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.

Is anyone else getting frustrated with the ever growing gap between popular 40k tournament formats and the actual official game rules?

I have always been frustrated by edition and codex changes that make me change my list to meet wysiwyg requirements but trying to fullfill current accepted tournament rules and keep a fluffy lit is driving me crazy. I don't even feel that they are even the same game anymore.

I've stayed pretty clear of the tournament scene for 40k for a number of reasons. Main above those being that I just don't think I'd enjoy the hobby that much more just because I want to play in a competitive field.

That's not to say I haven't looked into them a few times, but I always find their rule changes to be frustrating or potentially game breaking. Like one I ran across where psychic buffs could stack over and over, all I could think about was Demons of Tzeench with 2+ rerollable invulns due to Cursed Earth...

40k is just not playable in a tournament setting without modifications.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
40k is just not playable in a tournament setting without modifications.

What makes it not playable without modification?

 Swabby wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
40k is just not playable in a tournament setting without modifications.

What makes it not playable without modification?

Eldar, mostly.

I wouldn't be so quick to point the finger at our pointy eared friends, Mr. Robot.

 Swabby wrote:

What makes it not playable without modification?

All of the broken or unclear rules?

Or, more precisely, all of the stuff that you're seeing changed for tournaments.



40K in its current form is fine for casual play with people you know well, where you can freely chop and change the rules to suit yourselves, or can fill in all of the grey areas with no trouble on account of all of you wanting more or less the same thing from the game.

For pick up games, or tournament play, it's a mess.




Having said that, tournaments don't always change rules just because they have to be changed. A lot of tournament rules changes are made just to create a specific type of event, particularly where changes to army construction rules are involved.

Personally, the consensus in my 40k gaming group has been that adding tournament-style fixes, clarifications and house rules has made the game more enjoyable for all of us.

For example, our Imperial Guard player would groan when the Dark Angels hit the field packing Black Knights w/ a Librarian for Invisibility. Being totally immune to his plethora of blast and template weapons (very vehicle heavy list), they'd roll up the board and fold his army like so much paper. After a quick fix to make it BS1 instead of snap shots, much like ITC does it, he can actually play games against the Ravenwing and not feel totally outclassed. It's still a powerful spell - but not one that seems inconsistently powerful compared to other ones.

I'm certainly not saying that moving towards a "more competitive" rules set is the way to go for everybody, especially when it's hard to find a consensus on what's a good fix or even what needs fixing. But for our group, coming to a general agreement on some things that ought to change and finding smart people online who have done the work of fixing them has worked out very well indeed.

EDIT: and you KNOW our "local meta" isn't very competitive when we're having to nerf Dark Angels to pair them with Guard

 Swabby wrote:
Is anyone else getting frustrated with the ever growing gap between popular 40k tournament formats and the actual official game rules?

I have always been frustrated by edition and codex changes that make me change my list to meet wysiwyg requirements but trying to fullfill current accepted tournament rules and keep a fluffy lit is driving me crazy. I don't even feel that they are even the same game anymore.

Most tournament restrictions are fairly minor. A limit on the number of detachments, and to varying degrees restrictions/changes to Invisibility, D weapons, rerollable 2++ saves, and SH/GC units, and restrictions on Forgeworld (which many still seem to be OK with even over all these other things...) and in the grand scheme of things, most armies honestly aren't affected by these, except those specifically looking to build around and abusive things like Invisibility or 2++ rerollable saves (and such armies generally wouldn't even have been built if such abuse wasn't possible in the first place).

By far the bigger issue is the myriad of small differences between different tournaments.

That said, as others have noted, and as GW itself will straight up tell you (and has), Warhammer 40,000 is not a game designed or intended to be a balanced wargame for use in competitive, organized events. It's a narrative sandbox to play with plastic army men and space bugs.

For those wanting to play 40k in an organized, competitive event, changes are necessary to get it to function and to avoid certain things simply making the event pointless for certain players to attend.

Insaniak I can see making rulings to clarify on issues that GW has not done so themselves, but we are now in a situation where people are making arbitrary decisions on the way units function based on subjective perceptions.

There are now perfectly legitimate fluffy armies that are stigmatised by the community as well as an entire codex that is worthless in certain tournament formats.

We are no longer playing the same game and it is causing divisions in communities.

 Swabby wrote:
Insaniak I can see making rulings to clarify on issues that GW has not done so themselves, but we are now in a situation where people are making arbitrary decisions on the way units function based on subjective perceptions..

40K tournaments have been doing that in one way or another since 40K tournaments started, way back in the '90s.

The only reason it's so much more apparent now is that the current state of the game has much more polarised views.

 Swabby wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
40k is just not playable in a tournament setting without modifications.

What makes it not playable without modification?

I can plop down a reaver titan.
I can take Riptides, Wraithknights, Knights and a Revenant titan in the same army.
ME and my opponent agree at the table how much terrain there is and if we are using points or force org at all.
Mealstrom is gak
If I felt like it we can do a "Roll off to see if I win"

 Swabby wrote:
Insaniak I can see making rulings to clarify on issues that GW has not done so themselves, but we are now in a situation where people are making arbitrary decisions on the way units function based on subjective perceptions.

There are now perfectly legitimate fluffy armies that are stigmatised by the community as well as an entire codex that is worthless in certain tournament formats.

This is nothing new, there have been entire legal and perfectly fluffy armies banned before for multiple editions. Just about anything from Forgeworld (e.g. DKoK Siege Regiments, Ork Dread Mobs, etc), Chapter Approved Kroot Mercs or Armoured Companies, etc. Furthermore, there have been restrictions on many units/wargear in the past, even going back to 2E, where things like Virus Bombs and Vortex Grenades often were banned, and Special Characters disallowed for most events during 3E and 4E.

 insaniak wrote:

 Swabby wrote:

What makes it not playable without modification?

All of the broken or unclear rules?

Or, more precisely, all of the stuff that you're seeing changed for tournaments.



40K in its current form is fine for casual play with people you know well, where you can freely chop and change the rules to suit yourselves, or can fill in all of the grey areas with no trouble on account of all of you wanting more or less the same thing from the game.

For pick up games, or tournament play, it's a mess.




Having said that, tournaments don't always change rules just because they have to be changed. A lot of tournament rules changes are made just to create a specific type of event, particularly where changes to army construction rules are involved.

Problem is I don't see anyone changing rules to make balanced play, but I frequently see people excluding certain armies by default (Covens and Harlequins are frequent victims of this) or by intent (usually Eldar and Necrons). Another constant problem with this system is a refusal to adapt any new mechanics until some new mechanic to gripe about comes along. I can't count the number of tourneys that I saw excluding fliers and fortifications once upon a time. The scapegoats du jour are Formations and Destroyer attacks, although multiple detachments and allies in general are still on the list.

This is the only game I know like that. Imagine how ridiculous you'd think a M:tG group was that disallowed the current sets, except for cards which were just reprints of old ones.

One or two restrictions are fine, if you feel like you need to. But when you see a list like 'no D, no allies, one detachment, battle forged, no formations, CAD only, no more than 2 of each unit, no 2++ rerollable, max 10 psychic dice, no e codexes and no supplements," it just gets silly.

If you feel like one or two rules need tweaking, swell! But if your list is getting to be a list, you might want to think about whether this game is for you.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Swabby wrote:

What makes it not playable without modification?

All of the broken or unclear rules?

Or, more precisely, all of the stuff that you're seeing changed for tournaments.



40K in its current form is fine for casual play with people you know well, where you can freely chop and change the rules to suit yourselves, or can fill in all of the grey areas with no trouble on account of all of you wanting more or less the same thing from the game.

For pick up games, or tournament play, it's a mess.




Having said that, tournaments don't always change rules just because they have to be changed. A lot of tournament rules changes are made just to create a specific type of event, particularly where changes to army construction rules are involved.

Problem is I don't see anyone changing rules to make balanced play, but I frequently see people excluding certain armies by default (Covens and Harlequins are frequent victims of this) or by intent (usually Eldar and Necrons). Another constant problem with this system is a refusal to adapt any new mechanics until some new mechanic to gripe about comes along. I can't count the number of tourneys that I saw excluding fliers and fortifications once upon a time. The scapegoats du jour are Formations and Destroyer attacks, although multiple detachments and allies in general are still on the list.

This is the only game I know like that. Imagine how ridiculous you'd think a M:tG group was that disallowed the current sets, except for cards which were just reprints of old ones.

One or two restrictions are fine, if you feel like you need to. But when you see a list like 'no D, no allies, one detachment, battle forged, no formations, CAD only, no more than 2 of each unit, no 2++ rerollable, max 10 psychic dice, no e codexes and no supplements," it just gets silly.

If you feel like one or two rules need tweaking, swell! But if your list is getting to be a list, you might want to think about whether this game is for you.

MTG has far more defined tournament formats. You're not showing up expecting to tournament expecting to possibly face literally anything ever made for Magic the way you are in a 40k tournament (or, in the few formats where you might, they typically have limits on how many you can bring). Magic has numerous different formats with inherent restrictions, and WotC does occasionally actively ban certain cards. WotC does active and extensive playtesting (at least relative to 40k), and actively manages tournaments and tournament rules.

If you're showing up to a Type2 magic Tournament, you absolutely have restrictions, in that you can only play cards from certain sets for example. If you're playing EDH, you can't have duplicates and there's a ban list. Magic is just as managed and pruned, if not moreso, than even the most restrictive 40k tournament.

I think the Unbound method of army construction, as part of the rules, is interesting. I wonder how many tournaments use it.

Vaktathi, who is defining the tournament format for magic? My understanding (havent played since ice age mind you) is that WotC has official tournament rules.

Jimsolo pretty much said what I wanted to say, only better.

This edition of 40k is the closest to what I remember 40k being like when I first started and with rare exception I cant even play it because people are practicing for tournaments or actually playing a tournament with all these opinion driven rulings.

You will see its often not just opinion of voting aswell

 Swabby wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
40k is just not playable in a tournament setting without modifications.

What makes it not playable without modification?

The fact that GW did not design a game where it is intended that any army will have an actual game against certain other armies.

40k and MtG are a poor comparision for tournament games. MtG is designed for competitive play between two people using the published rules, whereas 40k is self-described in the BRB as:

Pg. 8, Introduction (the first page of text): At it's heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between fellow hobbyists.

Pg. 14, The Spirit of the Game: Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just a framework to support an enjoyable game.... Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this [player ideas, drama, creativity] allows ; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.

If MtG were like 40k, it would be a game where card collectors could share the experience and richness of collectible cards that they painted themselves. I bet if each of those 60 cards took you 10-20 hours to prepare as a hobby, you'd be a lot more attached to each card, and you'd view the game as something different than "buy cards, build deck, play game"

So, no, if someone wants to make a more competitive game out of 40k in a tournament, ** by all means **. It practically says that the game designers intended the rules to be bashed up to fit specific purposes -- like tournaments. Besides, I'm not really quite sure what's so sacrosanct about playing a game with exactly Rules as Written. What made the BRB so awesome and perfect that it should NOT be modified -- any more than that a friendly group of MtG players might houserule certain restrictions so that their less-competitive family members can enjoy casual multiplayer games in a social rather than competitive setting?

 Swabby wrote:
Vaktathi, who is defining the tournament format for magic? My understanding (havent played since ice age mind you) is that WotC has official tournament rules.

You are correct, WotC has official tournament rules.

Games Workshop does not.

In fact, Games Workshop has repeatedly stated that they do not intend 40k to be a tournament game. Tournaments are people pushing a square peg into a round hole.

At the one event GW actually holds that has actual rules that could be called a tournament, Throne of Skulls at Warhammer World, they don't even call it a tournament, and winners are chosen from amongst the players with the most "favorite game" votes (so if you won all your games, but only got 1 or 2 "favorite game" votes, then you aren't even in contention to win, and the guy who may have only won a single game but had 3 "favorite game" votes will place above you). This event has no restrictions, and anything is allowed (unbound, experimental FW rules, Titans, infinite detachments, etc) but also requires everything to be painted, WYSIWYG, and completely GW product.

Outside of this, GW doesn't run events, and all these other tournaments are run by independent organizers. One could make the case very strongly that the fundamental nature of their events is out of sync with what 40k is, and that they should adapt to something more akin to the Throne of Skulls, but if they want to run older 2E/3E/4E/5E/6E style "tournaments" (as opposed to "gaming events"), then restrictions and changes to make the event functional and not a complete stomping of 2/3rds of the attendees are required.

This edition of 40k is the closest to what I remember 40k being like when I first started and with rare exception I cant even play it because people are practicing for tournaments or actually playing a tournament with all these opinion driven rulings.

Again, nothing new unfortunately. Want to know how many games I got with any of my DKoK or other FW stuff in 4th or the beginning of 5th edition? Almost none.

What made the BRB so awesome and perfect that it should NOT be modified -- any more than that a friendly group of MtG players might houserule certain restrictions so that their less-competitive family members can enjoy casual multiplayer games in a social rather than competitive setting?

The prevalence, in some areas, of playing "PUGs" (Pick-Up Games) where you've never met the other player before, and otherwise have nothing but the BRB, as written, to go by as expectations for how the game is played.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Swabby wrote:

What makes it not playable without modification?

All of the broken or unclear rules?

Or, more precisely, all of the stuff that you're seeing changed for tournaments.



40K in its current form is fine for casual play with people you know well, where you can freely chop and change the rules to suit yourselves, or can fill in all of the grey areas with no trouble on account of all of you wanting more or less the same thing from the game.

For pick up games, or tournament play, it's a mess.




Having said that, tournaments don't always change rules just because they have to be changed. A lot of tournament rules changes are made just to create a specific type of event, particularly where changes to army construction rules are involved.

Problem is I don't see anyone changing rules to make balanced play, but I frequently see people excluding certain armies by default (Covens and Harlequins are frequent victims of this) or by intent (usually Eldar and Necrons). Another constant problem with this system is a refusal to adapt any new mechanics until some new mechanic to gripe about comes along. I can't count the number of tourneys that I saw excluding fliers and fortifications once upon a time. The scapegoats du jour are Formations and Destroyer attacks, although multiple detachments and allies in general are still on the list.

This is the only game I know like that. Imagine how ridiculous you'd think a M:tG group was that disallowed the current sets, except for cards which were just reprints of old ones.

One or two restrictions are fine, if you feel like you need to. But when you see a list like 'no D, no allies, one detachment, battle forged, no formations, CAD only, no more than 2 of each unit, no 2++ rerollable, max 10 psychic dice, no e codexes and no supplements," it just gets silly.

If you feel like one or two rules need tweaking, swell! But if your list is getting to be a list, you might want to think about whether this game is for you.

\\

The problem is with GW's business plan. They are notorious for power creeping while at the same time saying nothing for what is happening. This isn't anything new. Last year like 5 books came out that were very strong and then it got to Nids which was a complete dud that removed tons of units and was seriously weak compared to everything else. GW spent the next year fixing it with minor release after minor release. All the books from Nids to DE have been much weaker by comparison than the ones previously.

They essentially just did the same thing with Decurion and Eldar Hosts. The Eldar is a great example of them very obviously changing their long term strat at how to get people to buy models. Codex power level is nearly 100% math. They gave round the board buffs to units with no change in points costs dramatically increasing their power levels of units. Wraithguard have near the same durability of terminators in most situations and had a Str 10 range weapon vs the terminators power fist. They are near in power level. With the new book they got a essentially 3X damage increase yet remained the same points cost which is like 8 PPM below a terminator. Worse still is the divide created by adding Strength D to a basic unit. Strength D is significantly stronger against vehicles. It essentially ignores armor value and causes multiple wounds. Now any vehicles without a save has become vastly weaker to any vehicle with one. All those cheap jinking units are much more durable than an expensive land raider. All of this would have been acceptable if WG were repriced accordingly.

Here in lies the problem. Since Necrons release there is a now new baseline of what is the standard price vs power level for each unit. There are like 10+ books that have to catch up to that standard. If you have a weaker army, you are essentially going to have to wait things out until you next book is released. With some armies like IG their stuff is barely a year old, it could be two years before they see another book. Worse still, is by that point GW may have decided to go in a different direction again and go back to weakining stuff.

GW has a bad balance track record. This is why tournaments do what they do. They are modifying the game and collecting same data to ensure things remain fair and everyone can still play. GW doesn't really do that, they just want you to buy stuff. You are right to say that GW games might not be for people that don't like the way things are with their codex books. However, in the same vein if don't like the way a tournament is handling things those might not be for you. You can always set up your own with your friends.

NedTCM, the way I see it, some of these rules are having the exact opposite of making sure everyone can still play.

If I purchase an army without any knowledge of the tournament rules there is a very good possibility that I would not actually be able to play in the tournament based upon choices made using the actual rules. That is what doesn't seem right to me.

 Swabby wrote:
NedTCM, the way I see it, some of these rules are having the exact opposite of making sure everyone can still play.

If I purchase an army without any knowledge of the tournament rules there is a very good possibility that I would not actually be able to play in the tournament based upon choices made using the actual rules. That is what doesn't seem right to me.

It's been a reality the game has dealt with however since the 90's and just about every edition.

You played Squats? Too bad, GW stopped supporting them. You played a Kroot Mercs army in 4E? Well they stopped allowing them after a couple of years. You built *any* army using a Forgeworld army list...ever? Well, even now, only a few events allow these, and even then they only allow the ones published since 7E's release. I can't take my 2013-published Imperial Armour 12 DKoK Assault Brigade to any major tournament in the US for example that I'm aware of.

Some of these restriction are absurd and ridiculous, some of the changes really are appropriate. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that GW is not putting out balanced rules, is not keeping rules updated or fixing anything obviously broken or contrary to what they really intended, or even doing basic FAQ's anymore.

I'd recommend learn the restrictions of the tournament you are going to attend before you show up for it. Because if you don't, it's kind of your fault, not GW's, not the TO's.

Feel free to disagree, but forewarned is forearmed.

SJ

 Swabby wrote:
NedTCM, the way I see it, some of these rules are having the exact opposite of making sure everyone can still play.

If I purchase an army without any knowledge of the tournament rules there is a very good possibility that I would not actually be able to play in the tournament based upon choices made using the actual rules. That is what doesn't seem right to me.

You are of course right. There is always going to be a give in take. In both situations you are relying on someone else to come up with what is fair.

The only thing I could said is that tournament rules are usually vetted by the majority, mostly for people that care deeply about the game. And they are much more fluid and go with the flow with changes to the game. It is very likely that GW cares more or solely about making money. And they are very slow to FAQ obvious problems that exist. Some good evidence is their former employees leaving GW and starting companies saying just that.

That doesn't mean that GW is always wrong. A real triumph for GW is that in the Necron codex is most of the units are improved to the point of being useable everywhere except maybe one or two and that is really what GW should be doing with its books. It just they tacked on Decurion which gives you huge bonuses if you buy a minimum of models that you normally wouldn't field. A rather blatant money grab.

Like I said though you could always run your own tournament with friends. That is the only place you are going to find rules that everyone you know will find acceptable.

nedTCM wrote:

 Swabby wrote:
NedTCM, the way I see it, some of these rules are having the exact opposite of making sure everyone can still play.

If I purchase an army without any knowledge of the tournament rules there is a very good possibility that I would not actually be able to play in the tournament based upon choices made using the actual rules. That is what doesn't seem right to me.

You are of course right. There is always going to be a give in take. In both situations you are relying on someone else to come up with what is fair.

The only thing I could said is that tournament rules are usually vetted by the majority, mostly for people that care deeply about the game. And they are much more fluid and go with the flow with changes to the game. It is very likely that GW cares more or solely about making money. And they are very slow to FAQ obvious problems that exist. Some good evidence is their former employees leaving GW and starting companies saying just that.

That doesn't mean that GW is always wrong. A real triumph for GW is that in the Necron codex is most of the units are improved to the point of being useable everywhere except maybe one or two and that is really what GW should be doing with its books. It just they tacked on Decurion which gives you huge bonuses if you buy a minimum of models that you normally wouldn't field. A rather blatant money grab.

Lets not forget the absurd overbuffing of Wraiths, and "so cheap they might as well be auto-included" Tomb Blade upgrades

 Swabby wrote:
If I purchase an army without any knowledge of the tournament rules there is a very good possibility that I would not actually be able to play in the tournament based upon choices made using the actual rules. That is what doesn't seem right to me.

True, but you can have problems outside the tournament scene too. People will start to come up with reasons to not play your perfectly rules-legal überkillerlegion after being tabled a few times, or watching others get tabled. Some armies are just chanceless against certain others from the start, and adding allies and Unbound doesn't really help if you don't have the money or don't wish to play anything but your favorite army.

Personally I know I'll have more fun just packing my models and going home than facing, say, Necrons with more than 3 Wraiths for example. I'm probably not the only one.

Spetulhu, it doesn't even need to be an uber list. I could think imperial knights looked cool right now, sink 600+ bucks into the army, and then find out I couldn't even play it at a tournament because now they are all lords of war.

I have yet to actually run into TFG that takes leafblower style lists to a pick up game who sticks around in any community for long.