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.

 Therion wrote:

 Centurian99 wrote:

 Illumini wrote:
Why do people want to ban all the fortifications in stronghold? None of them are no-brainers, but many of them are really good for many armies. Several might give some armies a chance in competitive play they normally wouldn`t have

I don't know. I'm not sure either - I think its because people see the AV15 fortifications with D-weapons and they think its all like that. But the rules changes themselves are quite valuable (and make more sense and are clearer than the main rulebook), and the non-Massive Fortifications seem fairly well balanced. The only other questionable thing may be the fortification units, but I think the points costs will make those non-viable competitively.

Basically, I think people are just scared to say, "we should include part of Stronghold Assault."

Just like they are afraid to say "we should include part of the superheavy units", and just like people in Europe used to ban all named characters for years and years (both 40K and FB) while Americans used all of them, because truth be told most of them sucked. If someone lazy has a problem with a Revenant, he bans all superheavies. If someone has a problem with a macro cannon, he bans the whole stronghold assault book. If someone has a problem with Mephiston or whatever, he bans all named characters.

Just go further back in history where many tournament organisers released detailed comp packs about what was allowed and what wasn't (and some still do). Don't blanket ban anything. Invest a bit more time and effort in the job. The goal shouldn't be balance, but better balance, and it won't take a committee of 5 experienced tournament players more than a day to come up with an army restrictions draft that will make the game playable.

Personally I'm getting the feeling that most of the (premature) panic is actually just about the strength D and how it removes Screamerstars in one hit. I wonder if people would consider a 900 point Revenant still horribly overpowered if all strength D was just comped to be S10 AP1 (or AP2). It has the same survivability as a bunch of Chimeras in cover, but costs an absurd amount of points, so clearly only the firepower is a problem.

+1

There is also a lemming phenomena that happens. If a few Internet celebs say the sky is falling, then a healthy percentage of lemmings will cry the sky is falling with them. They won't bother to look up themselves.

 yakface wrote:

Reece, this isn't GW's 'tournament policy', this is the rules for playing events at Warhammer World (and as such I've updated the title of this thread to make it less volatile).

For example, if GW were to run new events outside of Warhammer World (Throne of Skulls tournaments, for example), there is no guarantee they would follow the same guidelines printed here (as in the past they haven't matched up exactly either).

Hey, you changed my hyper-sensationalist, flame bait title!

Yak, you are always so wise and level headed.

Yes though, you are right. I was just kicking the hornet's nest

We are free to run our events how we want, you are right.

@Aftermath

Thanks! That was a really nice thing of you to say, I appreciate it.

@Illumini

It's just at this point in time. This by no means indicates what is to come for ever and always for all events. This is just what our attendees asked for for the LVO. I think other events will be open to some of this stuff going forward. I know I am.

I get what you're saying Therion, but I think the problem is that blanket bans are not only easier, since anything else requires changing stat lines, profiles, game mechanics etc. and not everyone can universally agree that should be done at all or to what extent (like you said, some may feel nerfing Strength D is too much/unfair, others will argue you aren't doing enough), but it's also the most "fair" way of doing it. If all you did was ban the revenant it would probably fix the most glaring issue with the book...but then Eldar/DE don't have access to a super heavy anymore. And even then it's still not entirely "fair" because the Imperium has access to several, and other races are either left out entirely or stuck with garbage for their one and only choice (like the flying hammerhead drone transport for Tau...oooh, scary). Same way with characters, it doesn't seem fair for some armies to have access to all their HQs and for others not to, and the "nerfs" might not sit well with everyone.

Also, anyone have a look at WD Daily today? Hilariously, Planetstrike, Cities of Death, and Apocalypse are all listed along with Escalation and Stronghold Assault, and Jervis Johnson refers to them all as "supplements", saying "you can use one, some, none or all of them in a game". So apparently they don't see any distinction between "expansions" and "supplements" like we do.

Sidstyle wrote:So apparently they don't see any distinction between "expansions" and "supplements" like we do.

Truth be told, even before expansions, supplements, dataslates, formations, digital releases and legal forgeworld documents of any kind existed at all GW, Jervis at the forefront, told the community that if we have a problem with a rule we should change it and play it the way we like it to be played. That's always been GW's policy and in the same time excuse for making poorly balanced or badly thought out rules.