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.

@Aftermath

I am 100% aware of the irony of our team name and my current stance on these issues. It is funny.

But, Team Zero Comp was something that came about as we lived in an area where there were only comp heavy tournaments and 5th edition, pre-GK, was really balanced comparative to any other point in the game.

This is different.

Can you beat these armies? Yes.

Are they fluky? Yes. 1/8 games they don't get their combination of powers and they take a crap. 7/8 games they do, and the game is a joke.

I personally am all about finding a way to win, and learning how to deconstruct and beat the "unbeatable" armies as it gives me a lot of satisfaction. Not everyone thinks that way.

It is very, very easy for some people to simply say, "tell everyone to just deal with it and stop being pussies."

Yup, I know the feeling. I used to be that way myself.

But, it is a HUGE difference when you are the one with tens of thousands of dollars on the line running a big gaming convention. I assure you, all of you would change your tune if you had walked the road Team Zero Com has walked on the journey from hardcore tournament players to tournament organizers. It really does change your perspective.

While a lot of tournament goers share the opinions of those expressed here, the simple truth of the matter is that the health and well being of a convention rests on the bottom 94% of the attendees coming. Straight up. The top 16 will be the top 16 regardless of format. The guys with the mental mastery of the game can go to any event in any format and win. The guys coming to have fun, can't because they do not have the time nor the inclination to invest the hours of study it takes to get to that point.

The reason these conversations are coming up is that for the first time ever in this game, their are lists that take skill out of the equation. That pisses off top players and it pisses off casual players. For the first time, everyone is pissed! haha, that is a problem.

So, we are talking about ideas that may help to mitigate this.

Do any of you really think that going from invincible status with a 2+ reroll to neigh-invincible status with a 2+/4+ is really going to kill any build? A 2+/4+ is what Draigowing was last edition and that was considered slowed OP then. We're talking about simply backing it up enough so that if another player must engage the deathstar unit, they actually have a chance of hurting it.

It's saying instead of 108 Bolter shots to cause a SINGLE WOUND, we're talking about the still stupid, 36 bolter shots.

Is that really that big of a deal?

While I agree that we need to play as close to the rules as possible, we are coming to a point in the game where you can have 6 books in a single list, or more.

Super Heavies on the table.

It's all legal now. If we don't allow any of it, we are "banning" things. There is no difference in saying, we are going to ban super heavies in our tournament because we think it won't be fun, than saying, we're going to ban a 2+ reroll (or nerf it, to be more accurate) because we think it will be more fun for more people.

And, as a player, would you choose to not go to an event because of this nerf to simply allow people to actually fight back against certain units that are becoming increasingly prevalent? Even if attacking said units is a bad idea in the first place? All it does is take away that sense of hopelessness that turns players away form coming back to a tournament. The units still function in the exact same way they did before, but with a slight, and IMO reasonable reduction to make everything more fun for everyone.

Again, not saying that this WILL happen, but that we should consider it.

That is what we are talking about, not banning entire armies which, come on, even on the internet that is being excessively hyperbolic. We're talking about extremely targeted nerfs, that modify the game in as small a way as possible to attempt to level the playing field so that more armies are viable, and that more people can enjoy the game they are playing.

 Reecius wrote:
@Aftermath
I assure you, all of you would change your tune if you had walked the road Team Zero Com has walked on the journey from hardcore tournament players to tournament organizers. It really does change your perspective.

Hey Reece - not taking anything away from you. However, some of us have already been down that road a lot and I mean a lot longer than you / Team Zero Comp and we have a different opinion. The "impossibly" hard to kill / play against builds have existed throughout all editions. With the increase in volumes of fire come increases in volumes of saves or models to balance it out.

I'm also going to add - in the early to mid 2000s, the UK GT allowed everything when the US tournament scene was banning various things. Yet, the UK GT had one of the highest total number of participants in the world at the time.

Create the type of event you want to see. Every event can be and most likely is different. People will still attend as long as the event is run very well, provides an economical means for attendance and is run in a pleasing environment.

Lots of alphas with big opinions, rawr.

It's really more about if any issues become so vastly agreed upon that the outliers are few and far between, and the vast majority doesn't want something. That hasn't happened yet. Frankly I don't have a strong one on 2+ re-rolls (B/c the two major offensive units are psy power based) until we see what they do with Shadows and the popularity/viability of Nids.

Formations are a little stupid in terms of their impact on both the fluffy and competitive fronts.

But /waiting game until the Advent Calendar completes and Tyranids release.

In the interim, I'VE DONE LOTS OF TOURNIES AND ORGANIZED 'EM TOO AND I THINK YA'LL ARE WRONG ALSO! Love you both, Greg and Reece.

@Inquisitor Malice

I totally understand some of you guys have been around the hobby longer than me, no doubt. Not trying to put anyone down, just trying to illustrate that it is a different thing to have the perspective of how things affect an individual as a tournament gamer vs. how things impact a group of attendees as a group.

And, yes, volume of fire helps but it takes insane amount of fire to do a single wound through a 2+ reroll.

Literally, multiply the amount of wounds in a unit by 108 do determine what it takes to fight them directly with bolters (and we know that is typically not the way to do it but hey). There aren't enough turns in the game to hurt one of these units in a lot of cases, shooting your entire army at them

Again, you and I know that isn't the correct tactic to use, but most don't.

My main point is do you want to play with and against these lists? Or, would you consider it fair to tone them down a bit (a good player still isn't going to engage them directly in most cases) but it allows the chance to actually impact them if needs be.

MVBrandt wrote:
In the interim, I'VE DONE LOTS OF TOURNIES AND ORGANIZED 'EM TOO AND I THINK YA'LL ARE WRONG ALSO! Love you both, Greg and Reece.

I'm still waiting to be right one of these times.

I can see Reece's point. As a TO, you can't be too extreme. You have to cater to the masses as that is your core customer base, not just the hardcore, competitive players. The hardcore gamers will still go to a tournament no matter the format. However, if nothing is done to curb a "perceived" incongruity (and an extreme one at that) in the game, then you risk losing a lot of your customers, maybe not at the current tournament but most likely on the next one especially if they leave with a sour taste in their mouth after having to deal with the invincible unit.

It's like an ultra-liberal politician who makes it into office. After he does so, he needs to take a step back from his ultra-liberal views for a slightly more toned and conservative perspective, at least if he wants to continue to stay in office and get re-elected.

In short, as a gamer, yeah do whatever you want and go to whatever tournament you want. However, as a TO, you better make damn sure you listen to the majority of the players going to your tournaments and who are your customers.

Haha, we're never right! Just varying degrees of wrong =P

I was joking with the guys at the shop that whatever comes next is going to piss people off, no matter what we do, the trick is trying to piss the least amount of people off as possible! haha

 jy2 wrote:
I can see Reece's point. As a TO, you can't be too extreme. You have to cater to the masses as that is your core customer base, not just the hardcore, competitive players. The hardcore gamers will still go to a tournament no matter the format. However, if nothing is done to curb a "perceived" incongruity (and an extreme one at that) in the game, then you risk losing a lot of your customers, maybe not at the current tournament but most likely on the next one especially if they leave with a sour taste in their mouth after having to deal with the invincible unit.

It's like an ultra-liberal politician who makes it into office. After he does so, he needs to take a step back from his ultra-liberal views for a slightly more toned and conservative perspective, at least if he wants to continue to stay in office and get re-elected.

In short, as a gamer, yeah do whatever you want and go to whatever tournament you want. However, as a TO, you better make damn sure you listen to the majority of the players going to your tournaments and who are your customers.

This. It's behind 90% of what a good TO does, contrary to popular opinion that most TOs just rule the way they personally think is best.

Why not just make it a poll? I personally wouldn't attend an event if it limited what I could and couldn't bring for my army. I play DE and am fine playing against whatever my opponent brings weather I win, lose or draw.

@Jim

You said it. It is a business, after all and while the core goal is fun, fair competition, with no pennies in the coffers, no tournament to go to in the first place.

Changing a core rule of the game will do nothing to help "customers" or tournament attendees. There will always be power lists at these events. Remember Draigo Wing last edition? I personally watched an Ork player used to rolling people off the table storm out of an event after he found out throwing 120 boyz at it won't work.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Leave the game alone; it runs fine as is.

And, Reecius, you are being paranoid. You are not going to see half the players at your event running Seer Council or Screamer Star. Certainly, not like what we saw at Adepticon with all the Grey Knights.

There will be a few of them, but I would speculate you are going to be looking at 50% of your attendees running some version of Tau\Eldar. With a few IG Saber\Thudd spam lists.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

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.

The last line is entirely your opinion....for many people that is not what tournaments are all about. I'm with you that 2+ re-roll lists are not the only unfun thing to play against that might deter attendees.

I just think it is short sighted and naive to think that there isn't some issue with the game right now that was not present before.

You think 2+ re-roll is bad, how about 21 Broadsides in an army....or just broadsides in every army?

I'm with Mike in waiting through the end of these releases, but there is no rule that the "competitive" side of thing cannot change things to make a more competitive/interesting game.

Tournaments already do this with missions, changes to how warlord traits are chose, leaving out mysterious stuff, 1999+1 events (this already was many people saying...lets not just bring the most competitive lists, because they are crazy broken/stupid), time limits on games, some have Comp in some method.

Will some people always bring the strongest available list? Yeah they will....toning down what that strongest available list is makes the games those players play against players not bringing the stongest list a bit more enjoyable.

Deleted cause my phone sucks

A couple of fun events I have attended in the past:

Highlander - No repeat units outside troops. You have to choose an option from each FOC Slot, before you can repeat a unit. This one was cool, because people took units they normally never would.

Power Armour - Just marines on marines. I honestly think this is the best way to play marines. They are most balanced against each other.

I have to admit that as a Daemon player, who stuck with the army ever since the initial codex dropped just before 5th hit the shelves, a part of me finds this debate highly insulting and hypocritical.
Last edition we saw the game shift towards a min/maxed mech fest. Daemons sucked overall at dealing with mobile vehicles. (Parking lots that never moved were lunch!) Still, we took it on the chin and soldiered on. Then we saw Durp Knights literally screw our entire codex over and plant its collective foot up our backsides, including an easily spammed ability we couldn't stop that could outright prevent us from even putting a single fething model on the table!!! (granted, most tourney lists only ever saw 20 or so Dick Quake capable models at most, but even 10 used properly was enough to auto-screw Daemons.)
And did we get any kind of sympathy? Hell no. We just got told, "sucks to be you - deal with it 'cause them's the rulez!lol"

Yet now Daemons finally get a really, really good ability, but all of a sudden it's entirely unfair/broken because just blindly throwing your entire army at it like a sledgehammer doesn't work.

A part of me can only help but think, 'pot, meet kettle'. (especially when it's GK players bitching about our pts denial set-up, because it's not like they EVER gamed Draigowing & wound allocation shenanigans to brutal effect... )



Okay, ranting done...
I do entirely agree that a re-rollable 2++ IS really stupid and should definitely NOT be available across an entire unit. It isn't much fun to see a whole unit that's quite literally untouchable, and trust me when I say that as a Daemon player I know better than most 40k players how stupid it is! (Thank-you so much High Elves and your stupidly OP Everb**** + Banner of the Wardcrutch Dragon...)
However, I don't think it should be outright banned - just limit it to only a single model. (so only a Greater or Prince or solo Herald/Chariot etc... can get it) Or else limit the re-roll to a 4+ as suggested, thus allowing it to still be effective across an entire unit.

Banning it outright though is unfair to Daemon players, especially since we've had to take everyone else's silly crap, (and GK's especially so), right up the bum for so long.

 jy2 wrote:
I can see Reece's point. As a TO, you can't be too extreme. You have to cater to the masses as that is your core customer base, not just the hardcore, competitive players. The hardcore gamers will still go to a tournament no matter the format. However, if nothing is done to curb a "perceived" incongruity (and an extreme one at that) in the game, then you risk losing a lot of your customers, maybe not at the current tournament but most likely on the next one especially if they leave with a sour taste in their mouth after having to deal with the invincible unit.

It's like an ultra-liberal politician who makes it into office. After he does so, he needs to take a step back from his ultra-liberal views for a slightly more toned and conservative perspective, at least if he wants to continue to stay in office and get re-elected.

In short, as a gamer, yeah do whatever you want and go to whatever tournament you want. However, as a TO, you better make damn sure you listen to the majority of the players going to your tournaments and who are your customers.

I have been to two

Sparky's
House
invitational
tournaments


So Malice has solo Organized events in the past.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Okay, ranting done...
I do entirely agree that a re-rollable 2++ IS really stupid and should definitely NOT be available across an entire unit. It isn't much fun to see a whole unit that's quite literally untouchable, and trust me when I say that as a Daemon player I know better than most 40k players how stupid it is! (Thank-you so much High Elves and your stupidly OP Everb**** + Banner of the Wardcrutch Dragon...)
However, I don't think it should be outright banned - just limit it to only a single model. (so only a Greater or Prince or solo Herald/Chariot etc... can get it) Or else limit the re-roll to a 4+ as suggested, thus allowing it to still be effective across an entire unit.

Banning it outright though is unfair to Daemon players, especially since we've had to take everyone else's silly crap, (and GK's especially so), right up the bum for so long.

Lol, nice rant prior to this and agree about not considering banning it entirely- just either restricting it or reducing it.

That's only if, as MVBrandt says, GW don't surprise everyone and fix this with the Tyranids codex, as they very well might.

Of course, then there will still be Formations to deal with... but we have to see how far that craziness goes first. GW are apparently just getting warmed up

A bit off-topic here, but for every codex they release that's overpowered they solve it with the next codex which obliterates the super meta armies everyone had built and itself becomes overpowered.. I'm waiting for the last 40k army to be released
But yeah, it's not about restricting the game so that certain people lose, that's just unfair for certain players IMO, and these deathstar lists only work, as someone before me said, 1/8 times.. So for 1 game they're going to own and the other 7 they'll be mincemeat. I don't see anything wrong with it.

It would render GK Paladins with the Apothecary fairly worthless. Granted you dont have to take the Apothecary and it is an expensive upgrade.

But as a TO. It's your call.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
A bit off-topic here, but for every codex they release that's overpowered they solve it with the next codex which obliterates the super meta armies everyone had built and itself becomes overpowered.. I'm waiting for the last 40k army to be released
But yeah, it's not about restricting the game so that certain people lose, that's just unfair for certain players IMO, and these deathstar lists only work, as someone before me said, 1/8 times.. So for 1 game they're going to own and the other 7 they'll be mincemeat. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Pretty sure you've got that backwards...

Bluetau wrote:
It would render GK Paladins with the Apothecary fairly worthless. Granted you dont have to take the Apothecary and it is an expensive upgrade.

But as a TO. It's your call.

And why would it render paladins+apothecary useless?

@Brother of Bone

Yeah, you see nothing wrong with it from a 30,000 feet above perspective as, over a longer span of time, they tend to crap out. Sure, that is very true.

But tell that to the 7 guys that played against them where the list DIDN't crap out and their tournament experience sucked as a result. That's the point we're driving at.

@Aftermath

For sure, 100% I am being paranoid! hahaha, I accept that, but again, we have a lot at stake (money, the health of our business, etc.) and I think it is at least understandable why I would be paranoid about this, you know?

@Greg

You are right dude, there is room for lots of different events.

I didn't mean to sound arrogant saying "it's different when you run events than play in them" I was just trying to say that for MOST gamers that have not run events on a relatively big stage, it is a different experience. I know because I was on that side of the fence at one point.

I value your guys input, the vets, the casual gamers, the serious tournament gamers, other TOs, and that is why I ask for everyone's input. With all these digital releases the other TOs have all been reaching out to one another trying to figure out what to make of it all. Me being me, I am just more vocal about it. Don't take any of this as a slight, it wasn't meant that way, I know some of you guys have been in this game longer than me, for sure. I was talking to a more general audience, so to speak.

@RiTides

Yeah, I agree it would be awesome to wait for Nids too, that would totally be my preference, but with the LVO, we don't have that luxury because of timing. That's one of the reasons why I am all over the dang place asking for feedback =)

 Reecius wrote:
@RiTides

Yeah, I agree it would be awesome to wait for Nids too, that would totally be my preference, but with the LVO, we don't have that luxury because of timing. That's one of the reasons why I am all over the dang place asking for feedback =)

Ah, that makes sense, I totally didn't make that connection! Was thinking it'd still have an effect for the LVO...

Will the new Nids 'dex be legal for the event, since it'll likely be right on the line of 30 days out? I guess it's still too early for the meta to shift in response, though.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
A bit off-topic here, but for every codex they release that's overpowered they solve it with the next codex which obliterates the super meta armies everyone had built and itself becomes overpowered.. I'm waiting for the last 40k army to be released
But yeah, it's not about restricting the game so that certain people lose, that's just unfair for certain players IMO, and these deathstar lists only work, as someone before me said, 1/8 times.. So for 1 game they're going to own and the other 7 they'll be mincemeat. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Pretty sure you've got that backwards...

I believe I do xD
But my point still stands, by restricting the game all you're going to do is shield them from what real 40k is like, and when they get out of this rather sheltered tournament they're going to say "oh gak, I'm done, why bother"
Just a little rhetoric here, my first game was in 5th Edition, I played against my friend's Chaos Space Marines with my Ultramarines out the box army. I was tabled in turn 2.. My second game was against Tau Fish of Fury, I was tabled again in turn 2. Hell, I still get tabled in turn 2 but it's fun!

Not sure why you think Nids will fix it. I don't see it.
I think Shadows will go away, or get nerfed in the way the Eldar runes did.

You are going to have to deal with it in a competitive setting. I believe it is the way the game is intended to work. It is too obvious in the daemon codex; and is asinine to believe these professional game designers did not understand the very specific grimoire, tzeentch, and divination rules they wrote.

And besides that, it is all fair as has been stated above.

As a paying tourny playa and by no means a strong competitive player.

No... I wouldn't ban anything.

But, I'm not a TO and I'm perfectly happy with whatever the TOs ultimately decides.

I just don't think the 2++ re-rolls are that big of the deal. I find it easier to play the mission and ignore it (or throw some speed bumps at it).

Every Codex / Edition update has some new shiny bauble... over time, the shine wears off when folks are able to adapt to the new conditions.

Man... I remember when Biker Nobz were the ultimate cheese. *sigh*

It comes down to is the event better without 2+ re-rollable saves.

Honestly for the OP if your not running a multi day national tournament doing something about the 2+ re-rollable is extremely viable as local metas wont normally have tools to deal with those armies even at the final stages of the events.

For a national event I am certainly not conviced that banning/nerfing a 2+ rerollable does anything to make the event better and from a T.O.s perspective I highly doubt it would give you higher attendance if that is what your shooting for. Looking at the polling not running Forgeworld would give you a better attendance than nerfing 2+, I doubt there are people out there saying to themselves hey if only the event did something about 2+ rerollable I would want to come.

Nerfing/Banning might shift a few people away, but there are plenty of other very spammy, unfun to play against builds, and there are multitudes of ways for a good tournament players to deal with all of the current lists if he knows what is what about them and how take advantage of thier weaknesses. There have always been builds that people want to play because they make for an easier win, changing which ones they are does not make a better tournament, it just makes a different one, 2++ rerollable is a bad mechanic but currently in a tournamanet format does not gaurantee an automatic win, it just makes it easier. Lists that auto lose to 2+ rerollable will still lose 90% of the time to tau/dar, O'vesa, Tripdrake, Tervigon spam, Wave sperpent spam, Wraithwing, and other tournament lists, and they wont have a more fun time losing to them as the games wont necessarily be closer.

On a side note.

The most abusive armies in LVO wont be any of the big three 2+ low troop armies, if competent people bring forgeworld IG/SW/Inquisition they have the ability to turn one decimate almost any army, servo skulls, presience , Coteaz giving a 2nd sieze and outflank/deepstrike bubble protection are brutally effective at keeping opponents away from an army that can reign death. The one saving grace is out of 256 you might have 2-3 optimized lists so its not going to ever be 40-50.

I find it a little hypocritical to hear TO’s claim that removing or adjusting 2++ is in fact a way of making Tournaments better for the average 90% of Tournament players. In fact targeting the 2++ is a much greater benefit to the top guys in any Tournament.

2++ lists manned by quality players rise very quicky to the top of the heap in any given Tournament. Within a couple of rounds these guys are already grouped together while the remaining majority are fighting it out amongst themselves.

These are the type of gamers I talk to a lot and are the ones we as TO’s should be catering to in a lot of ways. In my interactions with the average player 2++ has never been a major issue with them. Combos are the biggest gripe as to what makes for a mostly unfun experience for the average player.

In 5th edition we had Spam and that was one of the biggest complaints of the game. Now in 6th we have the ability to add spam with allies and compound the problem with combos.

I personally don’t advocate comp or bans but even after listening to recent podcasts and watching these threads I still keep coming to the conclusion that the BBro combos are our biggest problem.
I know this wont fix everything, yea screamerstar still exists and I do realize that lots of non broken combos get a nerf. However I feel if TOs try to target 1 or 2 armies we find ourselves in a very dangerous situation with our gamers.

Taking from Brad (hulk) screamers still exist.. but doesn’t removing the baron buffs from seerstar more or less put them at a similar level ? still very good but not so far ahead of all other armies that even the best builds and players struggle to compete .

Adjust 2++ and we still have Tau in every army, Flyer spam, FMC spam, Prescience spam, swiss army knife Commanders , 2+ invis saves on units, drakes, Codexes allying with themselves. The list goes on !
I believe that any change to the game (if done) would have to come from the universal BRB rules set. 1999+1, bans on Myst obj/terrain, Fort of Redem, player placed terrain, ect. have become universally accepted because when in play they effect every player and not just a codex or 2.

zedsdead wrote:
I find it a little hypocritical to hear TO’s claim that removing or adjusting 2++ is in fact a way of making Tournaments better for the average 90% of Tournament players. In fact targeting the 2++ is a much greater benefit to the top guys in any Tournament.

The top guys are fine with or without any rules change that may be made. The thing that makes them top guys is that they understand the game system better than other people. This is why you see the same "top guys" winning events with and without comp-- if you're good enough to win with the normal selection of units, you're probably good enough to win with whatever selection comp imposes as well. This change is meant to eliminate what is IMO the least fun game experience in the game at present for those who don't know how to deal with it.

I wouldn't say I'm one of the top guys, but I'm definitely at least somewhat competitive. I can tell you that I know many methods of dealing with rerolling 2+ saves, and I will happily play against them with a normal army. But for a great many people-- even at a tournament-- this simply isn't true, and their experience might be ruined by playing against these armies. The key difference that makes rerolling 2+ saves worse than, say, a Tau/Eldar gunline, is that a rerolling 2+ save army is basically immune to the core game elements, while a Tau/Eldar gunline is not.

There's a big difference between an army that happens to shoot more efficiently than yours and an army that you can't meaningfully damage at all with your shooting, and that's what this is intended to address.

What makes the 2+ rerollable save broken is simply a matter of damage reduction applied to 40k.

When your playing a MMO like WoW, you can sport a 97% damage mitigation. That's because you have large pools of health and the incoming damage is huge. The game was designed and scaled with this in mind.

40k was designed with 1d6 in mind for most things. This means the best 'normal' save you can get provides only a 83.33% damage mitigation. This is great when your taking damage on models with 1-6 wounds (health, hit points, whatever) and the incoming damage is 1-30 points.

The problem is that with a 97% damage mitigation the target will last over five time as long as the target with the 83.33% damage mitigation. Think of how long it takes to shoot 10 terminators with bolters off the board. Now image 55 terminators, and that's the 2+ rerollable save.

These saves have always been in the game. Popping a wolf banner with a terminator wolf guard in a GH squad. Getting the right chaos boon on your lord. When they occurred they were annoying but not game-breaking.

The difference is now they can be (fairly) reliably generated though eldar/damon builds. These builds can be addressed, but by doing so you limit your capability to handle the Eldar/Tau builds -- and severely limit your chances of winning a GT.