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.

Hey guys,

So, my local store hasn't had any tournaments for a while now, and I want to get things started again, so I'm considering volunteering as a TO. Most of what I would be doing is fairly straightforward-- book or BAO missions, win/loss scoring, etc. I'll probably take a poll of the likely playerbase to see whether people want Forge World or not.

However, there is one somewhat unusual rule that I am considering-- I kinda want to just say "No model may reroll an unsuccessful 2+ save for any reason." I don't actually think the armies with rerolling 2+ saves are too good-- in many respects I consider them gimmicky and limited. But the simple fact of the matter is that those armies are extremely unfun for people to play against, especially those that aren't as used to the tournament scene. Since this would just be a friendly store tournament designed to get people back in the game after a bit of a hiatus, I'm tempted to just ban rerolling 2+ saves completely in the interest of having a more fun experience for the attendees.

I know that some people might not be fond of this change, though, and I wanted to run it by people on Dakka before proposing it to the local group. What do you guys think? Would you be willing to attend a tournament with this rule in effect?

Are you just going to limit it there?

For example Tzeentch Daemons have the ability to re-roll one's, so a 3++ re-rolling ones is fine but 2++ isn't?

Most of the combo's used to get a re-rollable 2+ generally has some element of luck involved (i.e. psychic powers forewarning+ grimnoire/invisibility/fortune). Personally I wouldn't have an issue attending a tournament with said restriction but I'd be interested to see how you worded/phrased it.

My opinion is that we play the game as it is. If anyone started to ban what he personally disliked... Dunno it feels so wrong.
The game has rules and rules are not to be broken. Best idea is to make people play casual games instead of fully competitive lists.
You can't force people to follow your changes. That is why we buy rulebooks.

But the rules are fundamentally broken in themselves

I agree with no re-roll 2+ saves, honestly I can only think of 2 armies that can do this (Daemons and Eldar) and both can field non-deathstar lists that rock (Circus for Daemons and Serpent-spam for Eldar)

When asking for pre tournament list entries why not make everyone have a definative theme. Where the army has to make sense. Like if your going for an airbourne company with guard chances are they wouldnt have heaps of russes on the ground. Or you wouldnt get crazy allies mixing and matching because everyone has to take fluffy themed lists. Obviously its something you will look into on a list by list standard but as someone who is completely put off by tournaments that would be something that would interest me.

 avedominusnox wrote:
You can't force people to follow your changes. That is why we buy rulebooks.

If he's the TO he certainly can.

I just don't think it'll be a popular idea. If you do, you should ban MSS also. That sucks the fun out of a game too!

You could just state that the lowest invulnerable save is 3++ except for rare cases (i.e. Grazy Waaagh).

Could go for how Chaos does Mark of Tzeentch. Invul saves are increased to a minimum of 3+.

Wouldn't totally support it though. A rerollable 2+ Fateweaver is doesn't really break anything.

When asking for pre tournament list entries why not make everyone have a definative theme. Where the army has to make sense. Like if your going for an airbourne company with guard chances are they wouldnt have heaps of russes on the ground. Or you wouldnt get crazy allies mixing and matching because everyone has to take fluffy themed lists. Obviously its something you will look into on a list by list standard but as someone who is completely put off by tournaments that would be something that would interest me.

This really isn't what the OP is about though. He isn't worried about fluff, just game balance. It is increasingly clear that the re-rollable 2+ is on a new level of broken.

Could go for how Chaos does Mark of Tzeentch. Invul saves are increased to a minimum of 3+.

Wouldn't totally support it though. A rerollable 2+ Fateweaver is doesn't really break anything.

Debatable. A Grimiored Fateweaver is a perpetual tarpit to anything without hit and run. He is also a basically invincible unit that can move 24" and run 2d6 to contest. Oh, and the rest of his FMC buddies can go on and off the board at will. Run by a good player, he is pretty bad.

 JGrand wrote:

When asking for pre tournament list entries why not make everyone have a definative theme. Where the army has to make sense. Like if your going for an airbourne company with guard chances are they wouldnt have heaps of russes on the ground. Or you wouldnt get crazy allies mixing and matching because everyone has to take fluffy themed lists. Obviously its something you will look into on a list by list standard but as someone who is completely put off by tournaments that would be something that would interest me.

This really isn't what the OP is about though. He isn't worried about fluff, just game balance. It is increasingly clear that the re-rollable 2+ is on a new level of broken.

Could go for how Chaos does Mark of Tzeentch. Invul saves are increased to a minimum of 3+.

Wouldn't totally support it though. A rerollable 2+ Fateweaver is doesn't really break anything.

Debatable. A Grimiored Fateweaver is a perpetual tarpit to anything without hit and run. He is also a basically invincible unit that can move 24" and run 2d6 to contest. Oh, and the rest of his FMC buddies can go on and off the board at will. Run by a good player, he is pretty bad.

Unless you were at BFS or other places that allow RAW tank shock surround insta-gibbing of FMC (insta-gibbing regular MC is totally legit if they don't stop you with the DOG ... but due to some funky interaction of a GW FAQ w/ RAW, the FMC don't even get to DoG).

Here's a decent houserule, as proposed by Zagman.

If you have a unit with a re-rollable 2+, on the second attempt, it becomes a 4+ only.

This makes it better than a re-rollable 3+ but not quite as broken as re-rollable 2+'s.

Odds of failing:

3+/3+ -> 1 in 9
2+/4+ -> 1 in 12
2+/3+ -> 1 in 18
2+/2+ -> 1 in 36

 jy2 wrote:
Here's a decent houserule, as proposed by Zagman.

If you have a unit with a re-rollable 2+, on the second attempt, it becomes a 4+ only.

This makes it better than a re-rollable 3+ but not quite as broken as re-rollable 2+'s.

Odds of failing:

3+/3+ -> 1 in 9
2+/4+ -> 1 in 12
2+/3+ -> 1 in 18
2+/2+ -> 1 in 36

That is the best solution I've heard / chatted about of those being proposed roundabout. Don't know if any solution is mandatory yet, but if one is really craved by the community, I think this is the least obtrusive and easiest to express. TBD on need, however.

Yes to a ban on the re-rollable 2++. Whether or not it's technically balanced in that the top competitive lists/players have a chance to beat it isn't really that important, for most people it's an incredibly frustrating thing to play against even if you win. It's bad enough in a hardcore competitive event, but in a casual "get back into the game" tournament there's a very real risk that if someone brings one of those lists their opponents are going to quit 40k again because of how little fun they had with their attempt to come back.

 Swastakowey wrote:
When asking for pre tournament list entries why not make everyone have a definative theme. Where the army has to make sense. Like if your going for an airbourne company with guard chances are they wouldnt have heaps of russes on the ground. Or you wouldnt get crazy allies mixing and matching because everyone has to take fluffy themed lists. Obviously its something you will look into on a list by list standard but as someone who is completely put off by tournaments that would be something that would interest me.

That would be a terrible idea because "theme" is a subjective thing and everyone has a different opinion about what qualifies. If you have a TO arbitrarily deciding whether you're playing a "themed" list or not you can almost guarantee a lot of people will be unhappy with that decision, and not just because their flimsy attempt at justifying the "theme" of their netlist.

If we ban the rerollable 2+, can we ban the army which torrents you off the table by turn 2? After all the rerollable 2+ is the counter to that.

DarthDiggler wrote:
If we ban the rerollable 2+, can we ban the army which torrents you off the table by turn 2? After all the rerollable 2+ is the counter to that.

Proper LOS-blocking terrain should be able to prevent the Turn 1 tabling....unless the opponent is foolish enough not to take advantage of it.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
And here's a little rant for the new Escalation supplement.


Wanna bring in D-weapons to counter the re-rollable 2++ shenanigans. Really? Solve a problem (rules imbalance) with a much bigger problem (by making the game even more unbalanced with D-weapons)? 2 wrongs don't make a right.


Ok....end of rant. Carry on.

CaptainJay wrote:Are you just going to limit it there?

For example Tzeentch Daemons have the ability to re-roll one's, so a 3++ re-rolling ones is fine but 2++ isn't?

Most of the combo's used to get a re-rollable 2+ generally has some element of luck involved (i.e. psychic powers forewarning+ grimnoire/invisibility/fortune). Personally I wouldn't have an issue attending a tournament with said restriction but I'd be interested to see how you worded/phrased it.

Yeah. For simplicity's sake, the rule would just be "you cannot reroll an unsuccessful 2+ save."

Swastakowey wrote:When asking for pre tournament list entries why not make everyone have a definative theme. Where the army has to make sense. Like if your going for an airbourne company with guard chances are they wouldnt have heaps of russes on the ground. Or you wouldnt get crazy allies mixing and matching because everyone has to take fluffy themed lists. Obviously its something you will look into on a list by list standard but as someone who is completely put off by tournaments that would be something that would interest me.

Too restrictive and subjective. In a narrative event, that would be fine, but this is supposed to be a tournament of the conventional type-- I just want to make sure nobody has a rough experience.

NamelessBard wrote:You could just state that the lowest invulnerable save is 3++ except for rare cases (i.e. Grazy Waaagh).

That would be easier, but 2+ invulnerable saves are fine, while 2+ rerolling cover saves aren't.

JGrand wrote:He isn't worried about fluff, just game balance. It is increasingly clear that the re-rollable 2+ is on a new level of broken.

I disagree. I have played against rerollable 2+ save armies and beaten them with a balanced composition. I do not think they are broken at all. However, I do think that they can lead to completely unfun games, especially for less experienced players. I'm more concerned with ensuring that people have a fun time than with rebalancing the game.

jy2 wrote:Here's a decent houserule, as proposed by Zagman.

If you have a unit with a re-rollable 2+, on the second attempt, it becomes a 4+ only.

This makes it better than a re-rollable 3+ but not quite as broken as re-rollable 2+'s.

Odds of failing:

3+/3+ -> 1 in 9
2+/4+ -> 1 in 12
2+/3+ -> 1 in 18
2+/2+ -> 1 in 36

I like this rule, but it seems kind of complicated. I'm not sure whether people will go for it. It's definitely a good middle ground though.

DarthDiggler wrote:If we ban the rerollable 2+, can we ban the army which torrents you off the table by turn 2? After all the rerollable 2+ is the counter to that.

Quite frankly, you should never be torrented off the table at all-- much less on turn 2-- with proper terrain and tactics.

2+ then 4+. Still twice as good as a 2+ but only 1/3 as broken as a 2+\2+.

Obviously I'll cast my vote for that solution, lol. Thanks for the credit Jy2.

I think you should give it a try, and get back to us with the results! A test run is more productive than the prophets of dakka.

We're going to poll the LVO attendees on this, too, see what they say which is a pretty big pool of players to get data from (assuming they respond! haha)

Can we make a list of all things that should be banned?

The list may be too long and subjective. However, one thing I feel we definitely shouldn't have in non-Apoc tournament games is Destroyer weapons brought in through the Escalation supplement. That is probably the only thing that I am against in normal tournament play, with the exception of "Gladiator-style" tournaments.

I don't have strong feelings about this, but you will make The Mantle of the Laughing God useless; the 2+ re-rollable cover save was clearly an intended effect of this very expensive piece of gear.

It does feel a little arbitrary though. There are some other combos/units that allow for nearly no-brained auto-win strategies as well.

 Kingsley wrote:

jy2 wrote:Here's a decent houserule, as proposed by Zagman.

If you have a unit with a re-rollable 2+, on the second attempt, it becomes a 4+ only.

This makes it better than a re-rollable 3+ but not quite as broken as re-rollable 2+'s.

Odds of failing:

3+/3+ -> 1 in 9
2+/4+ -> 1 in 12
2+/3+ -> 1 in 18
2+/2+ -> 1 in 36

I like this rule, but it seems kind of complicated. I'm not sure whether people will go for it. It's definitely a good middle ground though.

IMO, a middle-ground is better than an outright ban. Logically, it also makes more sense that a modified re-rollable 2+ is still better than a re-rollable 3+ (whereas a ban makes it actually worse). This will give the player still some advantage to having re-rollable units, though nowhere near as ridiculous as the original RAW. At the same time, they are still quite killable. Anyways, that is just my opinion. I'm pretty sure opponents won't object to this rules change. Better than playing against a fully re-rollable 2+ unit in a tournament where there are no rules changes at all.

With so much stuff ignoring cover, the 2+ cover save reroll would be a non-inclusion. the big problem is the 2+ invul. There is no real way to get around it other than rune priests/things that mess with their psychic tests (which are VERY few). 2+ cover can be denied, 2+ invul requires tools that are not prevalent in many codices anymore.

 Dude_I_Suck wrote:
With so much stuff ignoring cover, the 2+ cover save reroll would be a non-inclusion. the big problem is the 2+ invul. There is no real way to get around it other than rune priests/things that mess with their psychic tests (which are VERY few). 2+ cover can be denied, 2+ invul requires tools that are not prevalent in many codices anymore.

One of the problems is that the unit getting the re-rollable 2+ cover will most likely be getting a re-rollable 2+ armour as well. No army, with the exception of Tau, can bypass both and even Tau have problems against massed 2+ armour save units because the current meta is mainly AP 4/5 guns for them.

Although re-rollable 2++ invulns is bad, it actually isn't as bad as the 2+ cover/armour of the seer council because you can lock/tarpit the screamerstar in combat to neutralize it. That is something you can't do against the seer council.

In all honesty A re-roll-able 2+ cover or 2+ armor is OK it is when the save hits 2++ re roll-able that i lose my stuff all over. There are ways to remove cover, or reduce it, there are ways to get around armor, but a invulnerable 2++ reroll-able? BAHhummerbugs.

 jy2 wrote:

One of the problems is that the unit getting the re-rollable 2+ cover will most likely be getting a re-rollable 2+ armour as well. No army, with the exception of Tau, can bypass both and even Tau have problems against massed 2+ armour save units because the current meta is mainly AP 4/5 guns for them.

Although re-rollable 2++ invulns is bad, it actually isn't as bad as the 2+ cover/armour of the seer council because you can lock/tarpit the screamerstar in combat to neutralize it. That is something you can't do against the seer council.

Again, except for the Mantle Seer/Autarch should you choose to go that way. And that's only true of the Seer council with the Baron attached. Banning allies would get rid of that problem. And the tediousness of Taudar. But that's an off-topic issue.

Peregrine put a good perspective on it, and changed my opinion. If your intent is to try and respark interest in tournies, and draw people back into competitive play, then banning the most obscene of the combos seems pretty reasonable.

For a more hardcore, veteran-friendly tournament, I'd be kind of disappointed. If I go to a competitive event, I expect to compete 'without pads' as it were. I don't want to feel like I only won because the daemons player couldn't bring his optimal list.

Having a 'banned' or 'restricted' list works for CCGs because they have a rotating cycle of ever-newer cards and combos. The cycle is much slower in 40k, and introduces far fewer new combo elements with each revolution. I'd probably be pretty miffed if I showed up to find that the local TO had banned, say, allies, especially after I've dropped a significant amount of money and time organizing a small arsenal of allied detachments for my Marines.

Still, for an event for beginners, or to rekindle waning interest in competitive events (especially to protect an easily-burned community from the depredations of out-of-town tourney hustlers ) this could be a very good idea.

 jy2 wrote:

 Dude_I_Suck wrote:
With so much stuff ignoring cover, the 2+ cover save reroll would be a non-inclusion. the big problem is the 2+ invul. There is no real way to get around it other than rune priests/things that mess with their psychic tests (which are VERY few). 2+ cover can be denied, 2+ invul requires tools that are not prevalent in many codices anymore.

One of the problems is that the unit getting the re-rollable 2+ cover will most likely be getting a re-rollable 2+ armour as well. No army, with the exception of Tau, can bypass both and even Tau have problems against massed 2+ armour save units because the current meta is mainly AP 4/5 guns for them.

Although re-rollable 2++ invulns is bad, it actually isn't as bad as the 2+ cover/armour of the seer council because you can lock/tarpit the screamerstar in combat to neutralize it. That is something you can't do against the seer council.

Doesn't it get Hit and Run from the Baron?

If that's the case, then maybe the solution is one that I've been pushing: disallow Allies in the tournament. It stops the really obnoxious combinations. Screamerstar will still be on the table but there are ways of dealing with it (i.e., Barrage the guy with the Grimoire, for example).

Yes, the seer council gets H&R from the Baron, which IMO is why the seer council is superior to the screamerstar.

Disallowing allies is a more extreme form of banning that may turn a lot of people off. If there's something TO's don't want to do is to turn off people to his tournament. Thus, going too extreme usually isn't advisable unless the TO knows that most of the participants wouldn't mind.