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.

MVBrandt wrote:
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 would think 66 is the goal number of people voting as of this post. Take core codex and add ' take everything' as the number of people. If you choose take everything I don't think you would pick out individual sub choices from that and assume core books fall into that choice.

The problem is that GW does not care about tournament players or their games.

If you are playing at home or a friendly game you can either enjoy taking the hardest list you can, or if you do not want to play against something that has a 2++ rerollable save you do not have to.

Lately GW has not only come out with a new edition, but a lot of codexes and supplements, and other things (not including FW).

This has had a detrimental effect on tournament play because you do not have the ability to refuse whom you play against, or their army.

Also this has created many rules issues since a lot of issues are created from not only their poorly written rules, but how they interact with existing rules to create unforeseen combinations, and they do not seem to be interested in issuing any FAQs as long as the money keeps rolling in.

As a tournament player it is my opinion that the more that GW adds to the game the worst tournaments have become.

Now I am not saying that codex only is the way to go, but all these additions need to be looked at critically.

DarthDiggler wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
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 would think 66 is the goal number of people voting as of this post. Take core codex and add ' take everything' as the number of people. If you choose take everything I don't think you would pick out individual sub choices from that and assume core books fall into that choice.

That is a good catch, thank you! I missed that option. It also adds FW into the majority alongside the previously mentioned ones in the fore post, with a healthy 43/70 or so.

MVBrandt wrote:
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).

You misread the Dataslates one, it's very low right now. Right on with the others so far, though.

 RiTides wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
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).

You misread the Dataslates one, it's very low right now. Right on with the others so far, though.

Oh thank god ...

I don't think people selecting the top option are only picking it, but there's no way to know for sure of course. I don't think you can add it to the other categories, though, or it will double count in some cases. Likely would've been better without that choice, but I think folks are likely selecting more than just that.

Did anyone here Only select the top option and no other options?

 RiTides wrote:
I don't think people selecting the top option are only picking it, but there's no way to know for sure of course. I don't think you can add it to the other categories, though, or it will double count in some cases. Likely would've been better without that choice, but I think folks are likely selecting more than just that.

Did anyone here Only select the top option and no other options?

Sheepishly ..... I did.

That was the intent, I hoped.

And add both votes for dataslates together to get a feel for how many people are for them in some sense.

See, learning a lot already on how to word the questions better! haha

@thread

Thanks for all the feedback, fellas! Interesting results on some of them, some of this is exactly what I expected.

So almost 1/3 say play with everything so far?
22 vs 50 for codexes...

 Reecius wrote:
That was the intent, I hoped.

And add both votes for dataslates together to get a feel for how many people are for them in some sense.

See, learning a lot already on how to word the questions better! haha

@thread

Thanks for all the feedback, fellas! Interesting results on some of them, some of this is exactly what I expected.

I think RiTides makes a good point that it's hard to count the double vote (i.e., if someone clicks "All" and then also clicks "Dataslate," he's effectively voted for it twice wittingly or not, whereas someone who doesn't click "All" and deliberately does not click "Dataslate" is only casting "half" the vote of those who double up). Effectively, due to the format, it's hard to say what it's worth yet lol. The FW example is a good one ... either less than half of your voters want it, or more than half, substantially in either direction lol.

Yeah, there is some overlap. Some folks will have checked everything and other stuff as well but how many is in all likelihood impossible to tell.

I should have left the "everything" vote out.

But, this is a trial run, so that is good that I made this mistake now! Haha, that was one of the main reasons I did it, to practice asking the right questions to get good data.

Agreed, I actually think it's very good. If this was a form you would want that option- but it would basically be an option to check all boxes, soas not to favor folks leaving things out (as people just get tired of clicking). But yeah in this format, for people who might not read fully (despite the title) it's certainly possible they pick that option, then pick other options "for emphasis"

Unrelated, but MVBrandt and Darth, with your post counts and join dates you'd think you'd have picked up an avatar by now

Yeah, and if the count was for total voters not votes, that would help a lot, too.

Ah, and I thought I had worked out how to do this best, too! hahaha

Oh well, this is still good data, maybe just not as pointed as we would have hoped for.

What's most interesting (to me) so far is the super strong support for digital codexes and codex supplements (nearly unanimous!) but much less support for "other" additions (dataslates, super heavies, fortifications) with the notable exception of some strong FW support.

For example, ignoring the first option and just looking at the votes for individual categories of these, you've got:

Codices - 52
Allies - 47
Codex Supplements 49 (More than allies!)
Digital Codices - 44

So there's a slight dip on that last option, but these are basically universal so far. Particularly the first 3, but I think the 4th is close enough.

No other individual selection has more than 13 votes, with the exception of FW at 22, and "everything" at 23. So even if you add the "everythings" into each individual category, nothing but FW is getting much support.

The only other hard category to determine is Dataslates, because there is an "all" and "limited" option. But again, folks could be double-selecting so you can't necessarily add these together. In one sense it's actually good that you don't have a "limited FW" option, because you would've had that same issue (not getting a clear indication due to the vote possibly splitting, or folks double selecting). But I think it's pretty safe to say that blanket Dataslate allowance is not getting strong support at this early stage.

Wow. I think it would almost be a mistake to limit everything except super heavies. Is GW going nuts lately; hell Yea.!

Your events have been always been “freeballing” or a nonconformer you been the lone wolf fighting to have everything allowed at events. When everyone was running comp you took a step back and we are not going to do that. I could be wrong you but weren’t you one first tournaments that used Forgeworld in a normal 40k event?

It would be funny the no comp team running a comp event. I almost voted for comp because of that, but I voted for everything (besides using super heavies because I want to look at the rules first).

BTW I will be playing Tyranids at LVO if the codex is out in time.

Core Codex, Allies, Supplemants, Forge World. Limited Data Slates. Now by limited i mean you can only use a data slate if it adds a UNIT to your army, no formations.
Further more, No more then 2 codex per army. I might even g as far to say Supplements count towards that.
For example if you want inquisition in your army that is all you get for allies, nothing else.
If you want Iyandan, that is all you get.
I know you guys like your rebel spirit, BUT you guys also have to sometimes put your foot down and make a stand. We 40k players are standing before the darkness an we cannot let it swallow us..........I need to stop playing so much pathfinder

I am beginning to think that it would be better to run 2 events with 128 players (one with everything, and one without) than 1 tournament with 256 players.

That way you can keep people happy, and it has the added bonus of lowering the rounds down from 8 to 7.

If you want to see the real results of how some tournament players feel, e-mail the people who have already signed up for the LVO and ask then which kind of event they would prefer. Note that since they have already signed up for an event that has FW the results should favor everything.

I'm already signed up for the LVO and voted for the first three and would like to offer the idea of allowing only those units that are in physically printed material from GW. Codex, Allies, Supplements(if it's an actual book). That way there is always something present at the table that is not digital for both players to refer to for all the units on the board. I will play whatever format is provided and have faith that Reece and crew will make a decision that puts having a good time first for all players.

It's a complex answer:

Absolutely yes:
* Codices
* FW books (including army lists, but NOT including experimental rules)
* Paper codex supplements

These are the "core" of each army, and the easiest to understand. Obviously most people are pretty familiar with the codices, and supplements and FW books tend to add things that follow pretty much the same general theme. An Armored Battlegroup or Elysian Drop Troops army is pretty straightforward if you're familiar with the IG codex, and a Farsight army is pretty straightforward if you're familiar with the Tau codex. And in terms of accessibility this covers the vast majority of units that people would want to bring.

Probably yes:
* Digital-only codices
* Digital-only supplements
* Allies

In terms of content the digital codices are no worse than paper books, the issue here is GW's stealth updates and the "what happens if my ipad dies" problem. If a TO is confident in being able to handle the special problems caused by the digital-only books then they should be allowed.

Allies raise some questions, but overall I think they're too popular to ban. At this point too many people are used to the idea of being able to bring allies in their army and would be unhappy if they were told they weren't welcome unless they change their army. IMO the few issues with allies should be handled by special-case bans or rule changes.

Probably no:
* Allied formations
* Data slate units
* FW experimental rules
* "Special" codices (C:Inquisition)

Allied formations and "special" codices are where things really get to be a mess. Balance seems to be a major question, having potentially four or more separate armies on the table is too complicated and bad for diversity between codices, and they feel like a rush job that someone put together in a few minutes instead of a proper book. And they're digital-only, which means all of the same problems as digital-only codices. Likewise for the single units, we've only seen one so far but I don't like where the trend is going. And theme-wise they don't really add much that you can't already do with basic allies, so the main point seems to be adding powerful units like divination inquisitors and Riptides to every army that wants them.

FW experimental rules suffer from balance problems and being explicitly released for feedback rather than being final "official" rules, so I don't think they're really worth the trouble unless there's a strong demand for them.

Absolutely no:
* Superheavies
* Comp scores

Superheavies in normal 40k would be a mess. Games with them tend to be very black and white, either you can counter the superheavy and you probably kill it immediately and then easily win against the few supporting units your opponent could afford to put on the table, or you aren't prepared for it and you get crushed by an unstoppable D-weapon carrier. Either way it's not much fun. It's possible that the new expansion will have rules that balance them and I'd change my mind, but I'm not very optimistic about that.

Comp scores are a terrible idea. Blanket rules that apply to all armies always end up penalizing lots of other things unfairly as a side effect of punishing the real problems, and comp scoring in general tends to be strongly biased by individual (and very subjective) opinions about how the game "should" be played. If a unit/army/etc is a problem then deal with it specifically through bans or rule changes.

Uncertain:
* Fortification supplement
* Rule changes
* Ban lists

The fortification supplement is a complete unknown right now. I don't think anyone can offer an informed opinion until the book is released.

Bans and rule changes are either great or terrible depending on the exact choices. I would support a limited number of carefully-targeted rule changes to address problems that meet two requirements: a clearly demonstrated bad effect on game balance (not just speculation about how it might be overpowered), and a clearly demonstrated bad effect on fun (for example, re-rollable 2++ units are very frustrating to play against). Candidates include getting rid of re-rollable invulnerable saves and changing the artillery rules to the ones from 5th edition to bring sabre guns and earthshakers back to what they used to be. Likewise for ban lists, I would support a 0-X limit on certain units if there is a clear reason to do it (Riptides maybe), but I don't think anything is so bad that you can't even take one copy once you make appropriate rule changes to fix the multi-unit combos.

I think it'd be tough to get rid of digital coders though, because SoB only has a digital codex. While they aren't widely used, you are saying a legitimate army may not be used because GW decided not to print it in a book format. Just a general thought

If having a hard back codex is required I will not attend. I do not want books that are not in digital form. I buy the books from GW that I want on iBooks the minute they are released. I don't want to carry around multiple books and I certainly don't want to have books that are not up to date. The DA book sealed the deal for me, and I won't spend double the money just to have an out of date paper version of the codex to play in tournaments.

So here are my thoughts:

In general Im for codicies/digital codecies, fortifications, allies, and NON experimental FW (yeah no r'varna please)

However I'm also for basic rules tweaks for certain builds that I think would fix a lot of problems.

The new problem children:

Inquisition: um, why isnt this an ally? Just make it an ally... an ally without needing a troop tax, great! people would still jump at it in a heartbeat and hey no more triple codex lists.

Formations: good in theory, could be used to strengthen currently weaker builds (for example a pod formation which reduces interceptor fire by 1 bs, etc etc), but are currently mishandleded. I dont understand why they just didnt include this in the normal FOC. If you can fit it in your ally/main, great you get the bonus (or can pay for it), if not then you dont get the formation. clean, simple, doesn't break every army in half with random tau friends everywhere (seriously, who thought allowing almost everyone to get the best tau has to offer WITH tank hunter and no tax a good idea?) .


Superheavies: It was mentioned that you can only get a lord of war with no allies whatsoever. I really like this idea and it fluff wise makes some sense (not trusting allies enough to commit presumably an extremely rare and precious weapon to the battle), though ultimately it may still be not enough. Fundamentally D weapons are just too darn dumb, even in apocalypse, to work. They kill too much and remove too many rules (no cover OR invulnerable?). It really should instead be str 10 ap 1 with a few extra rules to make it nasty (possible especially so against fellow D weapons), but not going to wipe out half your opponents army in one go. So I vote no for a bit tournament wise, i just don't want the game to be reduced down he whose superheavy survives and the 10 rolls it takes to determine the winner.

Rules to tweak:

2++ re-rollables: as far as I understand the screamerstar one is realtivly easy to fix, you just make it not go below 3++ like normal tzeetch. Honestly I think these are best by a case by case basis, though a blanket "anything with a 2++ is 3++ instead" isnt terrible either, and it's certainly easier to remember.

ICs with MCs: lets just stop this one, it really doesnt seem like what was intended, and is kind of silly. If the MC itself is itself IC then go for it, but otherwise no ICs with MCs.

*EDIT*: as pointed out multi unit MCs shouldnt be harmed by this, so I cant actually be general here
ICs with Riptides: while I personally would vote just stopping this one, I would be okay with forcing them to get a drone at least to do it.

there's a couple others im missing for sure but those are def some biggies, and are relativly easy and clean fixes.


Then there are the bugaboos like serpent shield/nightscyths/mss/etc. Um.. yeah.. i dunno, i dont think specific type nerfs are really going to be accepted as easily but if we're willing to go there:

serpent shield a 1 use item OR doesnt ignore cover
nightscythes/mss points increased by about 25 points then voila, problems solved.
strip the eldar jetbike 36 turboboost down to 24 (48 in a turn? that's faster than flyers! you have to both have and GO supersonic to get to those speeds!)
no nightscythe or other dedicated flyer able to drop past.. i dunno.. 18? i thought nightscythes were the only ones that could drop at 36 but if not then something a bit global here.
coteaz.. yeah just coteaz, lets fix that one (strip i've been expecting you and his point value is fine, or bump his points up 10-15 and make it interceptor in the 12 inch bubble)
5 point EWO: um, how about 10 instead? k thanks.
skyshield landing pad: just.. all of it. 4++, how charging is handled up it, the inability to shoot it. just lets start over on that one.

Regarding Comp:

i read the da boyz article and it did seem like the comp did pretty well. limiting the FOC a bit isnt a terrible idea and one im generally okay with. However having said that I deliberately go TAC so i automatically am not bothered by Comp since it doesnt change my list at all. Thus I am a bit biased for it here.


Final Thoughts:

I think the best road forward is probably a shotgun type multiple main events to figure out what people like and what is int he end, breaking the game and not. This may have to be some non standard uber "experiment" event with less prize support than normal but more an emphasis on "how to fix the game" and get as many people as possible. I really like the idea of a master prize pool tho that's divvyed by attendance, that makes perfect sense to me.

Ultimately I think what will be needed is some rules tweaks and going against GW here a bit. We're gonna have to either fundamentally rebalance or just ban the superheavies, and we're just gonna have to lump all the formations/random inquisition codicies into the standard main/ally setup that we are more used too/getting ahandle on. Quad codex armies are not going to help this game. As for the little niggling bananas stuff.. maybe one of the shotguns is with those sillypants rules fixed, and we'll see if players like them.

Maybe lets all hope GW is setting itself up for a buy and wizards buys it out?

I think you should have left the first choice out as you can choose alll of those things individually if you want them...it skews the results a bit (did someone pick that and then check all the boxes or did they just check the first box?)

I went for

Core + Allies + supplements + limited Dataslates (to be determined upon full release but right now units not formations)

No on escalation and stronghold as I don't have enough Info yet, I have a feeling escalation would be definite no, but stronghold I'm not sure.

I went No on FW, mostly because I would like some structure around it, but I am not fully opposed here either. (i.e. it would not keep me from attending.)

I voted for rules changes fixing 2++, mass ignores cover and/or Tau Buff Commander, perhaps some of the derided FW units. I think rules modifications is better than a ban list or comp because players can still use their units they will just be less powerful.

I posted this list in the other tread of my ideal rule fixes but it would need some testing and work to do this much.

1.) Grimoir only effects the "Daemon" invul save.

2.) Change Fortune to Unit Ignores failed saves on a roll of 4+.

3.) Redact the 360 degree Heldrake FAQ.

4.) Change Markerlights back to -1 cover save per light spent.

5.) Change Serpent shields - any number of possible ways (Change range, make it one use only, change ignores cover to ignores jink, diminishing returns based on usage (i.e. you get less shots, and less durability each time you fire it or something)

6.) Fix buff commander: allow maybe only 2 signature systems and require them to take up his support slots.

7.) Fix artilery rules allowing all crew to benefit from T7.

I'd go with your max two events idea and run with the following:

All In Tourney- everything allowed* with the clear understanding this is for not the faint of heart. Bring all the toys within legal limits and see what happens. It could be loads of fun with everyone getting what they dreamed as their pimped out army, or it could also end with everyone frustrated as no one does gak for 5-6 turns and ends with draws for everyone.

Softcore Tourney- a tourney with more balanced lists, modified by diversity. So you allow most everything still but award points for avoiding the more powerful units and adding diversity to your list by not taking more than 1 of units. Of course this is subjective in how to grade units but allows people to bring fluffier lists and units. Points taken away for adding in supplements and alies, ect..

*Understand everything must make sense and stuff so experimental rules are out for example for FW.

Nice Survey. I would suggest if you redo it that you eliminate the top option for everything and have 4 Forge World categories to get a more accurate count.

Otherwise some may not understand the differences between the different levels of Forge World and thus group Titans alongside things that have already transitioned to 40k like Valkyries or Tauros Assault Vehicles.

The 4 selections I suggest to use instead of one Forge World choice are:

40K Approved stamped Forge World (These are approved for use in regular 40K games)

God of War Stamped Forge World (These are approved to fill the God of War FOC slot recently added by Escalation)

Apocalypse Only Stamped Forge World (These are approved for Apocalypse, some of these also have a God of War stamp)

Experimental Rules Stamped Forge World (These are published before final approval and released for testing only )

Again, thanks for the survey. This will be my only input to it since LA is a bit far for me to go on a Weekend. I hope your event goes well.

That rulebook that GW sells you isn't tournament friendly to begin with.

I've been saying for years that TO's need to come up with a tournament ruleset because drinking the GW koolaid and thinking everything is fine, isn't. I don't see this happening because TO's are concerned that this will cause a drop in attendance. Well Da-Boyz have been doing it to some extent for years and that's a pretty popular event.


Here's what gets me. Most TO's have been playing this game through a majority of the editions. With that store of knowledge they should have seen what works and what doesn't and come to the realization that it's not that hard to streamline the game for better, faster tournament play. (Ex. Fix the assault phase to make it less fiddly and actually viable, get rid of true LOS, fix allies & fliers.) A lot of games have different beer/pretzel rules and tournament rulesets.[u] GW isn't going to release tournament rules so why don't all you TO's put your big brains together and make this happen? The INAT was like a noncommittal attempt at this but they haven't gone far enough. If you think I'm wrong then by all means ignore me, but ask yourself, deep down is this game as good as it could be or are we just going along with it because that's what we were told to do? People follow good ideas. Stop hanging onto the hand that is clearly trying to punch you in the face.


The problem with the tournaments now is that they are all like Adepticon Gladiator and that's fine every once in a while, but it gets old really fast when that is the only event in town.

If you want to keep everything legal then you might as well offer up "codex only" or similar event too.

AFAIK they have removed the 40k approved stamp from FW units/models. As to the stronghold book, tourny wise it has to be a no . Why?, pre set terrain, the fortifcations take up way too much space to keep moving terrain about. I have heard of some tournies in the US where players set the terrain but in the UK all boards are pre set.

That is easy to get around though, I already do you can bring Fortifications, but if you are unable to place them, you are not allowed (most boards have space to place it somewhere in your table half, just maybe not where you want to.) So most people don't bring larger ones but they are not banned.

I am really glad I did this practice survey, now.

I shouldn't have put in that first question and could have worded some of others a little better, but I got largely what I was looking for. I wanted to put all the options in there, even some we honestly wouldn't even consider (dropping the core codices? haha) because I wanted to test the waters and needed some constants from which to measure the other opinions expressed.

I have a lot of thoughts I want to share on how I am interpreting the data, but, I don't want to skew the LVO poll results, so I will hold off on my commentary for now. In the meantime, thank you all very much for contributing and please continue to give feedback!

One of my selections was comp. I've really come to like the Astro-nomican comp system. I used it at a tournament in August (7 games, BP scoring) and it worked very well at promoting variety in army lists and selections. Every player starts with 20 points and deductions are made based off the unit selections made. If you're interested, I can send you the modified version of the checklist I used. It was published ahead of time and the average comp score was about a 17/20 so the only people really hurt by the comp system were the people who ignored it outright.