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.

Lets ban Markerlights while we are at it! They ignore cover sooo broken!

Lets also ban Combat Focus since running and shooting is against the rules normally

Banning anything is just silly and childish in my point of view, its not like units that can do this are cheap or anything.

You say it's not fun for people to play against these armies, if majority of players find it not fun to play against Eldar and Tau should we ban them as well?

 jy2 wrote:
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.

This may be a little off-topic, but you think banning allies (or SOME allies) is more extreme than altering a game mechanic? Philosophically, in my mind, it makes more sense to control meta-game elements, like army composition, before you start tinkering with game-play itself, work outside to inside.

And that was an actual question, not an internet-I'm-trying-not-to-sound-like-a-jerk-but-making-it-worse-thing. I really appreciate the way you comport yourself in these forums and you're a far more experienced player than I am, so I'd like to get your take on that.

I could easily see banning allies outside the IOM, and guard/chaos being embraced by a lot of players.

Purple Saturday wrote:
This may be a little off-topic, but you think banning allies (or SOME allies) is more extreme than altering a game mechanic? Philosophically, in my mind, it makes more sense to control meta-game elements, like army composition, before you start tinkering with game-play itself, work outside to inside.

I think most people would probably disagree with that, because banning allies inherently affects all players and all armies whereas altering the mechanic of 2+ re-rollables only impacts a few units. Depending on how it's carried out, it wouldn't even ruin those units just tame them down a little versus eliminating unique armies from the game (keep in mind, the vast majority of players enjoy allies that are not abusive at all). Also it's important to remember that one of the main units we are talking about (screamerstar, fateweaver, or any other 4+ invul daemon for that matter) would not be affected by the loss of allies at all.

Dont' ban allies, just change so that BB -> AiC.

Purple Saturday wrote:
This may be a little off-topic, but you think banning allies (or SOME allies) is more extreme than altering a game mechanic? Philosophically, in my mind, it makes more sense to control meta-game elements, like army composition, before you start tinkering with game-play itself, work outside to inside.

I think that banning allies would be unacceptable to most players, simply because the vast majority of allies combos are not unfun to deal with-- while the vast majority of rerolling 2+ saves ARE unfun to deal with.

I personally don't like house ruling anything. I'll play it by the rules untill the next faq or edition comes out. What if I think it is "unfun" to play against a particular faction like space marines you should ban them so I has more fun. I think players should take responsibility and ownership of the fact that only you yourself can make you happy and make sure you are having a good time and stop blaming your opponent or whatever else is unfunning your situation. Are some things more fun then others? Of course but it is your attitude that makes or breaks any given experience. Personally I don't like seeing IG across from my DE if they seize the initiative and there is little terrain but I still have a good time playing and trying to take that hill.

Purple Saturday wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
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.

This may be a little off-topic, but you think banning allies (or SOME allies) is more extreme than altering a game mechanic? Philosophically, in my mind, it makes more sense to control meta-game elements, like army composition, before you start tinkering with game-play itself, work outside to inside.

And that was an actual question, not an internet-I'm-trying-not-to-sound-like-a-jerk-but-making-it-worse-thing. I really appreciate the way you comport yourself in these forums and you're a far more experienced player than I am, so I'd like to get your take on that.

I could easily see banning allies outside the IOM, and guard/chaos being embraced by a lot of players.

It's because of majority. A lot, lot more people run allies compared to those that run 2++ units. Why make them pay for it when the problem isn't really them. It would be akin to banning all flyers just because you thought the heldrake was too good.

No worries. I don't take things personally here. Your question is a legitimate concern/idea.

I do smile at the people saying dont ban 2+ re rollable armour or cover but do ban 2++. For example, what do Guard have that ignores cover? one vehicle iirc. That is hardly going to be 'fun' for them as that is the purpose of this proposed ban by Kingsley no?.

Also saying that games are unfun against screamerstar's and seercouncils, to be frank when I first started going tournies and playing against good players with good lists, I didnt have fun, I dont go to tournies to have fun I go to play against competitive lists. Maybe thats just me (and play fantasy for fun...).

I dont think it is fun playing with Marines against say the reaper star, or horde daemons against a tau gunline, or another of the other armies out there that encounter a hard a counter, will you think of banning them as well?.

Kingsley, do you think the lone buff commander in a unit of dark reapers is fun? a farsight/ovesa/riptide/buffmander is fun?, or a lone eldar farseer buffing Tau riptides or broadsides?. Units that kick out x amount of no cover, re roll to hit, high str and ap, in other words you put your models on the table then remove them off the table as you dont have any way of saving them.

Honestly I fail to see what part of that is fun it is purely a list building reason they are included.

You yourself have said they arent impossible to beat, no list is, just because some people find it hard and non fun to beat is that a reason to remove them?, I could say about some players, they are'nt fun to play and damn hard to beat, can they get banned as well?.

Also as I said in the other thread, if you starting banning one thing people will want other things banned, and I would whole heartedly agree with them.

MarkyMark wrote:

Also saying that games are unfun against screamerstar's and seercouncils, to be frank when I first started going tournies and playing against good players with good lists, I didnt have fun, I dont go to tournies to have fun I go to play against competitive lists. Maybe thats just me (and play fantasy for fun...).

I go to tournaments to do both.

It's the tournament organizer's job to give the players the rules and restrictions they will play with for the tournament. That is it.

People don't have to attend.

Last night our nids encountered two SW rune priests with JOTW, killed both tervigons first turn (I know, should've reserved one). Ban 'em, I say!

 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.

The reason a lot of people include tau allies is for the riptide, the buffmander, and all the anti-flyer/cover. SoB, Marines, and Eldar can all do it solo as well. With most armies including/ having any of the above as allies, they have the tools to do such a thing.

so it is a three game event? prepublish say 5 missions that could be used. one of the missions has a rule like Warp flux: invulnerable saves count as normal armour saves.

this still allows people to have 2+ rr but ap2 weapons gimp them.

you don't have to use the mission but it is out there to scare people into picking differnet list.

Asking tournament organizers to ban certain things means that everyone is just asking for a better chance to win in an environment that will NEVER be balanced. Come on.

Plan to fight against competitive and painful armies. Personally, I don't care what someone brings in a tournament.. because I likely won't be attending.

Restricting rules or units in a game system that is notoriously unbalanced is always based on opinion, because what might hurt one player's army doesn't hurt another. Example: If I hate Heldrakes because they work well against me, does it give me cause to ask that they be banned? Nope. What about valkries?

What about chimeras? Yes, I am terrified of Chimeras because of their small arms output and the fact that they make my AP3 bolters and 4+ invuls useless. BAN THEM.

Like I said before, it's always up to the tournament organizer to determine what he allows.. but for the record I don't think there should be any restrictions in tournaments.

 skkipper wrote:
so it is a three game event? prepublish say 5 missions that could be used. one of the missions has a rule like Warp flux: invulnerable saves count as normal armour saves.

this still allows people to have 2+ rr but ap2 weapons gimp them.

you don't have to use the mission but it is out there to scare people into picking differnet list.

Here is the issue though, it still punishes regular daemons more than screamerstar. If every Daemon goes to having a 5+ armor save then it kill the entire army in a large way.

 Brometheus wrote:


Like I said before, it's always up to the tournament organizer to determine what he allows.. but for the record I don't think there should be any restrictions in tournaments.

Agreed, but at times TOs look at the meta and feel they have to make a decision; do I allow my tournament to include everything, even the things that people really, really hate and feel disgusted play against, or do I change or tinker with the rules and disgust and alienate those who feel the game should be as close to RAW/RAI as possible?

Some systems police themselves, such as Magic the Gathering (although to be fair they have much more time to test new mechanics and card interactions and they impose restrictions on certain formats because of it). Others require independent moderation (I believe Warhammer 40k falls into this niche as the company has little control over the tournaments that its gamers play).

It's really a choice and perspective matter. If you play in a group who plays nothing but Seer Councils, Taudar, Screamstars, ect. and are competitive to the extreme, you would not want people to change the rules because it handicaps your selection of weapons to bring to the table.

 WarOne wrote:

 Brometheus wrote:


Like I said before, it's always up to the tournament organizer to determine what he allows.. but for the record I don't think there should be any restrictions in tournaments.

Agreed, but at times TOs look at the meta and feel they have to make a decision; do I allow my tournament to include everything, even the things that people really, really hate and feel disgusted play against, or do I change or tinker with the rules and disgust and alienate those who feel the game should be as close to RAW/RAI as possible?

Some systems police themselves, such as Magic the Gathering (although to be fair they have much more time to test new mechanics and card interactions and they impose restrictions on certain formats because of it). Others require independent moderation (I believe Warhammer 40k falls into this niche as the company has little control over the tournaments that its gamers play).

It's really a choice and perspective matter. If you play in a group who plays nothing but Seer Councils, Taudar, Screamstars, ect. and are competitive to the extreme, you would not want people to change the rules because it handicaps your selection of weapons to bring to the table.

People hate playing against Eldar and Tau should they ban them as well?

 Makutsu wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

 Brometheus wrote:


Like I said before, it's always up to the tournament organizer to determine what he allows.. but for the record I don't think there should be any restrictions in tournaments.

Agreed, but at times TOs look at the meta and feel they have to make a decision; do I allow my tournament to include everything, even the things that people really, really hate and feel disgusted play against, or do I change or tinker with the rules and disgust and alienate those who feel the game should be as close to RAW/RAI as possible?

Some systems police themselves, such as Magic the Gathering (although to be fair they have much more time to test new mechanics and card interactions and they impose restrictions on certain formats because of it). Others require independent moderation (I believe Warhammer 40k falls into this niche as the company has little control over the tournaments that its gamers play).

It's really a choice and perspective matter. If you play in a group who plays nothing but Seer Councils, Taudar, Screamstars, ect. and are competitive to the extreme, you would not want people to change the rules because it handicaps your selection of weapons to bring to the table.

People hate playing against Eldar and Tau should they ban them as well?

Do you really want to? As a TO, would you feel that Tau and Elder need to be removed for balance or let the meta figure it out on its own?

 Makutsu wrote:

People hate playing against Eldar and Tau should they ban them as well?

You're just being obnoxious now.

There is a clear cut difference between the likes of the Seer Council/ScreamerStar and the likes of a 'generic' TauDar list.

The former, when set up, becomes literally untouchable. The fact that a 2000pt army can do little more than a couple of wounds (if even that) to a 600pt unit because of a combination of factors is ludicrous. Even the usual counter of "just ignore them and play the mission!" which is normally proposed is little more than fallacious, as these units are so fast they can literally be upon you turn one.

Kingsley, I don't think that there will be a way of "comping" (that's effectively what this is) the 40k meta without hurting other armies. I run a Farseer w/Bike and Mantle, and she's a great harassment tool but most definitely not overpowered. However, the same cannot be said for the likes of the Seer Council and the like.

If you ban 2+ saves of any kind from being re-rolled, it'll also effect those 2+ re-rollable saves which really aren't THAT much of an issue.

Iranna.

 Iranna wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:

People hate playing against Eldar and Tau should they ban them as well?

You're just being obnoxious now.

There is a clear cut difference between the likes of the Seer Council/ScreamerStar and the likes of a 'generic' TauDar list.

The former, when set up, becomes literally untouchable. The fact that a 2000pt army can do little more than a couple of wounds (if even that) to a 600pt unit because of a combination of factors is ludicrous. Even the usual counter of "just ignore them and play the mission!" which is normally proposed is little more than fallacious, as these units are so fast they can literally be upon you turn one.

Kingsley, I don't think that there will be a way of "comping" (that's effectively what this is) the 40k meta without hurting other armies. I run a Farseer w/Bike and Mantle, and she's a great harassment tool but most definitely not overpowered. However, the same cannot be said for the likes of the Seer Council and the like.

If you ban 2+ saves of any kind from being re-rolled, it'll also effect those 2+ re-rollable saves which really aren't THAT much of an issue.

Iranna.

Assuming you have played against them right?. The screamer star is more like 800-900pts in a single unit, that can be on you turn 2 but can only kill one unit a turn. Now add in fateweaver to that mix thats 1100pts. Fateweaver to be honest is pretty darn weak and drops easy enough being t5 4++ (RR 1's so effectively 3++). So the screamerstar player has the majority, by far, of points in one unit. Play the mission and not your opponent, its not hard at all to do. The seer council, average of say 8 on bikes with 2 farseers is 670pts and then some, then add in baron for needed hit and run so 775pts, again more then half the army in one unit. If it was cheap and OP then there I would agree its broken but with half or 3/4's of a army in one unit it deserves to be powerful, one thing I have found in the 6th ed dex's there is no cheap cheese at all.

I think shooting your 2k pt army at one unit which has that save is where you are failing, spread out and move, lose one unit a turn maybe yes, but then kill their troops and win.

Also, no screamercouncil or seercouncil has won a big tourny in the uk, I am not suprised to be frank.

Good points.

Breng77 wrote:

 skkipper wrote:
so it is a three game event? prepublish say 5 missions that could be used. one of the missions has a rule like Warp flux: invulnerable saves count as normal armour saves.

this still allows people to have 2+ rr but ap2 weapons gimp them.

you don't have to use the mission but it is out there to scare people into picking differnet list.

Here is the issue though, it still punishes regular daemons more than screamerstar. If every Daemon goes to having a 5+ armor save then it kill the entire army in a large way.

I am not saying use the mission but have it as an option. people who play the 2++ lists are trying to game the system and will change to something else if they feel they lost the game.

Here is what I am saying though, if there is a threat of that mission (Lets call it Mission Tau and Eldar beat face on Daemons more than normal), I either won't attend, or won't run Daemons at all regardless of whether I run 2++ invul. Than the Seer Council runs in with its regular 2+ re-roll and 2+ cover re-roll and still rolls people.

So while you kind of hurt the 2+ re-roll army (wait I still have 2+ armor- reroll) you kill regular Daemons who only have a 5+ save. So if that mission does get played and I bring daemons I get screwed, so I don't play the army.

You are better off just saying hey we don't like daemons...play gunline.

No, I'm being sarcastic, obviously I don't want them to be removed from the game.

In terms of balance though, the 2 books are standing on the top now, so according to you they should be removed for balance.

And letting the meta figure out on its own should include 2++ rerollable.

Once you start banning specific lists it become unfair for some codices.
People start asking why not ban Necron Flier Spam? Heldrakes? Farsight Bomb etc...

If players were playing within the rules I personally believe it is fair for them to bring whatever they want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


I know there's a clear cut difference between the two, but it's essentially the same thing.
Once you start banning specific lists, people will be asking why not ban this or this or this?

Both the seer council and screamerstar costs up to 600-1000 pts, that's a lot of points for a tournament.

If there was a vote, I'd say no.

Sure a 2++ is frustrating, but there are counters.
It also requires an amount of luck to get the right set up, and then some more luck to successfully cast the powers/grimmoire together.
Because of this I would say that a re-rollable 2++ save can be highly competitive, but not overpowered enough to warrant blocking it.

Do lists that are centred around getting 2++ saves more often than not come out ahead vs waveserpent spam lists? I would say not.
Arbitrarily blocking one competitive build but leaving others in the game to me seems like a pointless exercise.

You are running a tournament, and in the spirit of competition some people expect to be able to play their cheese lists to the max, I don't see a reason why this should be denied to them.

Because it causes other people not to show up?

Or to not enjoy the game when they do show up?

Banning a 2+ re-rollable save is unacceptable. It nerfs 2 armies in the game, both of which are not dominating the tournament scene, and both of which can
and do loose games. You have to be smart enough to build a list and play well enough to deal with them.

Once you go down this path, you have to start banning other things. And there are lots of other really broken things in this game.

And Reecius - what happened to "Team Zero Comp"? You yourself have posted articles about how the game should be played as written, with
no units banned. Now, you change your tune because of a couple of tournament builds?

It is a 40K tournament for crying out loud, not Barbie dolls.

Breng77 wrote:
Because it causes other people not to show up?

Or to not enjoy the game when they do show up?

I presume this was in response to my post. I'll simply say that the same thing can be said for Serpent spam and many other tactics which are considered cheesy.

There are many lists around that are not fun to play against or might dissuade players from attending. I'm sure the TauDar meta has had this effect on some people.

Pitting the most competitive lists against each other is what tournaments are about, and to limit some of the competitors but not others is out of order in my books.

Each organizer / group will have a different opinion on what should / should not be included in their event. What ever way they wish to go, it is entirely up to them.

For me personally, I do not think it is necessary to ban any of it. There have been so many "broken" combos in the past and events have survived. This type of mechanic is nothing new when compared to the other power curves created throughout the various editions. But then again - only the old guard would know this.

Big Blind Bill- Yes yes yes yes.