Feast of Blades announces 40K tourney comp.

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**

mikhaila wrote:
I applaud their bravery. They are taking steps to make their event what they want, and offer to the players who want to attend. Lots of work and headaches.

Even mentioning comp seems to bring out the mob with pitchforks and torches. Running a comp system for a GT simply cannot be tolerated by the thousands of brave internet warriors who werent' going to attend anyway.

With several months headstart, I'm curious to see how the system evolves and what the final product is.

Truth. It's always applause worthy to put in tons of hours and time trying to make an event as fair and fun for all of your attendees as possible. It's also always applause worthy when a TO does it against the desires of an entrenched mob of internet goers. Sadly there'll always be people who gak talk the hard work of events with no regard for the people behind them.

I think Feast getting theirs out there early is positive, in that it shows a desire to see the community of potential attendees give feedback to them. The harshest critics sometimes come up with a few really powerful nuggets with which to make things even better. Also, I know Feast had to get this out to start trying to baseline things for their qualifiers.

**whigwam**

Red Corsair wrote:And looking at your sig I am SURE there is no bias in your accusations At least their making an attempt. It's early yet, give them a chance I say, or better yet stay home with your bad attitude.

Do I sound like I was pleased with the rule change that enabled Tzeentch Daemons to dominate at FoB 2012? I thought I made it very clear that I wasn't, and I benefited from that more than anyone. I'm not biased in favor of rules that make the game easier for me...I'm biased against rules that attempt to change the nature of the game to better fit some TO's idealistic vision of how 40k should be. Especially since those efforts usually wind up screwing things up anyway.

Sure, as a Daemon player I'm a little miffed that FoB sees fit to ban a key component of the Daemons codex. But no more than I'd be if FoB were talking about banning Buffmanders, Ovesa, Wave Serpents, Baron or whatever the hell else they might have in mind. I can't say, 'Well, at least they're trying' because I think what they're trying to do is harmful to 40k. When they're talking about a ban list I don't believe they have the competency to implement, I'm not going to 'give them a chance.' I'm going to say that I think Regional Homebrew 40k is a terrible idea, and they should stop.

**Red Corsair**

whigwam wrote:
Red Corsair wrote:And looking at your sig I am SURE there is no bias in your accusations At least their making an attempt. It's early yet, give them a chance I say, or better yet stay home with your bad attitude.
Do I sound like I was pleased with the rule change that enabled Tzeentch Daemons to dominate at FoB 2012? I thought I made it very clear that I wasn't, and I benefited from that more than anyone. I'm not biased in favor of rules that make the game easier for me...I'm biased against rules that attempt to change the nature of the game to better fit some TO's idealistic vision of how 40k should be. Especially since those efforts usually wind up screwing things up anyway.

Sure, as a Daemon player I'm a little miffed that FoB sees fit to ban a key component of the Daemons codex. But no more than I'd be if FoB were talking about banning Buffmanders, Ovesa, Wave Serpents, Baron or whatever the hell else they might have in mind. I can't say, 'Well, at least they're trying' because I think what they're trying to do is harmful to 40k. When they're talking about a ban list I don't believe they have the competency to implement, I'm not going to 'give them a chance.' I'm going to say that I think Regional Homebrew 40k is a terrible idea, and they should stop.

Then your blind. 40k has been on a downward spiral ever since 6th hit. First necron fliers, then the FAQ nerfing solutions that didn't require snap shots that basically invalidated early tourney results IMO, then bale flamers and their FAQ fallowed by demons, tau and eldar. Even since eldar they managed to warp how armies ally into a complete mess.

I say the system has failed utterly thus far so good for them to make a change. Using THEIR OWN EVENT AND TIME. If you don't like it, don't go. If you have a better way then run your own event. Basically put up or shut up. Whining and saying leave it all alone is NOT the answer. At least not for FOB, since its their event I applaud them. It's nice to see some back bone from a TO for a change.

EDIT

Also, have you seriously missed the part where this is a LIVING document for an event 10+ months out?

**whigwam**

Red Corsair wrote:Then your blind. 40k has been on a downward spiral ever since 6th hit. First necron fliers, then the FAQ nerfing solutions that didn't require snap shots that basically invalidated early tourney results IMO, then bale flamers and their FAQ fallowed by demons, tau and eldar. Even since eldar they managed to warp how armies ally into a complete mess.

I say the system has failed utterly thus far so good for them to make a change. Using THEIR OWN EVENT AND TIME. If you don't like it, don't go. If you have a better way then run your own event. Basically put up or shut up. Whining and saying leave it all alone is NOT the answer. At least not for FOB, since its their event I applaud them. It's nice to see some back bone from a TO for a change.

EDIT

Also, have you seriously missed the part where this is a LIVING document for an event 10+ months out?

"or whatever the hell else they might have in mind", "they're talking about a ban list I don't believe they have the competency to implement" - Read in context, these statements should make it fairly clear that I'm aware this is a 'living document'. Yes, they are working on it. And I think the work they've done so far shows they are clearly headed in the wrong direction.

Of course it is their event and they can do with it what they like. I am not questioning the FoB organizers' freedom of assembly. But now they have put their proposed rules changes out into the public sphere for comment. If FoB were looking for 100% positive feedback, they would have posted to an echo chamber instead of the Internet. They didn't. So, I am commenting from the perspective of a past attendee (and potential future attendee) saying that I think the changes are negative, and that they will deter me from returning to the event in the future. Hopefully if they hear enough feedback in that vein, they will reconsider the proposed changes. If not, then oh well, I won't be going. I have already said as much in my first post, but please feel free to keep putting the suggestion forward.

We aren't going to agree on the state of 6th Edition. You'll say it's not working, I'll say it is, you'll say I'm blind, I'll say something impolite, and we'll go back and forth like that forever. To me, it seems like a poor use of both of our time. I've said what I wanted to say about FoB's proposed rules changes, you and others apparently disagree, and that's OK.

**Waaaaghmaster**

My whole issue with this situation is that people have taken it upon themselves to "fix" the game when none of us know how the meta will develop, or what additional changes will be made between now and closer to the event.

The introduction of Destroyer weapons in and of itself will bring about the end of the current "deathstars" with re-rollable invuln saves. In addition, I firmly believe that, when taken together, the new fortification options presented in stronghold assault, and the inclusion of the super heavies listed in escalation will balance one another out once the new meta has a chance to mature. The biggest problem I saw with escalation was the limited choices of "lords of war", and the relative imbalance in power between those choices. However, every single army has access to destroyer weapons, void shields, and other options in the form of fortifications. And apparently forgeworld will be released updated information detailing how more of their products will interact with the new rules.

It just seems to me that people are seeing these two new supplements as stand alone items and not considering how they will interact with one another.

Ultimately, any arbitrary effort to "balance" a game for something as far out (time-wise) as these events is just a knee-jerk reaction and really smacks of an effort to force the community back into a 5th edition spam-list mentality.

**Theduke07**

Tau & Eldar heavy blog and players making comp rules and first thing is a middle finger to Chaos? No thanks.

**Dozer Blades**

whigwam I totally dig what you're saying !!!

**Lobokai**

I am thrilled. ScreamerStar and SeerStar are simply game breaking. Dataslated RipSide Spam is equally silly. I have no doubt that Waveserpants should be included too... but I see the reasonable line at being banning broken combinations not broken units. Otherwise the next "best unit" just marches up the list.

If someone wants to argue that a 2++ rerollable is somehow sporting or good for fostering an enjoyable tournament meta, you've lost credibility the second you start. Its just not a defendable position and I don't know of a major TO that hasn't come out on a podcast or forum and flat out stated that something should be done about it... enjoy the lunatic fringe.

Someone's "right" to field a given legal list does not trump the "right" of a TO to create a tournament that has a reasonably diverse playing field that gives players a greater sense of enjoyment and a more competitive feel. After all, GTs are really about fun and community for the majority of the participants and finally TOs are catering to that instead of the loudmouth WAAC players who want to dig in on a given list that is an easy button. The rest of us have a "right" to enjoy our time, not just take our models off the table or roll dice that will have no real impact on the outcome of the game.

**Leth**

I find it funny how people are turning this into a "Rights" debate for tournaments.

There is no warhammer constitution. If you dont want to go, vote with your wallet. Personally I had lost interest in a lot of tournaments just because I am not going to spend a couple hundred dollars to go to a tournament and not have fun.

These TO's invest huge amounts of money and time into their tournaments, they were seeing declining attendence among the more casual crowd. They were seeing declining fun with the game overall. They are trying to do something about it, for that I applaud their efforts. No one expects it to be perfect, but as long as it is better that is all I care about.

**quiestdeus**

Leth wrote:
I find it funny how people are turning this into a "Rights" debate for tournaments.

There is no warhammer constitution. If you dont want to go, vote with your wallet. Personally I had lost interest in a lot of tournaments just because I am not going to spend a couple hundred dollars to go to a tournament and not have fun.

These TO's invest huge amounts of money and time into their tournaments, they were seeing declining attendence among the more casual crowd. They were seeing declining fun with the game overall. They are trying to do something about it, for that I applaud their efforts. No one expects it to be perfect, but as long as it is better that is all I care about.

Great post.

I am very excited for the FoB comp, and look forward to it removing the solitaire lists. Note, this is not synonymous with hard lists, but the lists that when played well, make me feel like I may as well not be at the table. I have not been to a tournament since NOVA because of it, but now that someone is trying to do something about it I will definitely find a way out to Colorado to support FoB (if they actually stick with their stance). I really hope other TOs get on board as well, not necessarily adopting the same comp but by taking some action. Then again, events like 11th CO GT and DaBoyz seemed to have no attendance problems, so the incentive may still not be there.

Cross-posting from one of the other 1000 threads on the comp topic, but I REALLY liked Breng's %-based (Fantasy-esque) system… but at the end of the day I also applaud FoB simply because they are doing something to bring fun back.

**Orock**

Its really hard to feel for someone who runs a 2+ rerollable army. Those lists single handedly make the game so miserable for their opponents that at my store they have gotten the guys running the store the cold shoulder when asking for games, and made others think about what else they could be doing with their time and money than banging their heads against a screamerstar wall, and quit entirely.

No one should shed a tear when WAAC lists eat the nerf bat. And the "only build that's competitive in my whoooooollleee dex" argument dosent fly either. Mabye the only one YOUR competitive with.

**pizzaguardian**

you're

**Orock**

pizzaguardian wrote:
you're

YOU'RE actually

**pizzaguardian**

touche

well i really should keep a note of this original version, wonder how it will turnout in time for the tournament.

**Dude_I_Suck**

Orock wrote:
Its really hard to feel for someone who runs a 2+ rerollable army. Those lists single handedly make the game so miserable for their opponents that at my store they have gotten the guys running the store the cold shoulder when asking for games, and made others think about what else they could be doing with their time and money than banging their heads against a screamerstar wall, and quit entirely.

No one should shed a tear when WAAC lists eat the nerf bat. And the "only build that's competitive in my whoooooollleee dex" argument dosent fly either. Mabye the only one YOUR competitive with.

The difference is that some things that are getting the nerf bat have applications to non - 2+ reroll army lists. When you poop on a specific list, you end up inadvertently hurting the entire codex as a whole in the grand scheme. I have no problem when WAAC lists eat the bat, when when bat is wildly swung to punk not just that specific build, but the book as a whole, then there is a problem. It may be just because I'm a fluffy player who plays mono-god, but considering I don't reroll a single save in my army. Only if I get a 10 on the warpstorm do I even get a 2+ period. My list is competitive enough to be fun (I don't have a gun in it except for one daemon prince, two at 2k points), so tell me how that grimoire being around makes the list broken? I get the same saves as a necron wraith, with one less toughness. SO BROKEN, MUST NERF!

**Matt1785**

I think the Grimoire could be fixed instead of being banned outright... well, I don't want to use fixed because to some it doesn't need fixing.

Grimoire of True Names:
Dice roll 1 or 2 = -1 Invuln save
Dice roll 3, 4, or 5 = +1 Invuln save
Dice roll 6 = +2 Invuln save

Seems to make it harder to get the 2++ up, and even with Fateweaver, it may be tough to want to re-roll.

Outright bans will come off as very harsh, but modifications can work.

Make Farseers 0-1, cap Warlock units at squads of 5, make Waveserpents maybe 0-4.

Just thoughts running through my head for comps. Banning items could get rough, just maybe work them a bit.

**hands_miranda**

Leth wrote:
I find it funny how people are turning this into a "Rights" debate for tournaments.

There is no warhammer constitution. If you dont want to go, vote with your wallet. Personally I had lost interest in a lot of tournaments just because I am not going to spend a couple hundred dollars to go to a tournament and not have fun.

These TO's invest huge amounts of money and time into their tournaments, they were seeing declining attendence among the more casual crowd. They were seeing declining fun with the game overall. They are trying to do something about it, for that I applaud their efforts. No one expects it to be perfect, but as long as it is better that is all I care about.

Enjoy an exalt. This is really the big issue of the top end of an event trying to determine stuff when they're the minority of people showing up. Matt Brandt discussed this a lot, and while I disagree with a lot of what he comes up with (W-L scoring, encouraging puppy kicking, trying to develop a unified meta) I really am happy to see someone going in with the idea that the top table isn't really any more relevant than any other single table at the event. If catering to the top table guys makes it a worse event for everyone else, then forget them and run something that works out for most of the attendees.

I very much do not like how FoB is going about trying to fix the issue, but I am happy to see someone actually trying something versus poo-pooing it from the sidelines. To me, the solution chosen should try to fix at it's most general case (2+ re-rollables, strength D weapons, increasingly abusive allied synergies) instead of individual instances of it. So instead of banning the Grimoire, you'd say that all 2+ rerolls are 2+/4+ instead, strength D is weakened to S10 AP 1, characters can't join allied units, ect. That tends to fix the actual issues versus playing whack a mole with the latest build doing the same things.

Also, some of the point of the 2++ re-roll was as a response to the ridiculous amount of ignores cover firepower available from the Eldar and Tau books. If you do something about the re-roll spam, you should also do something about these issues, which are unfortunately more specific and also a bit more pernicious in how the game is laid out. Maybe more LOS blocking terrain, a move towards VP scoring vs. W/L scoring (with a caveat that tabling someone doesn't automatically give you max points) and an emphasis on scoring objectives might make these lists less powerful, thought you may still need to fix the obviously broken codex entries. It's the starting point of a discussion, not the ending one.

**Orock**

Matt1785 wrote:
I think the Grimoire could be fixed instead of being banned outright... well, I don't want to use fixed because to some it doesn't need fixing.

Grimoire of True Names:
Dice roll 1 or 2 = -1 Invuln save
Dice roll 3, 4, or 5 = +1 Invuln save
Dice roll 6 = +2 Invuln save

Seems to make it harder to get the 2++ up, and even with Fateweaver, it may be tough to want to re-roll.

Outright bans will come off as very harsh, but modifications can work.

Make Farseers 0-1, cap Warlock units at squads of 5, make Waveserpents maybe 0-4.

Just thoughts running through my head for comps. Banning items could get rough, just maybe work them a bit.

If GW had a brain between them, im sure this is EXACTLY how it would have been written in the codex.

**Lobokai**

Leth wrote:
I find it funny how people are turning this into a "Rights" debate for tournaments.

There is no warhammer constitution. If you dont want to go, vote with your wallet. Personally I had lost interest in a lot of tournaments just because I am not going to spend a couple hundred dollars to go to a tournament and not have fun.

These TO's invest huge amounts of money and time into their tournaments, they were seeing declining attendence among the more casual crowd. They were seeing declining fun with the game overall. They are trying to do something about it, for that I applaud their efforts. No one expects it to be perfect, but as long as it is better that is all I care about.

Um, if you're responding to my post I hope this is in agreement, as we said the same thing.

**thisisnotaseriousaccount**

Centurian99 wrote:
The trick with comp is going to be doing so in an evenhanded manner. That ban list is essentially "screw Daemons".

It's ok, they still have two of the best Gargantuan Creatures in the game on their side.

**Sidstyler**

I hope the "no allying with yourself" policy applies to Space Marines as well, and not just xenos supplements. If I'm not mistaken the parent SM codex allows self-allying without using a supplement and not addressing that while shutting down powerful xenos combinations is pretty biased.

**Ravenous D**

RiTides wrote:
Thanks pretre, I guess this is the key part (what they're leaning towards with their restrictions currently):

The exact nature of these restrictions are already well into discussion and development, and will be available in their discrete form VERY soon. We know what the problem builds and combos are, now we are giving them the axe. Below, I will preview some of our changes:

———————————————————————————————————-

1.) The Grimoire of True Names from Codex: Daemons is banned
As of right now, this is the only true banning. We feel there is too much potential for abuse, and disagree with the effect it has on the army and the game.

2.) A few units will receive 0-1 status
For those of you who weren't around when 0-1 was a thing in codecies, means that a maximum of 1 of that unit may be taken per army. These are all units whose mass inclusion limits the potential lists in the game, and will thus be restricted. (As none of them are a problem on their own.) Rest assured that this will be a very short list, we are not interested in creating very restricted armies.

3.) Supplemental Codecies will no longer be able to ally to their base codex
There will be no more self-allying, no more cherry picking the best parts of a supplement while paying none of the costs, and no more force-org bloat from doing so.

4.) Dataslates will take an ally slot
Taking units from many, many different books and ignoring the force organization chart is too much. This change will make dataslates an interesting addition to the game, without allowing for truly bizzare armies.

5.) The number of psychic mastery levels in an army will be limited
This change will eliminate a great many power combos from the game, and will stop a player from making a lot of lucky rolls on the psychic power tables to effectively win the game before it begins.

6.) Strength D is out, Lords of Battle are in
We feel the the Lords of Battle are not overpowered on their own, the fact that they give the opponent some advantages (bonus to seize, and especially victory points) balances out their fearsome firepower and powerful endurance. Strength D, however, is too powerful. This is well-known by every apoc player (and I am one of them), and has been the case for the past two editions. (Yes, it was even overpowered back in 5th, and it was much worse then.) There is some debate still going on, but it looks like S will become S:10, ordinance, ignores cover. That still makes it very powerful, but more in line with the price paid for the superheavy as well as it's other weapon options. In addition, superheavies will have to start on the table.

7.) Super-forts are gone, or at least downsized
No AV15, it will be AV14 instead. Every individual fortification from Stronghold Assault is allowed, but the “network” choices are simply too big and unwieldy to allow for tournament play. (As a consolation, they're pretty terrible, so I think it's OK.)

8.) Dedicated transport flyers will be limited
Flyers are not the be-all end-all of this edition, but all-flyer and mostly-flyer armies change the meta in uncomfortable ways and are notoriously unfun to play against.

———————————————————————————————————-

Everything on this is A-OK by me. The transcendent C'tan is still an issue but I like where this is going.

**jifel**

If the Grimoire is getting banned, I'd like to see some of the Tau one-per-army wargear get banned too, like that "ignore cover and here's TH and MH why not" thing.

**General Hobbs**

Here's how to fix tournaments without ban lists:

All awards get a comp score. Weight it appropriately. Comp score is given by the opposing player. Said player has to justify to a judge why the score is given, if the judge feels it is unfair. Overruling results in a forfeiture of gained points by player ( a stick to avoid bad losers gakking someone on comp).

This will encourage people to bring fun lists. Give bonus points for fluff etc.

Someone shows up with a screamer star or a seercouncilstar or 3 riptides or 3 helldrakes or wave serpent spam...they might go undefeated, but they won't win an award.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

If this were 3rd edition, the list would include Rhinos. Every edition has something broken. Players just need to deal with it.

**Zweischneid**

mikhaila wrote:
I applaud their bravery. They are taking steps to make their event what they want, and offer to the players who want to attend. Lots of work and headaches.

Even mentioning comp seems to bring out the mob with pitchforks and torches. Running a comp system for a GT simply cannot be tolerated by the thousands of brave internet warriors who werent' going to attend anyway.

With several months headstart, I'm curious to see how the system evolves and what the final product is.

Not sure what's so new about it. Haven't they been changing up things for a long time (e.g. 1999+1 instead of "official" 2000 points, to name but one example)?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

General Hobbs wrote:

Here's how to fix tournaments without ban lists:

All awards get a comp score. Weight it appropriately. Comp score is given by the opposing player. Said player has to justify to a judge why the score is given, if the judge feels it is unfair. Overruling results in a forfeiture of gained points by player ( a stick to avoid bad losers gakking someone on comp).

This will encourage people to bring fun lists. Give bonus points for fluff etc.

Someone shows up with a screamer star or a seercouncilstar or 3 riptides or 3 helldrakes or wave serpent spam...they might go undefeated, but they won't win an award.

.

They might not win an award, but the actual games they play won't be fun.

You're missing the point. Give these people the overall award for all I care. Give em 10. It's not about the awards. Just make sure they don't waste anyone's time during the actual tournament. That is hte time and place where these kind of lists hurt the fun.

**Ravenous D**

General Hobbs wrote:

Here's how to fix tournaments without ban lists:

All awards get a comp score. Weight it appropriately. Comp score is given by the opposing player. Said player has to justify to a judge why the score is given, if the judge feels it is unfair. Overruling results in a forfeiture of gained points by player ( a stick to avoid bad losers gakking someone on comp).

This will encourage people to bring fun lists. Give bonus points for fluff etc.

Someone shows up with a screamer star or a seercouncilstar or 3 riptides or 3 helldrakes or wave serpent spam...they might go undefeated, but they won't win an award.

If this were 3rd edition, the list would include Rhinos. Every edition has something broken. Players just need to deal with it.

Doesn't work.

Points given by opposing players are always abused. If I run screamerstar and bomb all my opponents "friendly lists" I ensure they will not be in the top 10. If I run with 5 friends that all do the same, we essentially just cleared out the top spaces for the best generals which, most likely will be the screamer star builds. The conflict tournaments used that system and they were full of problems, there was one old guy that played in 3rd that didn't understand a lot of the then 4th rules and would bomb people because he felt that your units were "too good".

The only tournament system that works is if they make a banned list, and 0-1 or 0- whatever list for each army and restrict certain combos. Otherwise you might as well kiss the tournament scene good bye because the power builds that will result from this stupidity are going to make for completely unimaginative untactical short games.

**L0rdF1end**

I don't agree with the banning of Grimoire.
It's the latest potentially overpowered thing in 40k but its far from alone. I won't name them but we all know how powerful Eldar and Tau can be, slap in allies and they too become silly. Here we are talking multipe potentially over powering builds from these two races alone.

There are options that can deal with the Grimoire, for instance potentially a Wraith knight could keep it tied up all game, Missfortune messes with it. I won't even mention the amount of times i've failed to roll forewarning or dice go bad and you fail it anyway, I once failed it 2 rounds in a row with a reroll.
The list although powerful is not an instant win list either, You need the right build and tactics behind it to make it work, especially in a competitive environment.
To add a Rune Priest isn't fun either, nor are Tyranids, Neither are any other form of almost invulnerable deathstar, nor is MSU, and not to mention a Vindicare on a Quadgun. Nor is going second to Manticores, TFG's etc.. Mindstrike missiles. I'm sure there's more.

The list may force you to make adjustments to your competitive builds but surely this is the tactic applied anyway all along through the releases in 6th?
Just look at the past and where meta has shifted, its a meta shifting gimmick list, WraithSpam/CronAir, Helldrakes, Tau, Eldar..all have meta shifted lists, are we really turthly suggesting that Grimoire is more overpowered than other stages of the game have been.
Everything has a counter. You either choose to have a counter for something in your list or you don't.

Where I think it needs to stop is at Rulebook and codex. This can be supplemented by a list of allowed/banned Dataslates and Supplements. The New Fortifications and SuperHeavy books should remain out completely and should be considered optional additions to 40k.

If something is truely broken/overpowered then ban it, if something has upteen ways to deal with it in some shape or form not including the players own bad luck.. I think this is a missjudgment to ban it.
Remember, we have Tyranids coming and more books to follow, we really do not know what we will be competing with in the future, we've had the cries of overpoweredness heard from various releases/builds, why do we need to be banning or even comping now?

**Danny Internets**

Banning Grimoire is obviously over-reactive. Preventing its result from being re-rolled would completely address the perceived imbalance without removing a core item from the codex.

**RobPro**

Danny Internets wrote:
Banning Grimoire is obviously over-reactive. Preventing its result from being re-rolled would completely address the perceived imbalance without removing a core item from the codex.

What if it could only improve Daemonic invul saves? I think a handful of single models might still be able to get a 2+ invul save, but that's probably what GW intended.

**Therion**

I think the tourney comp presented here is a pretty good one. It's a work in progress so give it a shot, evaluate the results after the tournament and then make modifications. Perhaps something that should've been restricted was missed and something else was restricted too harshly. In the end you'll have a pretty good system.

What I like about the approach Feast of Blades took is that they're allowing (pretty much) everything but tweaking it to be a lot more fair and enjoyable for all participants.

L0rdF1end wrote:Where I think it needs to stop is at Rulebook and codex. This can be supplemented by a list of allowed/banned Dataslates and Supplements. The New Fortifications and SuperHeavy books should remain out completely and should be considered optional additions to 40k.

If something is truely broken/overpowered then ban it, if something has upteen ways to deal with it in some shape or form not including the players own bad luck.. I think this is a missjudgment to ban it.

I think you're displaying the behaviour I hate the most. You don't own many (or any) large fortifications or superheavies and don't have any interest from a modelling perspective to buy them, so you'd just prefer to ban them all to save you the trouble. I mean, if they ended up being balanced but competitive, you might actually have to spend 200 or 300 bucks yourself to buy some, and you don't want that. However, in the same time you're talking about outright banning being a misjudgment in many cases (your own army is probably being restricted so you're feeling concerned), when in reality it's you who is making the misjudgments by having a predetermined opinion about superheavies and fortifications.

In short, why would we ban anything if we can just fix it to become balanced, or atleast as balanced as anything in this game usually goes (i.e. not very balanced)?