, which I can't do. Lame.
And finally, I'd need at minimum 47 Bloodletters in order to satisfy the 25% Troops. That's not actually so hard to do with Khorne....
But if I'm playing Slaanesh, I'd need at least 52 Daemonettes. And that's getting into silliness, forcing me to spend so many points on such a weak choice when I have much better options to sink points into, like Sleralds, Keepers, DPs, Chariots, and Fiends.

My point is that some armies depend on NOT TROOPS to make a good list.

Marines in general have solid Troop choices. But Daemons? You definitely need lots of support from other FOC slots, especially the HQ slot (which you can't flex). This type of flex will nerf ANY Daemon list, not just the Tzeentch Flying Circus.

And if we look at an Eldar build....
At 1850, you can still fit in 3 Serpents with Scatter Lasers and Holo Fields at <=25%. At 2000 and sans Holo, that bumps up to 4. Is that better than 7 Serpents? Sure. Does it still count as Serpent Spam? Maybe, since it will still take an ungodly amount of Str7+ shots to destroy 3-4 Serpent Shields; and if it does still count, your comp is fairly pointless!

You've fixed the RIP Tide, the Flying Circus, Serpent Spam (maybe). But you haven't fixed ScreamerStar or SeerStar.
I can still take 2 Farseers and 4 Warlocks at 1850, or 2 and 5 at 2000. While it's certainly not quite as formidable without the Baron, it's still as survivable as what's currently being run. 6 rolls on Divination and Fate is all that's needed to get that re-rollable 2+.
I can still have 9 Screamers and three PML3 Tzeralds with Grimoire at either 1850 or 2000. Now admittedly, I won't be backing that up with DPs...but it's still a 2++ re-rollable most of the time, which is what everyone's so cheesed about in the first place.

It is fine that you don't agree...nor do I think it is perfect...however you are quite wrong on a lot of points.

Troops thing for GKs...um...so it stops 12 point henchman spam...otherwise the list you put up already had 460 points of troops...so at 2k we are talking about 40 points of troops....so you throw one hammer into each squad and psybolts on the second squad....or take a couple min henchman because you have cotaez....hardly a large change. Now does it stop some lists again yeah it does. Does it hurt Daemons (most of which run around with 2x 10 troops and a Portaglyph) yeah a bit...but not the to point where they are unplayable....

As for Serpent spam so 3 or 4 is not better than 5-7? I think we will have to disagree here...3-4 is manageable (if they keep shields up they have no S7 shots) because if I kill 1-2 it is a big deal.

Haven't fixed screamer star...yeah I can take 3 Lv 3 heralds...but no Fateweaver, which means 1/3 turns I will fail the grimoir...I play it that way now and it makes a sizable difference...furthermore you lose auto warpstorm re-rolls which allow for the possibility that the unit will get hurt by -1 Invul save, or instability tests (either on Heralds or the unit....)so yeah I'd say it is hurt quite a bit..

Seercouncil you mentioned no baron which means they can be tarpitted...and to get that 2+ re-rollable you need to roll protect on warlocks (which with 4 warlocks is about 52% of the time, and 60% with 5), you lower the chances of 2+ re-rollable...remove their 2++ re-rollable making them more vulnerable to AP2 and ignores cover, and chances are they won't have multiples of some of the good powers (like the armor save buff) which means any perils or failed LD 8 check can be devestating.

So I have to disagree with your assessment.

again I know it is not perfect but the "oh I cannot run x list" is a bad defense honestly.

**wowsmash**

Honestly the more and more discussions I read on this topic the more I'm convinced that 40k is unsalvageable and they just need to scrape the whole thing and start from scratch. If you tweek something somewhere it breaks something somewhere else. Maybe its time to hit the reset eh.

**PanzerLeader**

wowsmash wrote:
Honestly the more and more discussions I read on this topic the more I'm convinced that 40k is unsalvageable and they just need to scrape the whole thing and start from scratch. If you tweek something somewhere it breaks something somewhere else. Maybe its time to hit the reset eh.

I wouldn't say its unsalvageable. 40K has the richest back story for a non-historical game and the most diversity in terms of army/unit choices for any system. We just need to keep in mind that GW does not design 40K to be a tournament game. They look at it from a "complete hobbyist" stance where the modeling, painting, fluff, and actual game play are all more or less equal in importance. The allies matrix no doubt sprang out of a "Wouldn't it be cool if we gave our players rules on how to refight these famous campaigns?" moment. There are lots of really good things going for the game and as long as both players are of roughly equal skill, the game itself is still pretty competitive.

That said, because of the diversity in 40K you don't ever see a traditional meta coalesce like you do in Magic or Warmachine/Hordes. All the models in Warmachine/Hordes can only be bought in specific configurations with fixed rules. There is no element of chance in the pre-game stages, so you know you’ll always get your specific combinations. Players don’t even have the options to buy units in odd numbers (you buy either the small size or the large size). This makes it very easy to game out the strongest lists with the best array of counters to other popular builds.

Instead in 40K, you see the emergence of lots of local metas based on how groups play at their FLGS. The west coast guys who post here seem to play against a majority of Eldar/Tau combinations. The Dallas area is still strong with CSM and Necrons armies and the Austin area requires more of a TAC approach because it has a huge diversity of players. This also means there is no universal right answer on comp. It instead comes from discussions on the local level about how you want to play the game and what is/is not right for your group. My local store has an entire thread going on how we’re going to run our next tournament from a composition and missions stand point on our own local forum http://battlefieldgamestexas.hoop.la/topic/bfg-will-host-a-40k-tournament-jan-18-2014 and the general consensus for us right now is to us our version of alternate scoring and to just not allow “D” weapons.

Ultimately, 40K is a communal hobby. Local groups and TOs will need to have honest discussions about what makes a fun, competitive game and you’ll see huge variation across the country. There is nothing wrong with that. If you want a no holds barred competitive game, then Warmachine/Hordes is for you. 40K requires a little more patience, but the diversity and the ability to build/convert/paint and, ultimately, play your army however you want is well worth the minor headaches for me.

**Breng77**

PanzerLeader wrote:
wowsmash wrote:
Honestly the more and more discussions I read on this topic the more I'm convinced that 40k is unsalvageable and they just need to scrape the whole thing and start from scratch. If you tweek something somewhere it breaks something somewhere else. Maybe its time to hit the reset eh.

I wouldn't say its unsalvageable. 40K has the richest back story for a non-historical game and the most diversity in terms of army/unit choices for any system. We just need to keep in mind that GW does not design 40K to be a tournament game. They look at it from a "complete hobbyist" stance where the modeling, painting, fluff, and actual game play are all more or less equal in importance. The allies matrix no doubt sprang out of a "Wouldn't it be cool if we gave our players rules on how to refight these famous campaigns?" moment. There are lots of really good things going for the game and as long as both players are of roughly equal skill, the game itself is still pretty competitive.

Except I don't see this as true at all....their models are so far superior to their rules it is not even funny....so if they put in the effort to design such great models...and then put comparably no effort into thier rules how does that work out? This mantra of "GW did not design a tournament game" is such garbage....it is an excuse to put out terrible rules. I also think you give GW too much credit for being fluffy...I'm pretty sure the allies matrix grew more out of "How can we sell more models" than it did out of How can we give players rules to fight these campaigns. Also as long as both players arae of roughly equal skill, and bring roughly equal lists, and have roughly equal terrain etc...then the game is competitive...

**PanzerLeader**

Breng77 wrote:
PanzerLeader wrote:
wowsmash wrote:
Honestly the more and more discussions I read on this topic the more I'm convinced that 40k is unsalvageable and they just need to scrape the whole thing and start from scratch. If you tweek something somewhere it breaks something somewhere else. Maybe its time to hit the reset eh.

I wouldn't say its unsalvageable. 40K has the richest back story for a non-historical game and the most diversity in terms of army/unit choices for any system. We just need to keep in mind that GW does not design 40K to be a tournament game. They look at it from a "complete hobbyist" stance where the modeling, painting, fluff, and actual game play are all more or less equal in importance. The allies matrix no doubt sprang out of a "Wouldn't it be cool if we gave our players rules on how to refight these famous campaigns?" moment. There are lots of really good things going for the game and as long as both players are of roughly equal skill, the game itself is still pretty competitive.

Except I don't see this as true at all....their models are so far superior to their rules it is not even funny....so if they put in the effort to design such great models...and then put comparably no effort into thier rules how does that work out? This mantra of "GW did not design a tournament game" is such garbage....it is an excuse to put out terrible rules. I also think you give GW too much credit for being fluffy...I'm pretty sure the allies matrix grew more out of "How can we sell more models" than it did out of How can we give players rules to fight these campaigns. Also as long as both players arae of roughly equal skill, and bring roughly equal lists, and have roughly equal terrain etc...then the game is competitive...

I think the quality of the models and the codices (the non-rules section) really underscores my point, actually. GW invests the bulk of its capital on generating a brand. Look at how many people buy codices just to read the fluff and enjoy the artwork. Look at how many people buy models just to convert/paint something cool. GW's main focus on 40K is not on the rules. It's on the brand as a whole and the brand includes the fluff. Not in a "GW designers are super fluffy" sense but in a "how does the story enhance the brand" sense. I think if GW actually understood how much money it could generate off the major tournaments, it would invest more resources into the rules. Take the Clan Raukkan supplement for an example. They spent a lot of time generating company specific fluff that could have been spent writing rules to make dreadnoughts viable again. If they were so focused on the bottom line, wouldn't they have jumped at the chance to make the super dreadnought force with cheaper, better dreadnoughts (maybe even the ability to make them scoring) that benefit from the Iron Hands chapter tactic? Of course they would have because dreadnought sales would have gone through the roof as everybody scrambled to keep up. I think we attribute too much of GW's moves to "bottom line" focus because we want them to be rational. I think we're kidding ourselves a little if we overlook the more likely fact that they make some irrational rules because there is an institutional legacy from the game developing as something the designers did to have fun while hanging out and drinking.

**Breng77**

I'm not doubting them wanting to sell their brand I'm doubting that they put any effort into rules that is on par with the other part of their buisiness...and the rules are simply used to move models....my whole thought is Apoc already allowed what you are saying...the only reason to make it "official" is to sell books and models.

**Veteran Sergeant**

insaniak wrote:
jathomas wrote:
]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.

Seriously. I don't think anyone is surprised about the power of D weapons.

They just understand that there was a time and place for D Weapons, and it was called Epic. When people wanted to play games of Epic at the 40K scale, and FW could make the monies selling giant overpriced kits, GW made Apocalypse. Everyone knows that Apocalypse is ridiculous, and everyone arrives with the expectation of a lot of massive units that erase one another from the board in spectacular explosions, and that everything which isn't ridiculous will be smeared off the map hilariously.

I think when people want to go to tournaments, it's at least with the expectation that everything your opponent has will be both at the same scale as what you brought, and also in the same price range.

Imperial Guard can field a Shadowsword for around $100. By comparison, the cheapest unit a Space Marine player can field with the D is around $550 dollars. There's a massive disparity there.

If you couldn't use your Titans and Superheavies at a tournament a few weeks ago, why is everybody suddenly upset about it now? I can see how some things seem a bit nitpicky if they're banning specific units and combos, but let's be realistic. 6th Edition has been the most "Hey check this out" Edition since Rogue Trader, and Rogue Trader was not balanced, nor was it supposed to be competitive.

If a tournament feels it needs to "house rule" out certain combos, that's both in the spirit of the game (which has mentioned that concept since the beginning), and in the spirit of competition. We all know 40K isn't supposed to be competitive, and never has been. But we all also know (hence this forum), that people are going to compete with it anyway because there are enough people out there who like to win at things. So it's up to those people holding the competitions to decide what the rules are. And getting feedback from the player base is important, since they are the ones who participate.

**JGrand**

Honestly the more and more discussions I read on this topic the more I'm convinced that 40k is unsalvageable and they just need to scrape the whole thing and start from scratch. If you tweek something somewhere it breaks something somewhere else. Maybe its time to hit the reset eh.

You think this way because these daily comp solutions are unnecessary, short-sighted, and convoluted. The game needs a small number of macro fixes:

-No Stronghold Assault and Escalation
-Limit the amount of FOC breaking stuff (do something with Inquisition/Data Sheets; limit players to two total codices)
-Maybe address the re-rollable 2+ save

Boom. The game is fine. I'd argue that 6th edition is more fun and more balanced than 5th. People who complain about Tau/Eldar (and to a lesser extent, Daemons) obviously never played 5th during the reign of GK. Now, is it necessarily "fun" to play against Seer Council, Serpent Spam, Generic Taudar, FMC, and Screamerstar? It depends. Lots of tourney players like playing with good lists against good lists. "Fun" and "balance" will always be subjective. The re-rollable 2+ is only really an issue because it is lame to have unkillable units. SOTW may put a stop to this in a few weeks anyway, so there isn't a need to do anything quite yet.

I don't think going through the game unit by unit is productive. It leads to far too much subjectivity. I'm by no means a purist for the game that GW "intends". Quite frankly, it seems that even GW is far more lax about which rules must be used than many dogmatic players are. However, just because we control the direction of the game as tourney goers and organizers, does not mean that the whole game must be re-written. Start with minimalist solutions--none of this percentile crap.

**muwhe**

The game needs a small number of macro fixes:

@JGRAND - That may or may not be the case for 40k as it sits right now. The long term issue is that Stronghold Assault, Escalation, supplements along the lines of Inquisition, and selections ignoring the FOC etc… didn’t just happen in a vacuum . As 40K moves forward there is a strong chance that more and more of this will be integrated into the core of the game and it will get more difficult to backrev into whatever past version of 40k that suits our existing comfort zone.

Definitely interesting times … and with change comes opportunity .

**Leo_the_Rat**

JGrand wrote:
The re-rollable 2+ is only really an issue because it is lame to have unkillable units. SOTW may put a stop to this in a few weeks anyway, so there isn't a need to do anything quite yet.

That would be great for Nid players but the rest of us would still have to "suffer" through it. So, I don't see that as a solution for the vast majority of players.

**Breng77**

That really depends...if Nids are competitively viable, and in large part shut down psykers in some way....then taking lists relying on them is a large gamble. So it will make those lists less common.

**KommissarKiln**

With all these things I haven't really learned about yet causing these disagreements, I'm a bit surprised that nobody complains about the Nids' Doom anymore. Are other things just that much more broken, or is spam S8 all too common (or both)?

**stormboy97**

[
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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually strongholds will be the best balancing factor the game has seen, you can do almost anything with them. Need airdefense, get a couple of upgraded firstorm redought with a trench in-between them.
Your a HTH army, buy some void sheilds to give you some cover to get across the board. (What do you mean my tau CHIP commander dose not ignore void shields)

oh no its jeetseers or screemers, sit in your fortress of redemption and laugh at them as you sistimatically gun their troops down, last turn jump out of your escape tunnels to claim objectives.

JUST DONT USE D-WEAPONS.

stronghold is what is going to save the game.....There...I SAID IT.........

its to hard to set up ...............NOT...............

Treat it like a tank shock, move the terrain the shortest distance to allow the placement of the fortifications.....not hard , takes 1 secound.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And inquisition is so powerful why??????

It is a codex, who cares, special inqusition rules. Why dont we ban the ELDAR CODEX, OR TAU CHIP COMMANDER??????

actually GK and inqusition are the hard counters to screemers and jetseer council, you would think people would want to use them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jathomas2013 wrote:
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?!)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dosnt the BRB say to place fortafications and then terrain?

Setting up fortafications is easy if the terrain is preset, treat it like a tanks shock and move the terrain the shortest distance to place the fortafication or multi fortafication.

EASY , takes one minute.

**sgtpjbarker**

I really enjoy the amount of new kits that GW has produced and other games can't touch them in this regard. The tournament setting is a losing battle because of this. We all want cool new stuff, which making a balanced game near impossible. I would not trade a balanced game for that very reason. I just love the new Kill team rules and the new rule books and the tons of variety that has blossomed of recent. Trying to fix that is really a no win situation. I have played more fun games than not, so have at it, try and balance the game, the moment you do, they will release a new codex. New models, and new rules to mess it all up. Again, three cheers for the new units, down with the tournament balance.

**Ravenous D**

Lovechunks wrote:
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

I like it as an easy fix but as a competitive gamer I think stronghold assault is alright for the most part.

Don't get me wrong ban the crap out of the networks and the gross ass Av15 buildings, the rest is fairly normal, and it updates how buildings are used. Void shield generators are nasty but there is lots of ways around them.

**Therion**

I think it would be hilarious if a future codex would have a strength D weapon. It'd be so fun to see how the tournament scene would deal with that.

Muwhe brought up the most important point. It's uncertain as of now but the players might have to end up changing their ideology a little bit. What if a year from now we have 4 more rulebook supplements and 14 more army list supplements? There's bound to be a lot of wacky stuff in there. Do we just decide that we'll keep rollbacking to october 2013 when everything was so balanced and fun and you didn't have to ban or restrict anything? How about in two years?

It's not a small macro fix anymore if you're banning more rules than you're allowing.

**Thokt**

It's a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that anyone will be banning more rules than they allow. That would be incredibly difficult.

I think in the future we can expect the same reasonable, cautious approach we've seen from TOs thus far. The consensus beyond the specificity of issues like D weapons, data slates, and 2+ rerollables is that the reigns of 40k may need be grabbed by the player base from time to time.

**Therion**

Thokt wrote:
It's a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that anyone will be banning more rules than they allow. That would be incredibly difficult.

I think in the future we can expect the same reasonable, cautious approach we've seen from TOs thus far. The consensus beyond the specificity of issues like D weapons, data slates, and 2+ rerollables is that the reigns of 40k may need be grabbed by the player base from time to time.

When's the last time 40K was comped so specifically that an entire weapon type, two supplemental books filled with official rules, many official army list extensions (dataslates), and particular invulnerable saves or the items and abilities that grant them had to be banned? I for one can't remember that time and I've been around this game for 21 years now. There's been a lot of comp scoring and sportsmanship scoring for sure, but no bannings of this magnitude, especially as its almost certainly going to get worse in the sense that the stuff you need to ban will keep increasing instead of decreasing.

**DarthDiggler**

Stronghold assault is very balanced. Just ban the d weapons. I'm not sure if it is from ignorance when someone posts

Just ban stronghold assault

As Stormboy97 said, stronghold assault allows underutilized armies, tactics and units to be used effectively.

**juraigamer**

There is no need to ban per say, only adjust.

First of all, if GW actually was releasing FAQ's, we'd be mostly fine.

Currently, the grimore needs to adjust the daemon USR invul save by +2 or -1. This allows the warp storm to still do it's magic.

The tau support systems need to simply only work for models from codex:tau empire.

Finally all D weapons are str 10 ap 1 ignores cover, and on a roll of 6 to wound cause instant death.

Suddenly everything fine, now stop being WAAC players with allies and gak.

**JGrand**

When's the last time 40K was comped so specifically that an entire weapon type, two supplemental books filled with official rules, many official army list extensions (dataslates), and particular invulnerable saves or the items and abilities that grant them had to be banned? I for one can't remember that time and I've been around this game for 21 years now. There's been a lot of comp scoring and sportsmanship scoring for sure, but no bannings of this magnitude, especially as its almost certainly going to get worse in the sense that the stuff you need to ban will keep increasing instead of decreasing.

Stronghold Assault and Escalation are more akin to things like Cities of Death and Planetstrike, and GW has said so themselves. Again, even GW isn't that dogmatic about what "official" 40k rules entail. There is no reason we should be.

**Therion**

JGrand wrote:
When's the last time 40K was comped so specifically that an entire weapon type, two supplemental books filled with official rules, many official army list extensions (dataslates), and particular invulnerable saves or the items and abilities that grant them had to be banned? I for one can't remember that time and I've been around this game for 21 years now. There's been a lot of comp scoring and sportsmanship scoring for sure, but no bannings of this magnitude, especially as its almost certainly going to get worse in the sense that the stuff you need to ban will keep increasing instead of decreasing.

Stronghold Assault and Escalation are more akin to things like Cities of Death and Planetstrike, and GW has said so themselves. Again, even GW isn't that dogmatic about what "official" 40k rules entail. There is no reason we should be.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree but I'm really curious why you (and some others) feel it's a better approach to ban rules and army list supplements completely rather than making a few micro fixes on the actual rules that are causing you headache? Strength D, AV15, re-rollable 2+, allied special abilities and skills giving bonuses to battle brothers, etc? To me your approach stinks of stagnation and preventing the game from going to forward (or any direction GW intends it to go to) as it's all about "I like the game as it stands, can deal with some of its inconsistencies and imbalances, and don't want anything new added to it".

**Thokt**

Therion wrote:
Thokt wrote:
It's a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that anyone will be banning more rules than they allow. That would be incredibly difficult.

I think in the future we can expect the same reasonable, cautious approach we've seen from TOs thus far. The consensus beyond the specificity of issues like D weapons, data slates, and 2+ rerollables is that the reigns of 40k may need be grabbed by the player base from time to time.

When's the last time 40K was comped so specifically that an entire weapon type, two supplemental books filled with official rules, many official army list extensions (dataslates), and particular invulnerable saves or the items and abilities that grant them had to be banned? I for one can't remember that time and I've been around this game for 21 years now. There's been a lot of comp scoring and sportsmanship scoring for sure, but no bannings of this magnitude, especially as its almost certainly going to get worse in the sense that the stuff you need to ban will keep increasing instead of decreasing.

When's the last time any of the events that provoked these reactions from TOs happened? It's unprecedented. You cannot deny the ridiculous nature of D weapons, 2+ rerollables, and the Tau Dataslate. This year has been insane!

**Therion**

Thokt wrote:
Therion wrote:
Thokt wrote:
It's a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that anyone will be banning more rules than they allow. That would be incredibly difficult.

I think in the future we can expect the same reasonable, cautious approach we've seen from TOs thus far. The consensus beyond the specificity of issues like D weapons, data slates, and 2+ rerollables is that the reigns of 40k may need be grabbed by the player base from time to time.

When's the last time 40K was comped so specifically that an entire weapon type, two supplemental books filled with official rules, many official army list extensions (dataslates), and particular invulnerable saves or the items and abilities that grant them had to be banned? I for one can't remember that time and I've been around this game for 21 years now. There's been a lot of comp scoring and sportsmanship scoring for sure, but no bannings of this magnitude, especially as its almost certainly going to get worse in the sense that the stuff you need to ban will keep increasing instead of decreasing.

When's the last time any of the events that provoked these reactions from TOs happened? It's unprecedented. You cannot deny the ridiculous nature of D weapons, 2+ rerollables, and the Tau Dataslate. This year has been insane!

Please follow the discussion a little bit further than the last reply. I responded to the person who said this is business as usual for the TOs. I said that I for one can't recall a time when TOs had to ban as much as people are now demanding to be banned, and I stand by my argument that if you take that approach (and I haven't said that I necessarily disagree with it) the list of stuff to ban will only keep increasing. I'm not calling it the slippery slope but I am saying you should understand what you're doing when you decide some army list supplements and some rules supplements are entirely illegal while others aren't. For a community that accepted flyers when noone had skyfire and the near extinction of mono-codex armies in their entirety it's nothing short of a U-turn in philosophy.

**UlrikDecado**

Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Honestly, the no Escalation, No Strongpoint and no more than 2 'dexes would be a good starting point.

Yes, because why to analyse which LoW/ forts are actually really imbalanced and which can be played? Just ban anything new and add some things you dont like from old stuff. Problem solved!

Luckily, TO would be wiser in putting restrictions.

**Sidstyler**

UlrikDecado wrote:
Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Honestly, the no Escalation, No Strongpoint and no more than 2 'dexes would be a good starting point.

Yes, because why to analyse which LoW/ forts are actually really imbalanced and which can be played?

Because it's more "fair" than just banning the revenant and letting everyone besides Eldar bring their LoW's.