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.

First off, please don't vote if you do not play in tournaments nor do you intend to.

Second of all, please read the text below before voting to put this all in context so that you understand this specific situation and are not voting ignorant of the facts.

Why?

I am posting this poll to first, practice framing the questions in as informative and unbiased a way as possible for the poll I am going to shoot out to the LVO attendees tomorrow. Secondly, I am curious as to what everyone here thinks.

Why all the fuss? Am I just overreacting?

The Las Vegas Open, what will be our flagship event with already over 300 people signed up, is less than 60 days away. As head TO, I am getting daily emails and phone calls asking if the new data slates will be allowed, the new Nids, the new Escalation supplements, etc. I need to make decisions in the very near future so everyone can plan accordingly. We do not have the luxury of time, unfortunately.

How we do things now.

We use layered missions. Primary and Secondary win conditions based off of slightly modified book missions. W/L/D format. We have consistently gotten over 90% positive feedback on our format based on player feedback and feel very confident that we have built a fun, fair format. I don't know how much room there is in our format to make it more "fair," although I am certainly open to suggestions.

We are striving to have 2, large LoS blocking pieces of terrain on the table, for every 40K table. The intent is to help assault armies, tone down SAFH armies and to in general, create a more fun environment to game in. Again, with that in mind, not sure how much room there is to use terrain to make things more "fair."

We allow FW and to date, anything legal in 40K we have allowed.

We play at 1750pts with 2.5 (now) hour limits.

My Concern.

The issue now as I see it, is the increased complexity in the game creates incredibly powerful, and confusing combos. As a lot of this data is so new, I think a lot of folks really don't understand just how crazy things have gotten. For those of you who aren't up with the power curve, pretty much everything in the game is "Legal" for regular 40K now, and the FOC has more or less gone out the window as we have understood it up until now.

For example, you could see across the table from you an army similar to this:

Eldar primary with dual Bikeseers
Jetseer Council for all their craziness of 2+ rerolls of all types, speed, etc.
Baron for hit and Run, +1 to go first, 2++
Warriors in a Venom with Grissly Trophies that lets all the psykers reroll failed psychic checks
Coteaz with some shooty, scoring, cheap Buddies for IBEY, Reroll of Seize, Dark Excomunication/Divination, etc.
Possibly a second Inquisitor if desired for Servo Skulls to shut down enemy infiltrating and scouts
Jetbikes for Objectives
Tau Fire Support Cadre with a Riptide and Broadsides with Interceptor/Skyfire/Fire Support/etc.

1750 with points to spare, and 4-6 scoring units depending on structure, goes first most games, neigh-invincible deathstar unit, psychic buffs, blah, blah, blah.

This is "legal" 40K now. This is the game we're moving towards. The important question is: is this the game we want to play? Do we think that is fun, fair, and competitive?

4 different armies in a single list, half of which are digital. 4 isn't the limit, either you could potentially have a single list with rules drawn from 6 or more different books quite easily. Add in Super Heavies and things become even more complex. Now, folks have made this argument with FW in the past, but we've not had problems with that specific issue before so perhaps it isn't a big deal. Gamers tend to just resolve it at the table as best they can and move forward.

So what, you might be asking?

I am not here to debate if this list is beatable, the best, or whatever, just to illustrate that you can now cherry pick the most powerful units and powers from 4 or more different books now, and it is "official 40K." What I am asking is if this type of thing is what you all want to play against on a regular basis at an event as this is what is coming with unrestricted 40K, count on it.

The lid for what we are doing has been taken off. I fear that folks will show up and get absolutely blind-sided by insane combos and not know what game they're even playing any more. Maybe I am overreacting.

The question is, what do we do about it, if anything? We want our event to be fun! First and foremost. Defining that can be tricky. Ultimately we will give our attendees the event they want, I am just trying to avoid problems before they happen if at all possible.

So, with the above information in mind, please vote on what you would prefer to see happen.

After voting if you want to add why, I am all ears. Also, if you think the questions could be worded better, please say why. Thanks!

In this test game, Jy2 busts out Be'Lakor and an FMC/Soulgrinder Daemon/CSM list against an insane Mash-up list Spam Adam pilots that consists of Eldar/Dark Eldar/Tau and a Revenant Titan! Under current 40K rules, all of this stuff is legal for "standard" games. Would you want to play games like this in a tournament or no?

So just to note, the poll is basically for what you'd like allowed were you to attend this event. The question is a little hard to find

Will be really interesting to see how this turns out, and even more interesting to see an identical poll maybe a month and then 2 months from now.

I changed the poll question to reflect that and make it clearer!

I hate hate hate making this comparison, but it's appropriate. I think it's time for 40k to take a note from Magic: The Gathering, specifically formats. In magic you have your choice of Standard, Modern, Legacy, etc. etc. Like it or not a lot fo these things apply to certain people, but not others. So multiple formats would help cater to players of all desires. For instance:

The Apocalypse Has Come: All supplements, codices, formations, escalation, fortifications, everything. All of it. The power level is absurd, but that appeals to some people.
A Tactical Affair: Codices, Supplements, Allies matrix. Done. No detachments outside Primary and Allied, plus 1 fortification slot. Fairly better balanced and more reasonable.
Loyal To The End: Codices, no allies, no supplements, one fortification slot. More tight reigned, removing a lot of broken combos cross faction.
The Elite Few: Codices, no allies, supplements allowed, one fortification slot, no more than 1 of any unit. So 1 warpspider unit, 1 wave serpent, etc. Super strict, but might appeal to a few.

If you run events with say something like the above, and whatever else seem like a good idea, your attendance numbers will determine what's most popular and survives as it were. We do this natural selection style by letting the strongest survive through process of elimination. It will be inefficient to start off with, but in the long run each 'format' will gain its own fanbase. And the formats that aren't popular enough will inevitably not be supported. This would also allow an easy way for players to get together and have roughly the same expectations. "Oh hey, wanna play a Tactical game?" "Nah, I play that format, how about a Loyal game?" "Sure I can build that!".

My two cents at least. Not a solution, more of a path to a solution rather than trying to understand the loud rabble and emotion that inevitably comes from situation/media like this.

My "dream 40k GT" looks like this:

-1500 (MAYBE 1750) points, 2 hours 30 minutes per round, 1 hour 15 minutes per player, enforced by strict time control with chess clocks (if your flag falls before the game ends by random game length, you lose)

-Everything allowed, including FW, BUT: maximum of two books/sources used for an army. This means that you can use two Codexes, or a Codex and a supplement, or a Codex and a datasheet, or a Codex and some FW units. You can't use two Codexes and a supplement, or two Codexes and Forge World, or two Codexes and a datasheet, etc. etc.

The latter rule is NOT intended as a form of balance, but rather to make it easy on people. The accelerated GW release schedule has come out with so many rules that people cannot be reasonably expected to know everything. As such, there is a limit on two sources that you can use to make your army, simply to make it so that your army will be easily understandable for your opponent. THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO REBALANCE THE GAME.

I'm not sure if people would go for that-- especially the chess clocks-- but if I won the lottery and decided to run events with no thought to making my money back, that's what I'd be doing. I know you guys at Frontline have a substantial investment in your events, so you might not be able to do anything as extreme as that, but that's the way I'd handle these matters.

@Pleasntnoodles

That has been suggested multiple times, actually and I am definitely open to that.

The difference between 40K and MTG though, is that you need space and preparation for minis games in terms of terrain, missions packets, etc. Also, prize support becomes an issue too, as you have to support each event. 2 would be the maximum viable "main" event, in my view.

@Kingsley

We are actually really open to Chess clocks but what has held us back is the expense more than anything else. The damn things, even at wholesale pricing, are really expensive!

Plus, it would have to be a gradual process, the community would need to work it's way into that over time as they did with Warmachine.

-1500 (MAYBE 1750) points, 2 hours 30 minutes per round, 1 hour 15 minutes per player, enforced by strict time control with chess clocks (if your flag falls before the game ends by random game length, you lose)

Thing is, aside from putting certain builds at a disadvantage, there is one aspect you are entirely overlooking--the fact that I can waste time on my opponent's turn. There is nothing stopping a player from taking saves one at a time in LOS situations. Furthermore, what is to stop a player from slow-rolling in assaults as well, in order to intentionally take another person's time?

Chess clocks are a good idea in theory, but I think a more reasonable solution is necessary. For instance, I'd be in favor of players timing their turns to add on to scoresheets at the end of each round. It will quickly become clear if a person is consistently failing to finish games. Maybe Torrent of Fire could add that information on as well. No need to instantly punish players for what could be an anomaly game

@JGrand

That is possible yes, but if you are on the clock you are going to say something to your opponent to speed them up. In theory, anyway.

We have also considered announcing what turn the game should be on at designated intervals to let players know where they should be.

I'm gonna look at this from two perspectives.


As a player:

YES TO: what I prefer to play is Codices, Forgeworld units *AND* army lists, Digital Codices, Codex Supplements (e.g. Iyandend) and dataslates that cover individual units (e.g. Be'Lakor). This allows people to bring any model produced under the Games Workshop umbrella (barring superheavies), and run it as it was initially intended without mucking with things like the FoC.

UNDECIDED: As yet I don't think I can truly make an informed decision on Escalation or Stronghold Assault without reading the books.

NO TO: I didn't like the way formations were implemented in Apocalypse and I like them even less in "normal" 40k where they get powerful buffs and exemption from the FoC and pay no points for it. Allies are another thing I'm not a huge fan of. To date, I've yet to see it used for anything other than exploitation to create unintended synergies to plug gaps in capabilities, I've yet to see it used in any creative capacity, even in friendly leagues. Comp is something I'm not a huge fan of for various reason that have been retread many times, nor do I like TO bans on specific things or rules changes if avoidable (though this is not blanket).

The INQ book presents a bit of an issue here as it's built entirely around allies, as a player, to allow it to be used but also minimize the appearance of issues I don't like seeing, I'd say that it must be fielded as part of the original FoC if taken as an allied contingent.


As a Tournament Organizer:

There's a lot to consider here. Having been a TO (though not for a 300 person event but for 30-40 person events), I understand that TO's have to be able to manage the event, ensure lists are legal, handle rules disputes, and make sure tables are set up correctly. This all has to be balanced against the fact that GW makes this stuff for people to use and people will want to use all of it, but sometimes there have to be limits.

I'm basing these thoughts off the idea that the event is designed to draw as many people as possible, as opposed to the Warhammer equivalent of an E-Sport event.

YES TO: Codecies, Forgeworld units *AND* army lists, Digital Codices, Codex Supplements, unit dataslates, allies, TO restrictions, and Rules modifications to the extent they are necessary to run the event (e.g. terrain setup, fortification deployment, time limits, etc) which may also include limiting how many books an army can draw from (i.e. may not draw from more than 3 books) to make verifying lists a realistic objective for the TO, and perhaps some that may be derived from player input (e.g. if a majority of players say they don't want 2++ rerollable saves in the event).

UNDECIDED: Escalation: not sure how Superheavies will affect everything yet, I have a feeling D weapons may just prove to be too derpy, but perhaps not.

NO TO: formation dataslates. At least thus far it's just "free special rules for taking X units". No reason to bother with the headache. Stronghold Assault: tentatively, this sounds like it could mess with terrain and table set up a lot or just not be functional for pre-made tables. Still not a fan of Comp, don't think it solves anything.

I voted. Though you did leave out the restricted FW option which I would have selected. As it was I did not vote for FW as unrestricted FW isn't my personal preference.

I voted for all codices, allies, digital codices, and supplements. And I should have added limited data slates for individual units being added like Belakor.

I voted for limited rules adjustment. Basically for the 2+ Re-rollable. My vote for how to change that would be that any save reroll cannot be better than 3+. Example, Screamerstar would save on a 2++ and if failed would save on a 3++ on the re-roll.

Will this tell you what you really want without knowing the unique voters rather than the total votes? Right now, anywhere from 24 to 145 people have voted in this poll.

I didn't vote, FYI, just interested in the results. Would love to be able to go but not in the cards. Hopefully in the future!

@Namelssbard

I'm pretty sure that's why standard codices is there. It pretty much shows the number of people voting as it's doubtful anyone wants a tournament without codices

@Reecius

I totally get that and agree, it's definitely way more work, but if some form of ruling body was created, like a committee off the top TOs or some such, then the work could be split for designing, like taking the top 3 tournaments, and rather than each having to come up with it's own structure, they all agree on one and essentially near the same work has been done, less work for years after that/events fater that since ideally just adjustments would have to be made.

Prize support is entirely a whole other bag of marbles. This could be achieved by having a master prize pool, and preregistering players to assign the prize pool allocation to each format based on attendance. So you have one event where "Standard" is super popular and 4 people show up for "Escalation League", you give 90% of the prize pool to the "Standard" format and the rest to "Escalation". The worry here is if TOs decide something, and it prove unpopular even in the short term, you're losing player base. My vote would be shotgun approach it with preregsitration of both players and lists so you can determine if a format will run (maybe ask people to pick a first and second choice for formats so they're guaranteed for one of them if one gets cancelled?), and let the player base democratically figure it out via a ad hoc popular vote of attendance.

The prize support be somewhat rough for the first couple events, but just like in magic 2 or 3 popular leagues will shake out and things will start to run smoothly, with the majority of players being happy....er. Happier.

I don't want to ban or modify core rules or official add-ons in the name of 'time'.

But some of the time-wasting crazy combos can be done at low point values.

If we had to choose a breaking point, I would rather see all the army lists allowed, but allies removed as it is arbitrary and unfair to many codexes and the crazy combos we see crush the game both in complexity and time.

it is hard to be a TO in what 40k is becoming. It is being hard to even play it anymore.

Alright, small brain wave to fix escalation, and it kind of falls under comp rules. But what if super heavies were allowed but at the cost of not bringing any allies? So you want to bring a baneblade? Then you're going to be pure guard. Suddenly no DA powerfield libbies twinking baneblades. On a similar note Formations can be made somewhat better by just making them take up the FOC slots, not as a free detachment. You gain the benefits of the formation, but for the Tau one it would force you to go tau main and not allows you to bring silly things like 15 broadsides and 4 riptides, or other armies suddenly getting amazing interceptor for other broken needs.

I voted for comp. I would like to see you take a hit for the more combos you take (i.e. Allies, Forge World, etc.)

For example:
Jetseers=bad
Jetseers+Baron=Very Bad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Reecius wrote:
[b]First off, please don't vote if you do not play in tournaments nor do you intend to.]

Good luck with that.

@Vaktahi

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! Much appreciated.

@Brad

Yeah, I am sure I could have added more variations onto the list, but it was getting pretty long! I will drill down further on the LVO poll.

@Nameless

As Hulk said, I was hoping to put the Codex tag in there as a control group to try and guage everything else of.

@Pleasantnoodles

Good idea with the prize pool, I like that . You have one, big pool of prizes and then allocate them out based on event attendance. I always in the past have made our prize support transparent before the event, but that may be a good solution.

@nklesch

Yeah, the game is crazy at this point in time, no doubt. I am sure it will stabilize eventually and we'll get used to it but we're behind the 8 ball right now with decision making.

We don't want to ban any lists, either. That sucks. We just may want to reign some of this stuff in a bit is all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Blackmoor

I know we will get non tournament players voting, but I had to cover my basis.

And yes, hahaha, Seer Council+Baron is no bueno.

 JGrand wrote:
Thing is, aside from putting certain builds at a disadvantage, there is one aspect you are entirely overlooking--the fact that I can waste time on my opponent's turn. There is nothing stopping a player from taking saves one at a time in LOS situations. Furthermore, what is to stop a player from slow-rolling in assaults as well, in order to intentionally take another person's time?

Your rolls, your time.

 Kingsley wrote:

 JGrand wrote:
Thing is, aside from putting certain builds at a disadvantage, there is one aspect you are entirely overlooking--the fact that I can waste time on my opponent's turn. There is nothing stopping a player from taking saves one at a time in LOS situations. Furthermore, what is to stop a player from slow-rolling in assaults as well, in order to intentionally take another person's time?

Your rolls, your time.

This is why chess clocks are too difficult to make work, and that is greatly pronounced on a large scale. The many many passes of who is supposed to act will cause the clock to need to be hit so frequently that people either will neglect it, or they will waste even more time than you're trying to save by paying too much attention to it.

Time wasting and slow play NEEDS to be addressed for 40k to really work as a tournament game, but chess clocks have no chance of solving the issues.

@Kingsely

So you propose you hit the clock for every action for each player? That is like, 100% guaranteed to be forgotten mid game by a large number of players,.

I Tried to like allies but I agree it shouldn't be used in tournaments. I only ever see it used to give unfair advantages. I feel it was put in there to make fluffy home games (so you can bring whatever you want to a game) without thoughts of balance and hoping people would not abuse it but at tournaments the point is to build the nastiest list and the abuse runs rampant to where its no longer fun but still with in reason to play that way. allies seams like an optional rule that doesn't change the game to much with out it either (actually adds more to the balance).

Voted for core dex's, allies, supps and digi dex's. I.e what is in competitive 40k now. Seems I am with the majoirty so far

(copy and pasting to show a screen shot in case it changes drasticaly)

Core Codices.
16% [ 38 ]
Allies.
14% [ 34 ]
Codex Supplements, ie Clan Raukaan, etc.
15% [ 36 ]
Digital Codices, ie, Inquisition, Sisters of Battle, etc. 15% [ 35 ]

Dataslates, you really want to make a call on them now before they have all been released?.

Interesting poll though, look forward to seeing it with a few more votes!.

@Levi

You are not alone on allies, I have been hearing that quite a bit. However, I honestly think that would turn people away from an event. And, every book going forward is written assuming you are using allies.

@MarkyMark

Do we want to make a call on formations this early?

No! hahaha, but we just don't have time to wait for all of them to come out, play-test them (already into January) and then make a call on them, unfortunately as that is so close to the LVO. We want to give folks time to adjust based on that data.

I think we get the gist of them now with the first 3 40K releases. They are "out of FoC" add-on groups of units with free extra buffs, or Special Characters.

Some of them are cool! Some, not so much.

We could get a curve ball in there, but I think we have a pretty good idea of what to expect.

I hope this data is good to help people get an idea of what's going on and shape their own events, too!

I agree that allies are only ever used to create the strongest possible army. However, EVERY unit chosen in a competitive setting should be in an effort to maximize your own power/chances of winning. Taking allies isn't particularly different than choosing tervigons with three psychic powers - you aren't doing THAT to be fluffy, either. You would do it because they're really good troops and you want to win.

Also, it's worth considering that, as the old codexes disappear, the new ones will have been written with the idea of allies in mind. Not to start a debate about whether or not they playtest this stuff at all, but at the least, they will have an intention that we may not want to mess with too much that these new books should be able to join together. I'm as frustrated by Tau-dar as the next guy, but it might be a bit much to overrule the designers on that one.

I voted for core codecies, allies, supplements, digital only codecies, fortifications book, limited data slates, and rules modification.

I think the first four are pretty straight forward and that most players wouldn't want changes to those.

Fortifications - As long as there isn't anything game-breaking (ie Strength D gun emplacements, etc) I think the fortification book is fine to add. Hard to say until a few days from now, but most likely it's fine. If there are a couple fortifications in it with game-breaking rules/weapons I would just ban those specific ones.

Limited data slates - I would just ban formations personally. I think Belakor is perfectly reasonable, and if more characters/units are added along the lines of him (ie, they consume a slot on the force org of specific armies) they have merit to being in the game. Just not formations which circumvent the normal rules of army composition. I really dislike the idea of players having armies comprised of something along the lines of DA/IG + Inqusition + Tau Cadre + Storm Wing + Ghost Warriors etc etc.

Rules modifications - 2+ re-rollables is of course the rule that concerns me, but this vote comes with a major caveat. I think that nothing should be put into place until the Nids book drops (if it drops in time to be legal for LVO). Depending on SotW, psychic powers may take a hit and things may balance out naturally. However if that's not the case, I think it's definitely something that should be looked at. I'm not sure what the best solution is unfortunately.

I'm looking forward to getting the poll tomorrow.

Not going to go into what I selected and why I didn't select other things - that horse is being beaten to death in another thread.

I would like to see the 2++ rerollable get a nerd to 2+ 4+. Bear in mind I plan on playing Eldar or Daemons at the LVO.

Interesting early responses ... if you go by 45 as the vote total (core codices, we assume nobody voted NO for core codices) ...

which it must be at least ...

Core, Allies, Digital Codices, Digital Supplements, Dataslates are all nearly unanimously supported. Everything else *So far* is under 50%, with FW as the highest of those in the minority of support (19/45 at the time of this posting).

I chose rules modification. Single Force Org, as described here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/566355.page

Take whatever you want, legally, from codices, supps, allies, dataslates, whatever.. But it all has to fit in a single force org chart. Dataslate units are slotted individually (Firebase Cadre takes up 2 heavy and 1 elite).

I voted for everything. I want to be able to use Escalation. I want to be able to use Stronghold Assault. I want my opponent to be happy that he took what he wanted in his list, not what someone told him he had to take.


I want to play 40k.......... Not Bob's version of 40k...Not Jimmy's version of 40k.

Just 40k with all the rules!



Join the New Team Zero Comp!!!!