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.

I wonder if just changing the way scoring objectives works is the better way to handle the situation. I had a thread about it not to long ago. If you start rewarding turns 1-4 for people actually playing them you might see a decline in some of the power of these lists.

@The Everliving

Those are some really good thoughts. Thanks for the thorough reply.

I agree in principle largely but your perspective is as a top level tournament player. You know how to approach playing with and against these types of lists. The issue is for the 90% of the field that doesn't, IMO.

As a TO I get a very different perspective. I know my opinions on a lot of things I felt strongly about as a player have changed as my perspective has changed. I watched silently at DuelCon as player after player did the exact wrong things against the Screamerstars and came to me after just so demoralized. I tried to explain to them where they went wrong, but it was pretty disheartening to see.

I mean, is what we're talking about pandering? Yeah, it is to a bit. But you made the supposition that most players don't care what they play and I strongly disagree with that. However, neither of us has any strong data to back that up, so hey, we're both guessing.

As for bringing in combined score events again? I am so, so opposed to that. Nothing pisses a player off more, in my experience, than realizing they came to an event and lost before it started because they aren't a good painter, or didn't have a display board, etc. That and poor missions design and comp are just the biggest hot button issues.

Plus, that argument is predicated on players bringing "cheesy" armies not having nicely painted armies. That is simply not true. Some "cheesy" armies are beautiful, The Screamerstars at DuelCon were 2 of the best painted there, one of them won best painted. A player that serious about winning an event will make sure his or her army can also win with paint if that is needed.

Those two things aren't casual or even correlated.

I feel that events are just more fair and fun for everyone when you split those things up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thimn wrote:
I wonder if just changing the way scoring objectives works is the better way to handle the situation. I had a thread about it not to long ago. If you start rewarding turns 1-4 for people actually playing them you might see a decline in some of the power of these lists.

I don't follow what you mean, if you reward points for holding objectives turn 1-4? I think you left part of it out.

And if that is what you meant, how do you propose that that helps mitigate the deathstars we were talking about?

Oh, and also, what kind of missions do you play? Straight book or layered missions such as in the BAO/LVO, Adepticon, Feast, WargamesCon, NOVA, etc.

Thanks!

taking something from what Alex said earlier and refining it a bit and making it a little bit more simplistic.
Would simply making a ruling on the Allies matrix to "ALL Allies" (even Desperate) being Allies of Convenience solve a number of bugaboos we see in the Tournament scene ? I know it wont fix all things such as the 2++ saves but i feel it does get mitigated a bit by not allowing allies to interact.

In all honest it seems more scalpelish than any other idea posted above.

Its a single rules adjustment that allows players to maintain there current builds minus the use of plug and play powerups .

Out of curiousity, the digital advent releases can be printed onto paper right?

zedsdead wrote:
taking something from what Alex said earlier and refining it a bit and making it a little bit more simplistic.
Would simply making a ruling on the Allies matrix to "ALL Allies" (even Desperate) being Allies of Convenience solve a number of bugaboos we see in the Tournament scene ? I know it wont fix all things such as the 2++ saves but i feel it does get mitigated a bit by not allowing allies to interact.

In all honest it seems more scalpelish than any other idea posted above.

Its a single rules adjustment that allows players to maintain there current builds minus the use of plug and play powerups .

That is a MASSIVE change, though. HUGE. That fundamentally alters the way army lists interact with one another. I can tell you unequivocally that that would hurt attendance to an event, at least ours based on player feedback. That changes peoples' army lists and that is also a big, giant piss off for a lot of players. If the list they bought, built, painted and have been playing for over a year is now invalid or operates dramatically different, that is not going to go over well.

I am not attacking you either, sorry if it seems that way, just saying that that is by no means a simpler solution.

If anything at all is done, which it may not be, it should not alter the way people build their lists, IMO. A change to a save says, you can still play the same list, it is still very durable, just not indestructible. As least, that is they way it sound sin my mind! haha



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Lou

Another good question that we are not sure about in our circle, yet. We are leaning towards no, that the digital codex must be brought as that is the only way to ensure it has the most recent rules.

Reecius,

In one breath you say you don't want to make a rule that invalidates what players bring, but on the other hand you say it's ok to make a rule that screamerstars can't get a 2+ rerollable save? Isn't your solution invalidating a list someone spent time buying, building and painting for a year?

Changing all allies to allies of Convienance is the simplest most non-intrusive solution presented. It invalidates no ones army at all. Everything can still be taken together. All it does it stop IC's from attaching to units from another codex. Nothing can be more benign than that.

All that is affected is power combos of units of lone models. A lone Farseer can't attach to broadsides. A lone Dark Eldar character can't attach to Jetbikes. It doesn't stop those units from being played and still being effective in games of 40k. It just stops abusive combos that shutdown a majority of the possible builds most players could bring.

@Darth

Fair points, but changing the allies matrix means certain armies no longer function.

Reducing a save is making a unit go from invincible to extremely durable.

One allows you to play the exact same list the way you always have albeit with a reduced (but still incredibly good) defense.

The other says a list that someone may have may no longer be functional at all. For example, a MEQ/IG player that attaches an IC to a blob squad can no longer do so, etc. That to me, is throwing out the baby with the bathwater and punished a lot of benign combos.

Applying a penalty to a specific rule combo only affects those units that are abusive but still allows them to be playable.

Darthdiggler beat me to it. Making any change will piss people off who've spent time, effort and money to build an army that now gets a little nerfed because of a TO ruling. You can't on one hand say it's okay to change how re-rolls work but not how allies interact with each other. That's why I'm not advocating any changes.

I get that as a TO you see all aspects of an event. I've run my share of ones on both sides of the pond. Sometimes there is nothing you can but commiserate with folks as one by one they run smack into something they can't beat if they haven't played against it. It's your job as a TO is to make sure the event runs smoothly and hope that most people have a good time, say nice things abut your event and come back to more of them.

 Reecius wrote:

zedsdead wrote:
taking something from what Alex said earlier and refining it a bit and making it a little bit more simplistic.
Would simply making a ruling on the Allies matrix to "ALL Allies" (even Desperate) being Allies of Convenience solve a number of bugaboos we see in the Tournament scene ? I know it wont fix all things such as the 2++ saves but i feel it does get mitigated a bit by not allowing allies to interact.

In all honest it seems more scalpelish than any other idea posted above.

Its a single rules adjustment that allows players to maintain there current builds minus the use of plug and play powerups .

That is a MASSIVE change, though. HUGE. That fundamentally alters the way army lists interact with one another. I can tell you unequivocally that that would hurt attendance to an event, at least ours based on player feedback. That changes peoples' army lists and that is also a big, giant piss off for a lot of players. If the list they bought, built, painted and have been playing for over a year is now invalid or operates dramatically different, that is not going to go over well.

I am not attacking you either, sorry if it seems that way, just saying that that is by no means a simpler solution.

If anything at all is done, which it may not be, it should not alter the way people build their lists, IMO. A change to a save says, you can still play the same list, it is still very durable, just not indestructible. As least, that is they way it sound sin my mind! haha



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Lou

Another good question that we are not sure about in our circle, yet. We are leaning towards no, that the digital codex must be brought as that is the only way to ensure it has the most recent rules.

reece no lists become invalad. It just tones down combos. I guess the giant piss off at nerfing players 2++ is ok but this is extreme ? lol

The allies of convenience also addresses these new data slates that are coming our way. Who know what sort of unbalance GW has in mind with these damn things

 Reecius wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:
And screamer star won the doubles event.

Doh!

Yes, I forgot about that.

Sigh, and we worked so hard.

I just don't know. Whoever it was that said we should compensate by mission design...there's not that much you can do by mission design to affect the viability of certain armies. Even progressive objectives, like we used in the AdeptiCon Gladiator for a few years, can only do that somewhat.

The larger issue seems to be that game balance is going out the window, especially with the new potential for 4 codexes all mixed together. The way I see it, there's really a couple of things that are the largest "game-breakers" out there currently:

#1 - Allies run amok - essentially neutralizing key weaknesses in armies, or allowing for the force org chart to get tossed out the window. The ally rules are simply far too permissive. The Swiss Army Commander enhances everyone, giving armies access to special rules they would normally not have.
#2 - Essentially unkillable units - yep, that's the screamerstar and the jetseer council. Sure, they've got some weaknesses (Brandon and I knew what the weaknesses with the screamerstar were and worked to minimize them, winning against a Tau/Guard army that went first and drop podding rune priest space wolves), and while I don't have a problem with jetseer councils, not everyone has a unit that reduces their leadership to 2 for psychic tests), against armies that don't include specific counters to them, they simply run rampant. I actually feel bad about playing with the screamerstar now, simply because it's a unit that a lot of enemies can't do anything about, and the game isn't really all that challenging to play.
Those are just the two I can think of off the top of my head.

I don't know if there is an easy answer to this, from a TO perspective. I don't think that there's a "subtle" change like Brandt is talking about that will really address the issues. While making a rerollable 2+ save verboten might seem to solve the issue, in reality a 3++ rerollable isn't all that much better, and is a major change to a core mechanic.

Mission design might be a part of a solution, but it might not as well.

Comp? I hate comp because of its subjectivity, but it did effectively kill the screamerstar in Da Boyz GT.

A "tournament force org" chart, might do something, but how do you set that up?

@The Everliving

Yes, any change will piss people off, most definitely.

But, what the TOs I have talked to are worried about is that stuff like that, if it becomes prevalent will hurt events in general. That is why we are even talking about this at all.

And again, this is just talk. Looking for ways to grow events and make them more enjoyable for the most people.

@Zed & Alex

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

It is two entirely different things we are talking about. Maybe I am not being clear enough.

If we say a save of a certain type is reduced, you can still play the exact same list the exact same way you have always played it with reduced efficacy. You don't have to change your army unless you choose to.

Changing the allies matrix literally makes some existing lists unplayable. If you always attached an Archon to Guardians in your list, for example, and had nowhere else to put him if he couldn't in a unit, you would now in all likelihood have to seriously change your army. It would fundamentally alter everything about how you play your list, possibly making it unplayable the way you planed on using it.

They are both changes but they have very different impacts. One is ultra specific, impacting everyone the same way, the other hits everyone, often without equal impact.

 Reecius wrote:


I don't follow what you mean, if you reward points for holding objectives turn 1-4? I think you left part of it out.

And if that is what you meant, how do you propose that that helps mitigate the deathstars we were talking about?

Oh, and also, what kind of missions do you play? Straight book or layered missions such as in the BAO/LVO, Adepticon, Feast, WargamesCon, NOVA, etc.

Thanks!

My suggestion was based off of the new Apoc system. Turn 2 Objectives are worth 1VP. Turn 4 they are worth 2 VP. End of Game turn they are worth 3 VP.

While I don't think it will cause an immediate shift in the meta, scoring that way will have people playing more on objectives and not reserving everything to start play on Turn 5.

I haven't actually run a tournament with these rules in mind, I'm going to attempt one in Mid January for my local store. I'm interested to see how players like it. The core group of our players who travel to Da Boyz, Adepticon, Indy Open were in favor of trying it out.


As far as nerfing other peoples lists, I think the true problem is you can't deny people their buffs. Its the buffing that makes these units over the top. If you could have a Deny The Witch attempt happen on buffs it would go along way to fixing the problem. Even better would be modify Deny the With to work on a 5+ For the Warp to be such a fickle thing I fail to see how reliable it is in 40k

 Centurian99 wrote:

 Reecius wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:


Mission design might be a part of a solution, but it might not as well.

Comp? I hate comp because of its subjectivity, but it did effectively kill the screamerstar in Da Boyz GT.

A "tournament force org" chart, might do something, but how do you set that up?

- Mission Design will always benefit some sort of Build... its basically the same as Comping a Tournament. Build Missions around Screamer stars and seer stars and someone will build lists around your design. And what Mission design would not benefit a 2++ save ?

- Comp same as Above. Sure Comp killed sceamer star and OvesaStar, so what happened everyone took Seerstar. Comp failure.

- Tournament force org ? Its not the allies in of themselves that make for unfun games its mostly how ICs interact and buff certain units. We can all see that GW has no clue as to what those combos can be due to the unbalance and power we have already witnessed so i have very little faith in the ability of a force org chart adjustment fixing things.

@Thimm

Thanks for clarifying.

I have actually played in tournaments with objective farming rules (generating points per turn) and while, admittedly it was a cool change of pace, it HEAVILY favors armies with durable troops that can jump onto objectives turn 1, such as Drop Pod marines, etc. Basically you often end up with situations where one player hits all the objectives turn 1, the other player may not be fast enough to get there to contest, the other player is already now so far out in the lead he can't lose and the game is effectively over.

Not saying it is a bad idea, but mobile armies lick their chops and that honestly doesn't stop the really abusive stuff but it can help in certain circumstances, it really isn't ubiquitous enough though, IMO.

 Reecius wrote:



They are both changes but they have very different impacts. One is ultra specific, impacting everyone the same way, the other hits everyone, often without equal impact.

Oh im sure that Eldar and Demon players will agree with you that the impact of nerfing there army is equal.

Just my random thoughts as a tournament player fwiw:

- Mass changes to the allies matrix is not a good idea. While it tones down some things, it opens up all new cans of worms by way of new builds which currently are blocked out. This wouldn't be a real fix to anything, it would just cause a change in the meta, and the meta always adjusts.

- I'm a little torn on the issue of 2+ re-rollables, but I'm interested to see what people think. I'm very cautious about the idea of making any modifications to the game, but for all the units/powers that people cried bloody murder about over the past few years, I think this is by far the most deserving. If, and only if, there was a consistent agreement between the major GT TO's would I think a change is reasonable. I'm not sure what would be the best suggestion, but I think at the least it's a discussion worth having between the players and TO's. It just needs to be handled the right way, and I would hate to see the game divulge into everyone taking one of the 2+ re-rollable armies. It's not that crazy to think it could happen, and we've already seen a decent amount of players shift to those armies.

- As far as the original topic of this thread goes, I think the digital releases at least as of now should be accepted by all major GTs. I wouldn't mind seeing a restriction placed on taking formations as they just directly circumvent the entire idea of a force org chart (not to mention I think everyone would agree they are clearly just a pure cash grab by GW), but I think additions like Belakor are really cool for the game. Especially with rumors of Cypher being on the horizon in the coming weeks, I think we could see GW really adding an element to the game where books get some real loving by throwing in an extra unit now and then to spice things up.

- It is definitely a hassle to keep on top of the most up-to-date rules. I think we really need to see some kind of group organized to take it on their own to stay on top of these. I think MVB was the one who mentioned the idea of "patch notes". A living document for the community by the community might be the answer.

Anyway, I'm glad to see several TO's and players in here talking about this. I think this kind of dialogue is the best thing we can have at this point while just waiting to see how some of these new GW policies hash out.

@Bill

You said it. It isn't even fun to PLAY those armies. I talked to the winners of DuelCon about their Screamerstars and I made the statement that those types of units have no place in the game and they agreed! hahaha, that was the funny part.

What do suggest for a solution to imbalance (if there is one or if you think anything should be done at all, which it sounds like you do)?

Maybe super heavies with weapons that ignore invul saves in the new expansion is the answer! hahaha


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Zed

Hey, please don't take this as a contest of wills, I am simply making my point. We're all here talking about this because we love organized play and want to see it grow and be fun! I hope you aren't taking this argument personally as I am not, nor do I intend it that way.

Of course those players would be upset, no doubt, but the point I am trying to make is that they still can play their list. Changing allies means some armies, that aren't even abusive at all, can't. That's a huge difference.

One option reduces something from OP to still amazingly good. The other completely eliminates it. That is a very big difference.

 Reecius wrote:
@Thimm

Thanks for clarifying.

I have actually played in tournaments with objective farming rules (generating points per turn) and while, admittedly it was a cool change of pace, it HEAVILY favors armies with durable troops that can jump onto objectives turn 1, such as Drop Pod marines, etc. Basically you often end up with situations where one player hits all the objectives turn 1, the other player may not be fast enough to get there to contest, the other player is already now so far out in the lead he can't lose and the game is effectively over.

Not saying it is a bad idea, but mobile armies lick their chops and that honestly doesn't stop the really abusive stuff but it can help in certain circumstances, it really isn't ubiquitous enough though, IMO.

How about having a mission like this once in a tourney. Bill mentioned controlling the comp through the missions. I was always a big proponent of this and started doing it at Adepticon a long time ago. Each mission hampered an extreme playstyle. Not a codex per say, but just a spam of a certain type. Farming rules on 5 objectives would hamper lists who rely on keeping their scoring units in reserve all game long, especially if the controlling unit would be allowed to destroy the objective following a turn on holding it. All of a sudden those lists with 6 outflanking Kroot squads or reserved Jetbikes would find themselves out of objectives to hold in short order. It would force those extreme builds to begin to balance out or risk losing a mission of this type.

@Darth

Yeah, that is a really good point, actually. One of the only reliable ways to beat the stupid Deathstars is to kill their troops. And, things like Jetbikes and Night Scythes are the ultimate last turn objective grabbers.

I like that actually, and so long as you use a layered mission where that wasn't the ONLY victory condition so that a smart player can still play around it, that may be a good solution.

I agree 100% that it is preferable to use missions/terrain/etc. is preferable to comp/bans/nerfs/etc. I just don't know if this would be enough.

Hmm, we can play-test that in the shop against Seerstar and see how it goes, do a video bat rep for some online feedback. It's worth a shot at the least.

@Morgendonner

Good points. We feel the same way, we honestly have no desire to change the game. We just worry about the long term health of events.

And yeah, I hope if we do anything at all, it is after a lot of debate, feedback from the TOs and players and testing. No need to be hasty.

morgendonner
everytime GW releases a new dataslate TOs and the community will be holding there collective breaths. Already the Tau slate release and C:I have high meta changing potential. 34 point Ing+serv skulls do a heck of a job at shutting down scout armies. Everyone getting riptide/broadside support now.

GW is breaking the heck out of the organizational chart on a daily basis it appears.

These things are just a drop in the bucket apparently.

So yea i agree with you that going all allies of Convenience disallows combos and that could take some adjustments.. it certainly doesnt invalidate the units however. But now players also have additional options of including Deperate allies now without getting Hurt.

The idea of it is to more or less to allow more things but at a much less chance of game breaking or unfun combos.

Remember the days when it took nearly a decade to get a new codex out for your army?

Reecius,

Use the new Alpine mat in that batrep. I'm really itching to get my hands on that one and the Urban Assault mat.

@Jamesk

Haha, right? Be careful what you wish for! We wanted faster releases but holy crap, this was not exactly what at least I had in mind! haha

@Darth

That may take a while, as production is going on in China and we won't have a prototype in our hands until at the earliest, end of December, unfortunately. Sorry, I am dying to get them in my hands, too!

Reece no test of wills here.

However i think we do see things a bit differently.

Personally im not a fan of taking a codex or 2 and manipulating there core rules. Its a bit of a slippery slope once we start doing that. How do we address other 2++ rules. Is it simply 2++ for screamer and seerstars or all of them ? What happens when a new codex either introduces a 2++ ability does it go without saying that its banned without seeing its impact ?
What happens if a codex introduces something worse ?something that actually requires the power of the 2++ save to deal with ? or for that matter a dataslate or a new FOC adjustment ?

Where does it stop and when does the ban get pulled ?

Personally i feel that the Battle brother Allies system is the most potentially broken part of 6th edition. Its already seen its share of abuses. While core codex rules do have issues with its overpowered parts.. we as gamers can do a pretty good job of abusing the Allies system in the core rules.

btw all of the armies i play have some sort of allies in them and most do effect one another. So i totally understand how it would impact my armies and how they play. Personally i dont find it a big issue. I persoanlly would prefer to see allies working side by side without all of there crazy easter egg buffs my allies provide.

IMHO, tournament organizers need to get onto their mailing lists pronto and start asking what their attendees want. If you don't have a mailing list to do this with, then you probably want to build one immediately because things are getting a bit crazy with 40k now, and there is never an answer that will please everyone, so the best you can do is just please the majority of your attendees.

ANY change you make pisses people off. Hell, making FAQ calls pisses people off, let alone full-sale changes to the rules to re-balance 'broken' situations. At the end of the day, we're still playing GW's game, and most people will always prefer to go with the game company's core rules, no matter how broken they are, because once you go down the road of tweaking rules for game balance, there can absolutely be no middle ground where anyone agrees what should be fixed and what should be left.

I think major tournaments (Adeptitcon, BA Open, NOVA, etc) should consider splitting their core 40k singles event into two (played on the same days at the same time running concurrently):

1) The 'wild west' format. Basically GW's rules as they stand, with whatever they say is in there (like special Riptide detachments with Preferred Enemy: SMs for no extra points cost, for example). This would be the 'pure' 40K that the high-level players who want to really brawl it out play in.

2) A 'traditional 40k' format. This would be the event that caters more to people that have a traditional army that just want to play against other armies that aren't tuned to insane levels. Here, I really do think you may want to completely disallow allies because that is where most of the crazy combos that bewilder 'casual' players come from. In this format you could also do things like reduce the 2+ invulnerable save re-roll, etc, and it won't piss people off because they still have the 'wild west' format to play in if they don't like that kind of TO 'rules adjusting' in their game.


If you did run both those formats it would also be an interesting gauge to see how many people are interested in playing a more traditional style with single armies and not so many crazy combos, and how many don't mind dealing with all the myriad of rules GW is putting out and want to play with anything that GW technically allows.

So no one is using these Formation things GW Digital are releasing in tournament right? Cos they are hella broken

@Zed

Yeah, differing opinions it seems, which is fine! Room for everyone in our crazy hobby.

And I was saying a blanket, game wide change to 2+ rerolls, not just Screamerstar and Seercouncil. (Actually, Mike said it better than I did and I am hijacking it! haha).

That way it impacts everyone equally but doesn't change anyone's armies.

I am actually fine with allies and enjoy them, honestly, but that is me.

AlexRae wrote:
So no one is using these Formation things GW Digital are releasing in tournament right? Cos they are hella broken

I guess we will have to see what we get AlexRae so far only 1 out. But the thing is they are considered suppliments so allowable.

@Yak

Tastey Taste said the same thing, kind of the way it is done at Feast of Blades (although, ironically, they have the more competitive format with more restrictions).

The LVO is the next big event up (that I am aware of) and so we are definitely going to feel the impact of this craziness more than others. We are also traditionally a more inclusive event (FW and such) so our attendees are expecting more options.

I am going to write my BoLS article tonight on this topic, so we should get some good feedback there. I will also poll our attendees and see what they want.

@AlexRae

Well, Bel'AKor seems powerful but not OP so far, the Tau one is pretty gnarly though. I haven't had a chance to play either yet though so I honestly can't say.

Thank you yakface for taking the words from my mouth.

You won't stop the OP things from being seen, you can't. Leave the WAAC players to their 2++ stars but also give those of us that want to have a more fluffy army the opportunity to use it on a more leveled playing field.

In this I always like to refer to the ETC. While I don't agree with ALL of the things it does, in a game such as this, composition is necessary for the fun of ALL players. Let's admit one thing, it doesn't matter how FUN or GREAT your opponent is, a 2++ star is a downer. (edit: Not saying that all people who run 2++ stars are WAAC players... Don't jump down my throat here. )

I know this is hard on tournament organizers, it practically forces you to run two tournaments at the same time, but I'd be so much more inclined to go to a tournament where there is a solid comp system that has been posted and agreed upon by the majority of organizers. You guys are the heroes, that take time out of your lives and take the risk of organizing and running a tournament. I think it only fair that we look to you guys to make a 'fair' system.

You can have a 'hardcore' no holds barred
You can have a "leveled" field event.

I think Nova already approaches this with their thematic games, but I think it would be good to see a comped tournament as well as the hardcore... Maybe just too out there, but I'd LOVE to see this, I'd attend a LOT more tournaments if I could see some kind of balance being attempted.