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.

DarthDiggler wrote:
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.

When Greg and I ran the Gladiator for three years, this was essentially our underlying theory. We'd pick the strongest build types and design missions that would be difficult for them to succeed in. Generally, it took a special rule of some sort to do it, but it worked pretty much like we intended it too. The vast majority of the netlist players got hosed, while the good players overcame the obstacle.

Reecius wrote:@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)?

Yeah, the games where the screamerstar worked at Da Boyz weren't all that much fun. Game 1 we had really bad luck and almost lost the star in turn 2 (2 failed consecutive turns of no grimoire bonus), but we hung in there and once the 2+ save was up, rolled through our opponents. Game 2 we got lucky again and kept a stormraven from shooting and avoided having the herads periled off the table. Game 3 we took some hits, but once the rune priests were down, we steamrolled through the wolves like they were guardsmen.

As to a solution, I don't know, really. Progressive objectives don't really do it (at least in our Gladiator experience). What its really good for is generating separation among players rapidly in a battle points tournament. Special rules for missions might do it, as long as you're willing to flat out admit that you're trying to neutralize certain builds in certain missions.

 Reecius wrote:
@Zed



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

I agree and i actually love the idea of them and enjoy using them in my games. Its why i felt the compromise of going all AoC was much more preferable than the ideas of eliminating Allies all together (there seems to be a huge outcry of this). I get just as much enjoyment out of my AoC army builds as my BB builds and both have there potential of being very good armies. I also think it would be interesting to see what cool armies players would come up with if they could take DA allies as AoC.

I really think that fixing the seer council is the toughest fix out there. I'm not a fan of fixing all 2+ re-roll saves because an terminator Libby with precognition is tough but not broken, and can be worked around pretty easily. It is the units with mass 2++ re-rolled saves that are the issue,

You could if you wanted to fix the screamer star simply by stating that the grimoir only effects their 5++ save (natural save). They could still get 2+ cover to re-roll but ignores cover is out there or you can assault to get through that save.

Seer council is much tougher as you would either

A.) need to change how re-rolls work entirely.
B.) change fortune to something other than a re-rolled save (I have suggested ignores wound on a 4+) but then you are changing codex rules.
C.) change protect to cap at a 3+(same issue as above)

As for the allies thing....I agree that it negates far more builds than the 2+ re-roll change. Any synergistic allied build is undone (blob guard, centurion Death Star, etc...). If you ban battle brothers these armies stop using their ally models.

Many years ago, perhaps even before some of us were playing 40K, there was the emergence of Nidzilla. One of the first no fun, easy button armies of its day. Time passed and Nidzilla gave way to Wave Serpent Spam (the original) followed by Nob Bikers, Venom spam, Razor spam, Wolf Pod Spam, Paladin Death Stars, The Breakfast Brigade, and many others along the way. The new non-interactive boogie man on the block is the 2+ save toting combo star unit. Chicken little has certainly had many opportunities to say those magical words in the past and is taking a deep breath even as I write this. But this too shall pass.

The morale of the above story is that GW is a crazy train, and many of us have been down this road many times before. GW makes some crazy unit(s), the meta is unbalanced and then something else is released. People learn to adapt and the meta moves on.

The symptom is perceived unbalanced units. The disease is some players believe competitive list building is about making the game as non interactive as possible or win by default condition. Take a second look at the list of armies presented above, most if not all of the were based on the premise that I have a hammer you can’t stop and my plan is to beat you with it until you concede. But times change, and more importantly the game does too.

I have spent the better part of the last decade contributing to rules councils (Adepticon, INAT to name a few) and a guiding principle has always been to play the game as close to the rules as possible. There have been years worth of spirited debate on the subject. Though nothing quite stirred the hornets nest of the vocal minority like a perceived “rules change”. The accusations than surfaced of they are making their own version of 40K not playing the real version. While I never took such accusations personally, I always wished people could hear those spirited debates between what amounted to decades of 40K experience having legitimate disagreements about how to rule in sometimes impossible situations.

The one constant from GW is this, they have always advertised themselves as a MODEL company that happens to make games for their models. Look at how they present themselves to the world, “We have a simple strategy at Games Workshop. We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell  them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever” (http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/). Everything GW does is designed to sell models. This includes churning the meta of the game to induce players to update their collections. So keep calm, right around the corner is the next change that will move the meta(I’m looking at you Escalation). Perhaps Vitamin D is the cure for the common 2+ save.

Keep Calm and roll dice.

Regards,

Chris

"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."

But they still brought them anyways which seems a bit hypocritical.

If you impose a ban the WAAC players will find new ways to break the game—that is what they do. It will just shift the meta and there will still be complaints.

Rhysk wrote:
Many years ago, perhaps even before some of us were playing 40K, there was the emergence of Nidzilla. One of the first no fun, easy button armies of its day. Time passed and Nidzilla gave way to Wave Serpent Spam (the original) followed by Nob Bikers, Venom spam, Razor spam, Wolf Pod Spam, Paladin Death Stars, The Breakfast Brigade, and many others along the way. The new non-interactive boogie man on the block is the 2+ save toting combo star unit. Chicken little has certainly had many opportunities to say those magical words in the past and is taking a deep breath even as I write this. But this too shall pass.

The morale of the above story is that GW is a crazy train, and many of us have been down this road many times before. GW makes some crazy unit(s), the meta is unbalanced and then something else is released. People learn to adapt and the meta moves on.

The symptom is perceived unbalanced units. The disease is some players believe competitive list building is about making the game as non interactive as possible or win by default condition. Take a second look at the list of armies presented above, most if not all of the were based on the premise that I have a hammer you can’t stop and my plan is to beat you with it until you concede. But times change, and more importantly the game does too.

I have spent the better part of the last decade contributing to rules councils (Adepticon, INAT to name a few) and a guiding principle has always been to play the game as close to the rules as possible. There have been years worth of spirited debate on the subject. Though nothing quite stirred the hornets nest of the vocal minority like a perceived “rules change”. The accusations than surfaced of they are making their own version of 40K not playing the real version. While I never took such accusations personally, I always wished people could hear those spirited debates between what amounted to decades of 40K experience having legitimate disagreements about how to rule in sometimes impossible situations.

The one constant from GW is this, they have always advertised themselves as a MODEL company that happens to make games for their models. Look at how they present themselves to the world, “We have a simple strategy at Games Workshop. We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell  them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever” (http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/). Everything GW does is designed to sell models. This includes churning the meta of the game to induce players to update their collections. So keep calm, right around the corner is the next change that will move the meta(I’m looking at you Escalation). Perhaps Vitamin D is the cure for the common 2+ save.

Keep Calm and roll dice.

Regards,

Chris

Chris,

While I agree with you in principle (people tend to overact to 'WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW?!?' too much), at the same time I do think we are in completely unprecedented territory with no signs of turning back.

People have been bringing up the number of armies that were present in 3rd edition (through all the sub-codexes) and trying to compare that to now to give some perspective. The problem with that comparison is the ally rule completely eradicates the notion of how many actual 'armies' there are in the game.

Every army matched with a different ally type is effectively a different 'faction'. So a 'Tau army with Eldar allies' is for all intents and purposes a different army than a 'Tau army with SM allies' when compared to the sub-codexes of 3rd edition. Someone should really go through and calculate all the potential 'armies' you can use in 6th edition now when you take that fact into consideration (its probably like thousands).

Now that it seems we'll be allowed to include formation datasheets on top of that into nearly any army, the whole entire concept of 'factions' is almost obsolete. You're not even choosing armies based on factions anymore, you're choosing armies based on combinations of units and rules.

But unlike previous iterations of the game there is no magic codex release coming along that is going to 'fix' things, because every codex is just an introduction of more 'best units' that can get sprinkled into every army out there.

The combinations of super-broken units working together to produce insane results and and only will get worse as more things are released as data slates to be included as 'freebies' in every army outside of the FOC.

All of this means the gap between the guy who just wants to bring a cool army from a single faction and play vs. the guys who are pulling the best units from 3 different codexes to completely dominate their opponents can and will continue to widen.

I personally don't want to play in events where nearly every army has a Riptide detachment included in it plus two other allied forces...its just stupid at this point (to me). All notion of the 'theme' of the universe has been completely sacrificed onto the altar of selling miniatures.

So while I do agree with you that we, as the players (and TOs) cannot 'fix' things for GW (only they can do it themselves and they have no interest in doing so), I do think this is truly a new level of crazy beyond anything we have seen before and IMHO, steps will need to be taken to further split the tournament field into players with different types of motivations for their tournament experience.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"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."

But they still brought them anyways which seems a bit hypocritical.

If you impose a ban the WAAC players will find new ways to break the game—that is what they do. It will just shift the meta and there will still be complaints.

This is exactly right. If the council is banned and the screamer star is banned, the "competitive tournament" players will all bring the next strongest thing. Eldau, wave serpents, wraiths, mind shackle scarabs.

If we wanted to play a game where the tournament winner would be determined by skill alone, we would be playing chess.

But we choose to play a game where the rules are supplied by a model company trying to sell models. It's like expecting a drug dealer to tell you to enter rehab and get your life together. You just need to figure out why you're playing with miniatures or doing drugs in the first place. If you do either activity for fun and recreation you'll do both activities in moderation in a way that doesn't hurt anyone. If you keep chasing the dragon of winning or getting high, that's your choice too. You're just probably annoying/harming others in the process.

Now let's all go do some lines...what were we talking about?

I agree with what Yak said. 40k has jumped the damn shark now more than ever. The stupid Tau data slate and upcoming release of Escalation is proof of that...because if that is going to be tournament legal...*sarcasm*that's just what this game needs*sarcasm*... D weapons and titans in basic games. :rolls eyes: At this point, we should all just play Apocalypse because that's what the game is slowly devolving to. If the FoC doesn't matter anymore...then that's what we are heading towards.Once that happens no amount of banning, tweaking, etc. is going to make a "competitive" game and all the competitive game people will have to surrender their mentality to what the game has become. Thus you will have a massive polarization of people who want a game likened to a chess match, those that don't give a fig what the damn rules are and just want to make pew pew sounds, and those that are slowly turning away from the game because GW is doing everything they can to ruin the fun for many by dialing up the crazy. I want to like 40k, I enjoy playing currently, but these latest additions to the "game" is really testing what little patience I have left for this game.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:
I ... and upcoming release of Escalation is proof of that...because if that is going to be tournament legal...*sarcasm*that's just what this game needs*sarcasm*... D weapons and titans in basic games.

Even with this new age of dataslates and digital releases, I don't see any reason why the Escalation book will become a tournament adopted addition. To me (and I would imagine the majority of folks) it's no different than Spearhead / Planetstrike / etc, an optional alternate mode of game play with modified force orgs and additional units for that game mode.

Good thread!

Lets see...

Issues with 2++, wouldn't Strength D weapons take care of the re-rollable 2+ saves?

Another option is look at all the Missions, Mission Special Rules, Warzone Traits and more to get ideas about how to make your missions challenging. Battle Missions and Altars of War are other great resources.

We had a mission at MechaniCon this year with the Warp Winds War Zone Trait - taken right from the main rule book. The screaming and cursing by some of the screamerstar and jetseer generals was very noticeable. It is not a game breaker, effects some armies more than others and that happens in addition to your normal mission victory conditions. Try some out before writing up your next event missions!


A lot of the complaints I have heard here on the forums and talking to gamers at events hit the same topics. The two most frequent can be simplified to just a couple statements:

1- I cannot afford to own a copy of every single rule that GW puts out now.

It was much easier when you had a release schedule that had some books waiting close to 10 years to get redone. Back in my day, in a grumpy old man voice, we used to get new rules supplements in White Dwarf and paid for it! Now needing to buy just the article you want is not too shabby! The fact is there are too many rules too keep up with if you want to buy models and paint. Players need to be responsible for their own rules, TO's for the rest (whether it is by owning them or borrowing ALL the rules they allow at their events).

TO's should be tied in with retailers that will help them with discounts for their event supplies which will help a lot - if you are not then go ask your FLGS to help! TO's need to be on top of the rules they allow - if you allow Forge World then you should be able to know where the latest version of the rules are and be familiar with them (and borrow a book or two for the event if required). Likewise, know where the rules are for 40K. It is clear that they have re-written the rules for some units multiple times since 6th edition hit and it is silly but that is what we have to deal with. I would rather see that then the 3rd through 5th edition release schedules.

2- Being able to take 5 Riptides in a single army is crazy!

So, yes, you can legally take 5 riptides in a single Force Org now. How many points is that though, and did you remember to bring troops besides the bare 200 point minimum? We had quite a few players criticize the missions at our GT this year because they had Victory Points (as per the rulebook) and not a Win/Loss. The same players that were bringing this feedback had gone with bare minimum troops (less than 200 points for 3 troop units in some cases) to eek out a narrow win or table their opponent (tabling an opponent would not get you max points in the missions).

The recent discussions about Time vs Points seemed to suggest that a lot of players would like 1500 point games (including the majority of the players who filled out their feedback forms with us this year) and that will fix/create a ton of issues across all problem areas. Bumping points up will allow all kind of additions to your force now if you include fortifications, super-heavies (which really are not all that Super anymore), formations and whatever term they come out with next - and that will fix/create other issues as well.

I agree with a lot of the ideas of TO's being able to make a line for each event. I don't see it the same way as was commented before that allowing all the rules is more catered to the competitive players though. I think you will be surprised to see where players sign up if you offer multiple tournament options running along side each other at the biggest events.

I do not think that allowing super-heavies equates to playing Apocalypse. That is a game where you throw down your collection for an all day brawl. Events like the Adepticon Gladiator tone down what you can bring and how many points and it has been hugely successful over the years.
How about Double Force Org and no allies?
Or, maybe mandatory Flyers in every list and Death from the Skies dogfighting rules?

Anything is possible for an event format (whew! was really hard to avoid a bad pun about a "limit" there). As long as the TO's can enjoy running it and the players have fun we all win.

40K may not be what you wanted it to evolve into but it is opening so many options for players to try something new. GW has finally joined the 21st century. It is late, but they did it none the less. They are also pumping out rules like never before. Funny thing is, some of the new rules coming now allow you to take models you already have and legally include them in your main force - isn't it about time that baneblade sitting on your shelf for years gets a chance to come out and play? Even if it is going to probably be a smoking hulk by turn 3. Seriously though, we have much nastier things in the game right now than super-heavies!

WAIT - REVELATION!!!! GW is pushing the rules and supplements over the models now???

As far as banning digital, (I bet you were wondering if I would ever get there) I would never back that up. You are asking players that bought legitimate rules and models to sign up for events. It is not hard to establish a change-log time limit for a digital book so don't make it a drama issue. Either you allow them in an event or not based on the TO's ability to be knowledgeable about the rules in their own competitions. The Stealth Updates are not going to get you in your sleep - or will they...

I've said it before but I'll throw it out there again.

I've been through 5 Editions of 40k now (started in 2nd). Each one has had it's rollercoasters. But the sole difference between this rollercoaster and those rollercoasters is that the scene has never seen 3 such non-interactive armies. We currently have 2 armies that have 2++ re-rollable saves and one that's based entirely around flying FMC's. When you play these lists you wind up playing games where your opponent doesn't really interact with your army. And that is just not fun.

As a relatively seasoned GT player I'm completely in favor of altering the 2++ reroll mechanic. That and no formations would be the only changes I currently see 40k needing to keep people happy and coming to events.

Don't get me wrong, both the council and star are beatable. But the games where you do it feels more like work than fun. And events are supposed to be fun which is what draws in the majority of the people.

My piece is said. Primarily no Escalation or Formations. And adjustment to the 2++ reroll mechanic. And the tournament system as it currently sits is fine.

DarthDiggler wrote:
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.

Terms like 'abusive combos' really gall me. Every list is a combination, like it or not. Combos are what make the game fun and complex. Why doesn't everyone just play static gunline IG, because that's the ideal you have in mind for this game?

Please don't impose your narrow conception on how the game should be played on competitive players, who are looking for the most effective strategy the rules allow. Stick to casuals and narrative games.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
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.

Terms like 'abusive combos' really gall me. Every list is a combination, like it or not. Combos are what make the game fun and complex. Why doesn't everyone just play static gunline IG, because that's the ideal you have in mind for this game?

Please don't impose your narrow conception on how the game should be played on competitive players, who are looking for the most effective strategy the rules allow. Stick to casuals and narrative games.

Ha, ha. Silly little man. I was the first Adepticon Gladiator Champion and subsequently ran it when it was the most competitive tourney at Adepticon. The singles event was a fluff monster back then. I've won the Adepticon Team Tourney and finished top 5 the 3 other times I've played. I finished top 10 nationally in the Ard Boyz in year 1 and 3. ( only times I played). Right now I finish top 3 each year in the Adeptuswindycity tounament series. I have never played a static gun line of any type and calling me a casual player is having far reaching implications for the movement of our planet through the galaxy. Next time I would suggest you sober up before posting.

I see no issues with the digital releases. I've played tournaments since 3rd and sometimes your opponent gets a surprise off on you. Good players adapt and overcome to it.

As far as invulnerable saves though, I think for my next tournament I'm going to bring over a core rule from WHFB: No Ward Save can be improved beyond a 3++.

So screamer star is bad, but Seer Council with 2+ re-rollable armor and Cover is OK?

Just so we're clear....

oh and the Shadow field from DE...is not worthless....

Is the screamerstar really that good over a 6 game tourny? I am on the the no side. Too much randomness to win 6 out of 6 games. In say 1500-1850 games too many points tied up in one unit. They arent that hard to beat to be frank, yes its a lot harder against someone that knows what they are doing but they, IMO, are a king making, they arent going to win every tourny but will knock out good players and if you beat them you have a good chance of winning the tourny. Do agree that if you are going to ban Screamerstar you need to ban seer council and the other power lists, question is, where does it stop?

I also disagree with the 2 str5 ap2 attacks on the charge, totally against the rules.

It is not that they are unbeatable, and they can get unlucky, but if you don't get unlucky against the average player....the game is very much a formality (especially if they don't bring an uber competitive list)

I brought my screamer star to a tournament earlier this edition...where every other player at the store was a fairly new player....watching guys pour their entire army into trying to kill the star...and dying without killing anything.....makes for very unfun games.

Breng77 wrote:
It is not that they are unbeatable, and they can get unlucky, but if you don't get unlucky against the average player....the game is very much a formality (especially if they don't bring an uber competitive list)

I brought my screamer star to a tournament earlier this edition...where every other player at the store was a fairly new player....watching guys pour their entire army into trying to kill the star...and dying without killing anything.....makes for very unfun games.

For sure Breng, but taking a list like that to a tourny at a store?, can you be suprised that happened?. I was more talking about tournies rather then casual or semi competitive play (To be frank, thats how I view 1 day tournies).

Need to practice somewhere and the store where I run my tournies routinely has high level GT players...so not expecting to find no one that even knows the rules just from going to a different store.

 Reecius wrote:

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

Doh!

Yes, I forgot about that.

So, how would everyone feel about a broad rule, just one, that says:

Any save of a 2+ that is rerollable is treated as a 3+ rerollable save of the same type.

That is easy, and impacts all armies equally. As an idea, how does that strike people?

That's perfectly fair.

It stops a lot of the power builds but sadly as competition goes the next dirtiest thing will take its space. You'll see an increase in O'vesa star, Tiggy's Centstar, and that broadside unit with the buffmander. What needs to happen is the emplacement of a restricted and banned list for each army.

Actually, have a look at http://astronomi-con.com/ 's comp, it pretty much pulls out all the dirt squirrel builds and is a awesome event to boot.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I've said it before but I'll throw it out there again.

I've been through 5 Editions of 40k now (started in 2nd). Each one has had it's rollercoasters. But the sole difference between this rollercoaster and those rollercoasters is that the scene has never seen 3 such non-interactive armies. We currently have 2 armies that have 2++ re-rollable saves and one that's based entirely around flying FMC's. When you play these lists you wind up playing games where your opponent doesn't really interact with your army. And that is just not fun.

As a relatively seasoned GT player I'm completely in favor of altering the 2++ reroll mechanic. That and no formations would be the only changes I currently see 40k needing to keep people happy and coming to events.

Don't get me wrong, both the council and star are beatable. But the games where you do it feels more like work than fun. And events are supposed to be fun which is what draws in the majority of the people.

My piece is said. Primarily no Escalation or Formations. And adjustment to the 2++ reroll mechanic. And the tournament system as it currently sits is fine.

I think this is a fantastic post, Hulk! Strongly agreed.

 yakface wrote:
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.

I really disagree with this solution. This is extremely drastic, and I think folks will be looking for something less so. Removing allies altogether invalidates so many people's armies that I just don't think it is a good solution. You can't go back in time, allies are a standby of 6th edition and in some ways pretty cool, imo (from the "casual player" perspective, it lets you do a lot of interesting things). The problem is the combos, most of which are due to Battle Brothers, not allies in general. The 2++ is a separate issue, which is why I like Hulk's solution above (a simple "No Escalation or Formations, 2+ rerolls are rerolled on a 3+"). Note, this is only if the trend continues and the tyranid codex doesn't fix these problems by being massively anti-psycher or the like.

MVBrandt wrote:

And no ... I would argue those are as minor as it gets. Suggestions that people make like "Broad composition changes" that affect every single army are huge. Making jetcouncils and screamerstars fail 1/12 saves instead of 1/36 ... isn't huge.

I would say that taking a fun and not broken item like the Mantle from the Eldar Relics and making it unusable certainly does qualify as huge. But that's just me...

If these things are going to be banned, going one step further to limit spam of things like Vendettas, FMCs, Scythes, and Helldrakes would be next. This would level the meta MUCH better than simply hitting three Deathstars and not the spam.

I don't necessarily disagree as an individual, Faenyin, but I do think the more wholesale you get with changes, the harder it is to sell them to many attendees. Unfortunately there's a straight-up financial risk for any TO trying to change the game too dramatically, especially one like myself or AdeptiCon or LVO or others that are dependent on attendance to prevent 5-figure room-night shortfall hits.

Terms like 'abusive combos' really gall me. Every list is a combination, like it or not. Combos are what make the game fun and complex. Why doesn't everyone just play static gunline IG, because that's the ideal you have in mind for this game?

Please don't impose your narrow conception on how the game should be played on competitive players, who are looking for the most effective strategy the rules allow. Stick to casuals and narrative games.

The interesting thing is that almost all the people who are considered "competitive" players in these threads and who I've talked to in real life seem to be on the side that the 2+ re-rollable is on a different level of abuse. I think this comment by Hulksmash sums up the general consensus on these units nicely:

I've been through 5 Editions of 40k now (started in 2nd). Each one has had it's rollercoasters. But the sole difference between this rollercoaster and those rollercoasters is that the scene has never seen 3 such non-interactive armies. We currently have 2 armies that have 2++ re-rollable saves and one that's based entirely around flying FMC's. When you play these lists you wind up playing games where your opponent doesn't really interact with your army. And that is just not fun.

As a relatively seasoned GT player I'm completely in favor of altering the 2++ reroll mechanic. That and no formations would be the only changes I currently see 40k needing to keep people happy and coming to events.

Don't get me wrong, both the council and star are beatable. But the games where you do it feels more like work than fun. And events are supposed to be fun which is what draws in the majority of the people.

It is the lack of interaction that really makes the game bad. I love 40k. I love against playing cutthroat competitive lists. However, there is something completely boring about the Seer Council, Screamerstar, and even to an extent FMCs (as they can easily have a bunch of 2+ re-rollable cover). I played with Seer Council under the old Eldar dex for about 15 games this edition. I quickly found that it was both not fun for me, but also my opponents. People who were unprepared for it were beaten down badly. I suppose the same could be said of all so-called power lists, but at least the opponent gets a chance to kill some of your units en route to a loss.

Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity in this. However, is anyone here really against limiting a 2+ re-roll?

As for formations, they seem like a no-brainier in terms of not including them. Adding in a three of the best units in the game free of the HQ+Troop tax, as well as FOC slots is a joke. Spend some time looking at what can be built now using the formations. There is no army that could survive a Tau+Tau+Formation alpha strike save (ironically) the abusive 2+ re-roll lists.

I'm personally against wholesale limitting 2+ re-roll and would rather fix what is broken, as I think things like the mantle, or precog on a terminator libby are not broken. I think fixing the Mass 2+ re-roll is where you need to look.

2++ screamers

Seer Council.

Sure 2+ re-roll is not fun on a character either, but it can be worked around.

2+ cover re-roll can also be worked around (assault/ignores cover shooting.)

But Screamers and Seer council by and large cannot be.

 RiTides wrote:

I really disagree with this solution. This is extremely drastic, and I think folks will be looking for something less so. Removing allies altogether invalidates so many people's armies that I just don't think it is a good solution. You can't go back in time, allies are a standby of 6th edition and in some ways pretty cool, imo (from the "casual player" perspective, it lets you do a lot of interesting things). The problem is the combos, most of which are due to Battle Brothers, not allies in general. The 2++ is a separate issue, which is why I like Hulk's solution above (a simple "No Escalation or Formations, 2+ rerolls are rerolled on a 3+"). Note, this is only if the trend continues and the tyranid codex doesn't fix these problems by being massively anti-psycher or the like.

RiTides I agree, this is why I suggested a simple adjustment on allies matrix. Remove BB and Desp Allies and move them to AoC.

you still have your allies without the ability to build around these single IC's who hand out Hit and Run, divination and swiss army knife abilities like candy.

i.e. remove Hit and run from seer councils and now they can at least be tied up. Not a perfect fix.. but now there less unbearable.

While I agree that 2++ armies aren’t fun to play against nerfing it doesn’t fix the other bad stuff out there. Each digital release posses the possibilities of something were going to have to deal with. Fixing the allies matrix mitigates this. Sure there will be power builds within each dex.. what I find that discourages players mostly is the combos that BB's brings to the table. I cringe each time I hear players trying to figure out how they can buff a primary’s army with an ability pick and choose from there allies choice.

This isn’t now a simple matter of bolstering your army with better troops or supplementing weaknesses in your primary army... what seems to be happening now is players are wringing every bit of nastiness out of an individual power or ability to buff the hell out of an already decent unit.

That’s what’s discouraging to the average player.

As a TO I understand it’s my job to understand, learn and know what’s out there but its becoming increasingly difficult to do this. In 5th edition and earlier you needed a pretty decent understanding of the basic rules and the dexes. Now we are dealing with not only those but also a much faster Dex release time Add in Allies, supplements and now data slates. However it’s all of the trick interactions that Battle Brothers bring that really create a bigger issue for us all.. Now and in the future.

Also a little bit more on my perspective... during the run-up to BFS this year I fielded about a dozen questions about Allies. Every single one had nothing to do with general Allies issues. Every question was a very specific one on, how and if, special abilities worked with a unit they wanted to run with. Rarely were these things what I would call "fun" or interesting. They were simply trying (justifiably I might add) to power something up and possibly build around it.

The Allies Matrix adjustment might be the only thing to give us the ability to keep things in check right now and for the unforeseeable future without changing Codex rules.

DarthDiggler wrote:
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.

The problem with attempting to correct balance with "screw-you" missions is that you end up with a lot of collateral damage; lists that are not problem children get hammered by the mission. Meanwhile, math says that if you have 30 2++(++) stars, some will be matched against each other, even in the "screw-2++(++) star" mission, and that when that happens, one of them has to win. You may have reduced the number of 2++(++) stars near the top tables, but some will get through. What's more, because they're in attendance at all, you're not improving the game for the casual players who have to face these lists in the other missions.

Unless you announce the missions ahead of time, you're not affecting the composition of the meta. And if you do announce the missions ahead of time, they make adjustments so that the "screw you" mission doesn't impact them, at least as much.

I'm really not a fan of "screw you" mission design. I feel that they hurt most players more than they harm abusive lists.

Breng77 wrote:
So screamer star is bad, but Seer Council with 2+ re-rollable armor and Cover is OK?

Just so we're clear....

oh and the Shadow field from DE...is not worthless....

Ok, so let me word it a little better: No invulnerable save can be improved past a 3++. Invulnerable saves that are set by a Codex at a 2++ (i.e. Shadowfield) are unaffected by this rule.

The armor and cover saves on the Seer Council can be worked around (ignore cover shooting, assault, high AP shooting when the Eldar player fails to get invisibility, etc). You even acknowledge this a little further down.

Ok, so let me word it a little better: No invulnerable save can be improved past a 3++. Invulnerable saves that are set by a Codex at a 2++ (i.e. Shadowfield) are unaffected by this rule.

The armor and cover saves on the Seer Council can be worked around (ignore cover shooting, assault, high AP shooting when the Eldar player fails to get invisibility, etc). You even acknowledge this a little further down.

The problem is that they can be worked around...by some. Daemon FMC is only 3rd in the pack of lists behind Tau and Eldar because those armies can largely disrupt the 2+ re-rollable cover they bring. The rest can't get around those shenanigans that easily.

PanzerLeader wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So screamer star is bad, but Seer Council with 2+ re-rollable armor and Cover is OK?

Just so we're clear....

oh and the Shadow field from DE...is not worthless....

Ok, so let me word it a little better: No invulnerable save can be improved past a 3++. Invulnerable saves that are set by a Codex at a 2++ (i.e. Shadowfield) are unaffected by this rule.

The armor and cover saves on the Seer Council can be worked around (ignore cover shooting, assault, high AP shooting when the Eldar player fails to get invisibility, etc). You even acknowledge this a little further down.

Ummmm.... so the seer council will get at least the stock eldar power of conceal on a warlock which means they get shrouded at all times. Which means if they move at all they have a 3+ coversave (re-rolled with fortune) if they turbo boost, it is a 2+ re-rollable cover save. Also Baron Provides stealth...so there is your 2+ cover no turbo boost no invisibility....

Which yes there are some ways around but very few that bypass both armor and cover (tau Buff Commander, rolling perfect timing, and Ap 2 weapons in the assault,) which are few and far between, throw in hiding in the assault, and the Baron with a 2++ re-roll....it is really not as easy to work around as one might think.

Fixing screamerstar with no fix in for seer council (the obviously stronger army in most people eyes) seems silly to me.

I'm fine with the NO invul may be improved beyond 3++ rule actually, I just think you also need a fix for the Seer council...Which I personally think is best fixed by changing the fortune rules.

Or as many people have already state making it so that a 2+-re-rollable always fails on a 2 (or becomes a 3+ re-rollable essentially)