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.

Comp, of the type but not the one used in Sweden. It's even in English!

Going by the poll allies are very popular. I doubt TOs are going to do away with it or nerf it.

So based off The poll (not that it is a ton of responses)

The only things getting support (beyond Core codices)

Allies is between 61.25% and 89.7% depending on how you figure it breaks out

Supplements 61.9%-90.3%

Digial Codices 69.4%-87.8%

Forgeworld between 31.6%-60%

I view Escalation/Stronghold Assault as being best used like Cities of Death and Planetstrike....useful and fun for certain games. I think everything in BRB (including Allies) should be allowed, digital codices are fine too, and I don't mind dataslates. Adding in a new unit isn't bad for someone who's not aware of it, adding in a whole new set of rules (like cities or escalation) is much tougher and I find it very simple to just ignore a single supplement and continue with 40K.

Breng77 wrote:
So based off The poll (not that it is a ton of responses)

The only things getting support (beyond Core codices)

Allies is between 61.25% and 89.7% depending on how you figure it breaks out

Supplements 61.9%-90.3%

Digial Codices 69.4%-87.8%

Forgeworld between 31.6%-60%

I wonder if FW wouldn't be something more broadly accepted if the country as a whole moved to 0-1 a la some of AdeptiCon/NOVA/etc. events. It's a little bit of a compromise for some of the FW fans, and it's a significant compromise for the hardcore anti-FW people, but as a whole it might be something that gets closer to 75%-80% of the vote instead of possibly well under half (depending on how you read this ... it's clearly far less accepted than codices/allies/digital mainstreams).

The difference is that in Reece's events, it already is accepted for the most part. Yes, there might be some dissenters, and I may be wrong, but the majority of the people that go to Frontline events don't really mind it being in the main GT.

Narrative event, yes, they should have it, no argument from the population for the most part, the big thing is the flagship tournaments of the events. 0-1 would be a nice compremise to add it into the others that don't already have it, but for the Frontline events, that would be like a step backwards.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Going by the poll allies are very popular. I doubt TOs are going to do away with it or nerf it.

In the Poll i voted to allow allies however given the choice i would have also voted to go from BB to AoC.

At this point in 6th edition im pretty much opposed to either banning Allies or trying to roll them into the main FoC. Removing BB abilities is a much more toned down version IMHO and the best compromise.

 Dude_I_Suck wrote:
The difference is that in Reece's events, it already is accepted for the most part. Yes, there might be some dissenters, and I may be wrong, but the majority of the people that go to Frontline events don't really mind it being in the main GT.

Narrative event, yes, they should have it, no argument from the population for the most part, the big thing is the flagship tournaments of the events. 0-1 would be a nice compremise to add it into the others that don't already have it, but for the Frontline events, that would be like a step backwards.

Other events' attendees might think going to 0-1 from 0-0 is a step backwards also. The point is - if the %'s are to be followed here and in general it's been similar for other polls by other event leads, you might find more attendees to ALL events and a more uniform understanding of what's to come if everyone went to that ... a little compromise from all sides. But that's just a thought.

Mike, did you just suggest compromise ? How dare you !

MarkyMark wrote:
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!.

So been a few days and it is still pretty much as it was.

House rules are quite low down, considering how vocal many people are about it and the few people that replied to say keep it as it is, just 50 people compared to 239 for core and 93 for everything (assuming people voted for everything then didnt vote on anything else, just 15% overall then. FW is about a third which I would expect really. Data slates havent had a good reception really but probably due to the Tau one. The super heavies and Forts one, I think the forts one was too early to call seeing as the book wasnt out during the start of the poll and only been a few days, probably why we see more people for stronghold then escalation combined with everything stronghold is 156 odd so over half! and Escalation is 122 so just under half. Thats interesting.....

The other thing the two polls currently on dakka is missing, is the option to say whether they go to tournies or not. I reckon there will be a few votes from people who just have no interest for whatever reason in going to tournies. I would like to see the results of Reece's other poll (which I think was emailed to attendees for LVO?)

Why would a Poll in the tournament discussion forum, about tournaments include an option of "I don't play tournaments." Playing tournaments should kind of be an assumption. I guess you could say that people will vote on the poll that don't play tournaments though...so I don't know.

You say people don't want House rules but depending on overlap you have
188 votes for some kind of changes (Comp, rules change, banned units, different formats,

So it is more that people cannot seem to agree on what change to make rather than lacking the desire for change.

As for combining with everything, we don't know if people picked Everything and other options.. . So all we know is that it is between 93 and 122 people...for esclation which is well under half. If you do add then you need to add the 93 to the core codex to get 336 (at this time voters) so then you are only at 36% supporting Escalation and 46% for Stronghold. Those are the highest estimates more or less. So not all that strong really.

Monitor the data slates. Pick and choose as the community deems fit (Tau Firebase for example should not be allowed, considering it goes outside force org).

No SuperHeavies/D Weapons - as for super heavies, they just detract form the tabletop experience in my opinion, and d weapons need no explanation.

Modify 2++ re-roll saves, to 2++/4++ or make invuls max out at 3++.

Monitor Forgeworld - most FW is fine, but a few units (Thud Gun, Tau Riptide suit) are utterly un-fun...

You do this, and I believe you have yourself the best 40k experience to date

ForgeMarine wrote:
Monitor the data slates. Pick and choose as the community deems fit (Tau Firebase for example should not be allowed, considering it goes outside force org).

I agree.

No SuperHeavies/D Weapons - as for super heavies, they just detract form the tabletop experience in my opinion, and d weapons need no explanation.

I'd agree with SuperHeavies as long as there's no D Weapons (or simply modify them as str10 ap1).

Modify 2++ re-roll saves, to 2++/4++ or make invuls max out at 3++.

I disagree with this vehemently. It's simply a power build. Every edition, Codex update, etc often creates new uber units/rules shenanigans. Man... I remember that Nob Bikers, Space Wolves Thunderwolf, JotWW, Blood Angels fast everything were the ultimate . The game has always evolved to deal with these threats.

Monitor Forgeworld - most FW is fine, but a few units (Thud Gun, Tau Riptide suit) are utterly un-fun...

I'm in the camp that if it's 40k approved, then it's a valid unit.

You do this, and I believe you have yourself the best 40k experience to date

It's already an awesome event! He's providing the beer!

@Reece be sure the bring plenty!

zedsdead wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Going by the poll allies are very popular. I doubt TOs are going to do away with it or nerf it.

In the Poll i voted to allow allies however given the choice i would have also voted to go from BB to AoC.

At this point in 6th edition im pretty much opposed to either banning Allies or trying to roll them into the main FoC. Removing BB abilities is a much more toned down version IMHO and the best compromise.

What is wrong with BB?

 Dozer Blades wrote:

zedsdead wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Going by the poll allies are very popular. I doubt TOs are going to do away with it or nerf it.

In the Poll i voted to allow allies however given the choice i would have also voted to go from BB to AoC.

At this point in 6th edition im pretty much opposed to either banning Allies or trying to roll them into the main FoC. Removing BB abilities is a much more toned down version IMHO and the best compromise.

What is wrong with BB?

That's been my question for this whole thread. Jetseers having Hit & Run would be ended by getting rid of Battle Brothers, but this seems like a huge rule change to fix so small a problem. People might point to Farseers and Tau Commanders passing too many buffs on to allied units, but this isn't a real "problem" so much as it is a very powerful list that we dislike. Amending the ally rules to nerf Tau-dar would be outlandishly shortsighted.

Also, I've been bothered by a lot of the talk around Escalation. People point that it is meant to be used in regular 40K and say that that makes it different from Planetstrike or City Fight. I am reminded, though, of the idea of the Social Contract. These books only have power in so far as we GIVE them power. Just because GW says Escalation is different than Spearhead does not make that true. Escalation is the exact same as all those other books, but GW changed some wording to trick people who weren't really interested in them into buying them. This is a pretty simple smoke screen to see through if we just try.

@Whembly

Count on it!

At Frontline Gaming we live by a simple motto: Win or Lose, We Still Booze! haha

@Garner

Yes, FW in our events is accepted and actually folks will not go if we stop using it! We definitely buck the trends in that regard. Otherwise the numbers we have seen are pretty close in a lot of the other respects to the above.

 whembly wrote:
I disagree with this vehemently. It's simply a power build. Every edition, Codex update, etc often creates new uber units/rules shenanigans. Man... I remember that Nob Bikers, Space Wolves Thunderwolf, JotWW, Blood Angels fast everything were the ultimate . The game has always evolved to deal with these threats.

The difference between re-rollable 2++ units and other "cheese" is the frustration level involved. Sure, losing to overpowered units sucks, but at least with most of them you felt like you were actually doing something to them. A unit with a re-rollable 2++, on the other hand, is pretty much immune to anything you throw at it. All you can do is watch helplessly as it slaughters your stuff and hope that it can't kill all of your objective holders before the game ends. And that sense of helplessness just takes the frustration to an entirely new level that we haven't seen before.

And yes, there are "counters" if you specifically plan to deal with those units, but tournaments are about more than just the top few players who bring perfectly optimized TAC lists and are always ready for the metagame. If you're an average player it's unlikely that you have one of those specific counters, so you might as well go eat lunch and come back to let your opponent tell you if they won the "game" or not.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I disagree with this vehemently. It's simply a power build. Every edition, Codex update, etc often creates new uber units/rules shenanigans. Man... I remember that Nob Bikers, Space Wolves Thunderwolf, JotWW, Blood Angels fast everything were the ultimate . The game has always evolved to deal with these threats.

The difference between re-rollable 2++ units and other "cheese" is the frustration level involved. Sure, losing to overpowered units sucks, but at least with most of them you felt like you were actually doing something to them. A unit with a re-rollable 2++, on the other hand, is pretty much immune to anything you throw at it. All you can do is watch helplessly as it slaughters your stuff and hope that it can't kill all of your objective holders before the game ends. And that sense of helplessness just takes the frustration to an entirely new level that we haven't seen before.

And yes, there are "counters" if you specifically plan to deal with those units, but tournaments are about more than just the top few players who bring perfectly optimized TAC lists and are always ready for the metagame. If you're an average player it's unlikely that you have one of those specific counters, so you might as well go eat lunch and come back to let your opponent tell you if they won the "game" or not.

I'm not sure I'd 100% agree with that...

I think the frustration level is also the current 6th Ed mechanic. Take for example the baron+beast squad+jetseer... the playing mechanic really sucks as you'd have to roll each die individually if you want to LOS (or if you want to take it on the Baron, you could roll two dice at a time). Volume of fire will still take it down if you can bring it.

I play mainly Dark Eldar (without that cheese) and Dark Angels. Usually, I just play the mission and ignore that unit. I realize that some armies just don't have an answer to it. But, I truly believe that there are HARD counters for just about any lists.

Frankly, I'm surprised that no one tried to use a Grey Knight allies just to bring that Sniper. *shrugs*

Point being, I've been playing 40k long enough that there is ALWAYS some sort of uber out in the wild. My thought process? Bring it bish!

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I disagree with this vehemently. It's simply a power build. Every edition, Codex update, etc often creates new uber units/rules shenanigans. Man... I remember that Nob Bikers, Space Wolves Thunderwolf, JotWW, Blood Angels fast everything were the ultimate . The game has always evolved to deal with these threats.

The difference between re-rollable 2++ units and other "cheese" is the frustration level involved. Sure, losing to overpowered units sucks, but at least with most of them you felt like you were actually doing something to them. A unit with a re-rollable 2++, on the other hand, is pretty much immune to anything you throw at it. All you can do is watch helplessly as it slaughters your stuff and hope that it can't kill all of your objective holders before the game ends. And that sense of helplessness just takes the frustration to an entirely new level that we haven't seen before.

And yes, there are "counters" if you specifically plan to deal with those units, but tournaments are about more than just the top few players who bring perfectly optimized TAC lists and are always ready for the metagame. If you're an average player it's unlikely that you have one of those specific counters, so you might as well go eat lunch and come back to let your opponent tell you if they won the "game" or not.

I'm not sure I'd 100% agree with that...

I think the frustration level is also the current 6th Ed mechanic. Take for example the baron+beast squad+jetseer... the playing mechanic really sucks as you'd have to roll each die individually if you want to LOS (or if you want to take it on the Baron, you could roll two dice at a time). Volume of fire will still take it down if you can bring it.

I play mainly Dark Eldar (without that cheese) and Dark Angels. Usually, I just play the mission and ignore that unit. I realize that some armies just don't have an answer to it. But, I truly believe that there are HARD counters for just about any lists.

Frankly, I'm surprised that no one tried to use a Grey Knight allies just to bring that Sniper. *shrugs*

Point being, I've been playing 40k long enough that there is ALWAYS some sort of uber out in the wild. My thought process? Bring it bish!

You really cant bring down a 2++ re-roll even with volume of fire. you need 36 WOUNDS to remove one model, now do the math to how many hits and shots fired are needed (108 marine bolter shots if im correct to bring down 1 of 10 models) which will then split up into 5 units on turn 5 and contest every objective in a timed tournament when you know the game will end. a 2++ re-roll i would argue is NOT an intended game mechanic, since outside pys power exploitation there is no wargear which offers anything close to this level of survive-ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additionally, once forgeworld catches on, wait till you see 12 thud guns or the new tau suits on the table to judge it. Im all for 98% of FW, but there are several units in there which are equally as unbalanced a a screamer star throwing out 12 d6 s5 shots. Were not talking about addressing game mechanics or missions, simply a few very very overpowered units. Do you enjoy playing against seerstars or screamerstars, because unless something is done they WILL WIN 85% of competitively played game (see torrent of fire for stats) and as a result, expect to play it 3-4 times in a 8 game tourney if you plan on competing.

OR wait till you face 3 riptides, 18 broadsides with tank hunter and PE marines and an inquisitor with 6 henchmen for a really good time.

everything people say thats wrong about rerollable 2++'s and super heavies and super fortifications

is wrong about the "legal" FW units that everyone takes as well (no Im not talking the fine FW units, IM talking the ones that people SPAM in comp tournies, IE artillary carridge, sabres, and so on, undercosted by 40% to do something better then a more expensive unit from the codex)

FW + SH's are the same brand of "legal" stuff that has NO place in sub 2k games, our sub 2k tournaments.

none at all...

banning half of FW, but not the other half, is just silly and forcing people to play YOUR 40k.. cause your FW is "fine" and my FW (super heavies) isnt ...

if we want FAIR and fun as well as competittive tournaments need we need it to be just the codexes, digi or not,
and you get one of :allies or fort or INQ or dataslate or suppliment ally... and the data slates/supplements have to fit inside the original FOC... no more of this stupid 4+ heavies/FA slots shenanigans.

Why ban any thing yet. Have we had a major tournament yet to see how this works out. How would that elder titan done against flyers?

Here is the thing with that approach though...what major TO wants to put their event up as the "sacrificial lamb" to find those things out?

So if I'm a TO ans say "everythings allowed" and players decide that is not what they want to play my event fails and I lose money...

If people show up and have no fun...the reputation of the event might suffer with negative publicity...no one wants to put on an unfun event.

So there is only one scenario where it really works out and that is if everything is perfectly fine.

As a TO why take that risk?

Just say no to D-WEAPONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if it has a D or is a super-heavy, cant use it, easy.

But yes to fortifications.

You can buy void shields which fix the ignore cover thing the tau chip commander has going.

You can buy extra air-defense to balance out the necron flier army.

bunkers and large building to protect against all HTH hand rush armies if they cant hurt armor 14.

If people want to spend a ton of points on building, less troops on the board.

Network forts are what is going to save the game, treat a fort as a tank shock on a unit for terrain when setting it up. Move terrain the minimum distance to allow the placement of the fort. SIMPLE, VERY SIMPLE, NOT HARD, TAKES ONE SECOUND TO SET THEM UP.

Even better...use GW's terrain placement rules! (Seriously). We use a modified format at AdeptiCon, and we used the same modified format at the Mich GT, and it worked fine!

Majority of terrain piece placed on your half of the table, alternating placement, terrain placed AFTER fortifications are placed.

Even better...use GW's terrain placement rules! (Seriously). We use a modified format at AdeptiCon, and we used the same modified format at the Mich GT, and it worked fine!

Majority of terrain piece placed on your half of the table, alternating placement, terrain placed AFTER fortifications are placed.

+1 to this. I thought the terrain placement added an excellent degree of strategy to my Adepticon games. MORE TOURNAMENTS SHOULD DO THIS

 easysauce wrote:
everything people say thats wrong about rerollable 2++'s and super heavies and super fortifications is wrong about the "legal" FW units that everyone takes as well

Not even close. We aren't talking about mere bad balance here, we're talking about lists where it's not even worth playing the game for many people. Against the overpowered FW units at least you can fight back against them and feel like you're doing something, even if your chances of winning the game are pretty bad. Against a Revenant list or screamerstar all you can really do is take your models off the table one at a time and wonder why you bothered playing instead of conceding the game and taking a lunch break.

(no Im not talking the fine FW units, IM talking the ones that people SPAM in comp tournies, IE artillary carridge, sabres, and so on, undercosted by 40% to do something better then a more expensive unit from the codex)

You mean kind of like how codex units are undercosted by 40%? Why is it the end of the world if a FW unit is too cheap, but when the Vendetta is indisputably too cheap that's just something you have to deal with?

Let anything printed in and anything digital that is not "GW DLC", ie the 2 dollar wargear BS.

Limit people to choosing an ally, a lord of war, or a fortification. You get one, but no more.

Allow Forge World additions to core lists, but maximum one unit of a given type per army.

Allow the newer Forge World army lists if the person has a hard copy of the book.

Treat Str D as "S10, Armorbane, Fleshbane, Ignores Invulnerable Saves"

Target ban a couple of the problematic things in the FW books, like the guy who knows the entire divination discipline.

Limit total Psycher levels to 6 per army, both to cut back on combos and to speed play. This ultimately might not be needed if you are willing to simply ban the use of Invisibility or disallow rerolling of 2+ saves other than armor.



The other option would be to re-implement soft scores again, which would allow you to have fewer and longer rounds so that games would actually generally make it past turn three. If you go that route, I would still cut back Str D how I suggested.

So I put my thoughts (currently) on Comp http://connecticon40k.blogspot.com/ on my blog. Essentially Percentile based restricitons on FOC slots. Instead of bans or rule changes (not that I am fully opposed to that) Interested to hear what people think...Is there a way to break it too easily...etc.

Only issue with the percentage system is that you run into the issue of why it was dumped in the first place. Some army books have really good, or at least serviceable, troop choices. Others have pure garbage that gets taken purely to fill requirements. And most armies have logjams of their good stuff in certain other slots, so you are essentially widening a the power gap a lot.

Example- Capping Elite percentages and requiring higher troop percentages is a pretty huge kick to the balls to Nids, vanilla SM, chaos, and arguable footdar. Not exactly barn burner builds. Farsight Tau, Daemons, Guard, and Crons are not really touched at all, honestly.

If all armies had at least descent workable troops, this would be a little more feasible. But when you have armies that can cover every base in the troop slot, which also happen to be the better armies out there, you really are just magnifying the issue by implementing percentages.

So who has bad troops? What is considered a bad troop choice? That is all a matter of perspective.