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.

 RobPro wrote:

 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.

It already does everything you say.

"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".

What? lol.
Its a case of too much too fast, we have far too much going on in the game people can't keep up with time to read all the new rules, money to compete with the new additions.
To make the game fun/competitive there needs to be restrictions.
This is why I suggest Core Rulebook at Codex's, supplements to be allowed/banned per tournament event host preference.

You can't just start banning specific items from a Core codex.
While we are at it then, lets ban Fortune, Restrict Wave Serpents, limit Warlocks to 0-3. limit TFG's to 0-1. limit SkyRays to only fire 2 missiles a turn... You can't just keep banning/changing things. This game costs money and people have gone out and bought models that are legally listed in their codex.

We are in the same position as we have been throughout the time that I have played 40k at a competitive level at least. There's always something considered overpowered.

Please do not make assumptions, you don't know me therefore you cannot jump to the conclusions you have made.

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.
"Not loads of people do, but what's that got to do with anything, I'd quite happily go out and buy something if I wanted it for my list and it was legal. It has nothing to do with ownership, it has everything to do with making the game unmanageable from a TO's perspective and unbalanced from the points I have made in this post and before.

"You might actually have to spend 200 or 300 bucks yourself to buy some, and you don't want that"
Err. again, huge assumption which is completely untrue, how can you make such a statement when you have no clue who I am or what I buy and why...

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),
Yes I run Screamercouncil, just one of my armies.
Am I concerned for my list... NO.
Am I concerned for the health of the game through banning without proper consideration on impact to the game, YES.
Would I attend any event that had COMP applied to main rulebook or main Codex's? NO I wouldn't.

"when in reality it's you who is making the misjudgments by having a predetermined opinion about superheavies and fortifications".
For competitive play there needs to be a stopping point, you cannot keep adding and supporting multiple additions to the game which are largely untested and potentially game breaking beyond counters.

I have so many old friends that used to play in 5th. They don't play any more because they can't keep up with all of the new rules from Codex's alone, addin supplements, dataslates, expansions on top of that, I doubt I'll ever see the return of these people again.

There are imbalances in the game, there have been for a long time, with each Codex release something is considered unbalanced or overpowered, there's nothing new here than what was the case with multiple stages within 6th.
Even 5th with the White Dwarf Daemons, no one considered banning them then and we certainly shouldn't be considering it now.

First of all you need to edit your post into a more readable format.

While we are at it then, lets ban Fortune, Restrict Wave Serpents, limit Warlocks to 0-3. limit TFG's to 0-1. limit SkyRays to only fire 2 missiles a turn... You can't just keep banning/changing things

That's one approach. It works well but it's a lot of work. ETC does that in Europe all the time. They restrict/ban specific items in specific books to get as detailed an AR system as possible.

You clearly have a problem with that approach, but your reasoning is flawed on so many levels it's not even funny. You're saying too much change too fast isn't good, so therefore all superheavies and fortifications should be banned. You continue and say you can't just ban stuff because the game costs money and people buy models. Well, a lot of people are buying superheavies now because escalation made them 100% legal, and you're the one who's saying that a 400 dollar model isn't legal. So which is it? Make up your mind please, and edit your posts a little.

It's good you atleast admitted you run a Screamerstar. It was already obvious you have a horse in the race (ban everything that counters my army and don't restrict my army at all please) but it shows some integrity that you admit it.

Well, you can't make TFGs 0-1 for a tournament. There would only be one attendee!!

All kidding aside... I love that people say you can't ban / restrict things in the face of the ETC that actually does it, and has been successful doing it for some time now. Really?

Does anyone know if this has developed at all? Are there any more changes posted? Are they tracking it on a forum or a blog or anything?

Wow, there really is no hate quite like Daemon hate...

Apparently we're not allowed to ever compete because we're not cool enough to have a really good toy.
And it seems more people than we'd ever imagined got touched by a big meanie DoC in their no-no spot that one summer in '08.

 Therion wrote:
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.

If allowing super heavies, titans, or fortifications forced players to spend considerable sums of money buying and fielding their own to counter them then I would argue that they aren't very balanced after all.

Experiment 626 wrote:
And it seems more people than we'd ever imagined got touched by a big meanie DoC in their no-no spot that one summer in '08.

Only if you played Fantasy.

Which was apparently the joke, since DoC is the Fantasy version. gak.

slaede wrote:

 RobPro wrote:

 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.

It already does everything you say.

I think he's saying, make the "restriction" (if you could even call it that, it could even just be FAQ'ed that way) that the Grimoire only works on Demon saves and not Invulnerable saves gained from other sources, such as the 4++ psychic power. I believe that's how you grant the Screamers a 2++ with the Grimoire currently. If they could only be buffed to a 3++, that's still pretty durable but not as bad as a 2++ re-roll, and doesn't really alter any game mechanics any more than a simple clarification.

Mr Andy Chambers. Thanks, yeah the post is a little hard to read, sorry for that, silly IE for you not remembering my login status and not allowing me to quote.

Maybe I wasn't clear, you said -

"You're saying too much change too fast isn't good, so therefore all superheavies and fortifications should be banned. You continue and say you can't just ban stuff because the game costs money and people buy models".

Quite a major difference between the two statements.

Do you think Tournaments will mostly allow the new expansions?
More than likely not right?, Why do you think that might be?

Do you think most touranments will ban Grimoire/ 0-3 Warlocks or make other adjustments?
Probably not right? Why do you think that is?

Its the state of the game, some things are powerful, get used to it.
There's always going to be those nasty top tier lists that no one wants to play against.
Who knows what Nids will bring and other codex's to follow, we could see something truley broken.
I don't think it's right to consider banning anything or restricting anything until we have a fullset of 6th edition codicies.
We should let the latest army have its day/week/month until the next codex comes along and ruins its day.

 whitedragon wrote:

slaede wrote:

 RobPro wrote:

 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.

It already does everything you say.

I think he's saying, make the "restriction" (if you could even call it that, it could even just be FAQ'ed that way) that the Grimoire only works on Demon saves and not Invulnerable saves gained from other sources, such as the 4++ psychic power. I believe that's how you grant the Screamers a 2++ with the Grimoire currently. If they could only be buffed to a 3++, that's still pretty durable but not as bad as a 2++ re-roll, and doesn't really alter any game mechanics any more than a simple clarification.

This is exactly what I meant. I would much rather see minimal errata than banning whole wargear options or unit choices or even reworking how rerollable saves work. For example, if we said hit and run now requires the whole unit to have that USR to be able to usr it, does that help with the seer council at all?

 Sidstyler wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
And it seems more people than we'd ever imagined got touched by a big meanie DoC in their no-no spot that one summer in '08.

Only if you played Fantasy.

Which was apparently the joke, since DoC is the Fantasy version. gak.

*looks at proposed comp in OP*
You might think that, but the only hard-core nerf batting going in this 'first draft' is apparently to tell Daemon players to go screw themselves at the door...


Each and every edition btw has had it's overly obnoxious, 0-fun-to-be-had armies which curb-stomped the game and made a mockery of 'competitive play'.
In 3rd edition, it was Ulthwe "Seer Congress" of 80 dudes w/re-rolled 4++ & Star Cannons, 3.5 CSM's with Iron Warriors gunlines or 'unkillable' Siren Song shenanigans and/or turn 1 Daemonbombs that rolled-up entire armies through consolidation, and Blood Angels Rhino rush being speedier than Dark Eldar!

In 4th ed we had the likes of Flying Circus Eldar, 'Nidzilla, Tau 'Fish of Fury' and Marines w/Tank-Hunting ass-cans out the rears.

In 5th we had Razorback spam, SW Longwang spam, entire armies of FnP Blood Angels, IG leafblower, Ork Bikernobz wound allocation games & of course the busted as feth Grey Knights. (who were also a complete & utter screw-you to Daemons btw, but the community seemed to think that was 100% okay and fluffy...)

In 6th we started off with Necron Flying Bakery & IG Vendetta spam, now we've got Eltau/Taudar, Seer Council of Doom, Screamerstar, etc...



"Competitive 40k" has always been about gaming whatever system is in place and curbstomping your opponent as ruthlessly as possible.

And yet what is the only army really being singled out right now as being the naughty, puppy-killing filth?
To just single out Daemons by banning the Grimoire entirely, limiting Mastery Lv's and such is petty and simply looks like you're a spoiled GK player who's pissed Daemons are no longer a near auto-win anymore.

But it's okay, Daemon players are used to being singled out as automatically being "that guy", because apparently we're the only ones who've ever ruined people's day.

But it's okay, Daemon players are used to being singled out as automatically being "that guy", because apparently we're the only ones who've ever ruined people's day.

I'm sure Daemons are not singled out but you're correct to a degree. It's because of what happened in Warhammer Fantasy. The first real DoC release made the army by far the strongest and most popular tournament army, and it wasn't a question like 3.5 CSM being the best or Razorspam/Leafblower being the best, it was in the extent that out of tournaments with 200 participants nearly the entire top20 could consist of the same army, and the overall winner was a Daemon army that had tooled his army to destroy other Daemons the best. Ever since DoC have had a bad name, and for good reason. I know because I was there, playing Daemons myself. I will say though that I think there have been much more unfair armies in the history of GW games than the Daemons of Chaos, but their popularity and the fact they autopiloted themselves to victories was the problem.

As far as the comp/no comp, restrict/no restrict, ban/no ban or a compromise of some type is concerned, it seems even in this thread there are a lot of people who can't seem to make up their mind. On one hand they don't want to allow certain things (HE HAS A TITAN!!!?? BAN IT!!!!), but on one hand they're against houserules and detailed army restrictions. Somehow, to some people, certain blanket bans are allright (yeah sure ban all fortifications and superheavies since they're clearly abusive!), but other blanket bans are absolutely outrageous (what do you mean you're banning allies and special characters?? that's bull****!!!!!).

To me there's only a couple logical ways to approach the situation.

A) Leave it as it is. GW makes the rules, releases supplements and expansions and army books and new editions of the game, and the players play with them. In short, no house rules of any kind, and if GW allows it, it's allowed. If the game sucks, don't play it at all.

B) Try to make the game more balanced. GW makes the rules, releases supplements and expansions and army books and new editions of the game, but the truth is that they don't do a very good job in balancing any of them, they never have, so you house rule everything that a committee of smart and experienced people can agree isn't balanced.

No matter how lazy you are with the composition ruling, and seriously blanket bans are all about being lazy and nothing else, you've already made the decision that you're going to want to play a custom edition of Warhammer 40K and not the one GW is selling. So why limit yourself to half-assed and poorly thought out limitations when you can go all the way, army book by army book, rulebook by rulebook, banning and/or restricting items and units that get exploited a lot?

All the talk about how the work is thankless and time consuming is absolute garbage, since once you've done the work the same composition scoring package can be used for the duration of the entire edition of the game. You only need to add something to it when a new supplement (including army books) gets released. It's all about getting organised, like the Warhammer players in Europe did.

Finally, and to me this is very important, none of the options are mutually exclusive. During a year where you attend a few major and multiple smaller tournaments, you can participate in competitions that use a 'better balance army restrictions package' and those that use no houserules of any kind. Just because the community agrees that the game isn't very balanced and decides to do something about it doesn't mean they can't still also hold tournaments where everything is allowed just for variety's sake. And if you're one of the guys who have a hardcore conviction towards either type of gaming you can choose to only participate in the tournaments that you do like instead of tournaments of all kinds.

Actually, we are the only ones who ruined the Emperor's day. Just saying....

The change of the grimoire to only changing the daemon invul would make sense, and you could still get a 2+ reroll if you get a 10 on the warpstorm, which is kinda few and far between.

 Dude_I_Suck wrote:
Actually, we are the only ones who ruined the Emperor's day. Just saying...

It's not our fault the Adeptus Plumber didn't check the Golden Toilet for the occasional leaky spot, or that when he got up the Emperor didn't remember to flush. Just saying...

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
And it seems more people than we'd ever imagined got touched by a big meanie DoC in their no-no spot that one summer in '08.

Only if you played Fantasy.

Which was apparently the joke, since DoC is the Fantasy version. gak.

*looks at proposed comp in OP*
You might think that, but the only hard-core nerf batting going in this 'first draft' is apparently to tell Daemon players to go screw themselves at the door...


Each and every edition btw has had it's overly obnoxious, 0-fun-to-be-had armies which curb-stomped the game and made a mockery of 'competitive play'.
In 3rd edition, it was Ulthwe "Seer Congress" of 80 dudes w/re-rolled 4++ & Star Cannons, 3.5 CSM's with Iron Warriors gunlines or 'unkillable' Siren Song shenanigans and/or turn 1 Daemonbombs that rolled-up entire armies through consolidation, and Blood Angels Rhino rush being speedier than Dark Eldar!

In 4th ed we had the likes of Flying Circus Eldar, 'Nidzilla, Tau 'Fish of Fury' and Marines w/Tank-Hunting ass-cans out the rears.

In 5th we had Razorback spam, SW Longwang spam, entire armies of FnP Blood Angels, IG leafblower, Ork Bikernobz wound allocation games & of course the busted as feth Grey Knights. (who were also a complete & utter screw-you to Daemons btw, but the community seemed to think that was 100% okay and fluffy...)

In 6th we started off with Necron Flying Bakery & IG Vendetta spam, now we've got Eltau/Taudar, Seer Council of Doom, Screamerstar, etc...



"Competitive 40k" has always been about gaming whatever system is in place and curbstomping your opponent as ruthlessly as possible.

And yet what is the only army really being singled out right now as being the naughty, puppy-killing filth?
To just single out Daemons by banning the Grimoire entirely, limiting Mastery Lv's and such is petty and simply looks like you're a spoiled GK player who's pissed Daemons are no longer a near auto-win anymore.

But it's okay, Daemon players are used to being singled out as automatically being "that guy", because apparently we're the only ones who've ever ruined people's day.

Uh...sniff sniff?

I played GK in those day and Demon Armies were the most competitive against me because they came back on the table edge due to demonic infestation. Back in the day with these lists there was at least some kind of tactical counter giving you a chance. With the current Demonic reroll of 2++ there really is not much counter to it. It is just a matter of rolling a crap ton of dice then watching your demon playing opponent roll a crapton of dice to counter your roll then reroll what did not counter just to counter it. Its not a game of tactics at all. I played against it this weekend and forced 80 armour saves of which I caused one wound...one wound. I am not saying what FOB is doing is right or wrong (that is there call) but I can attest that it is just about pointless to play against that list unless your opponent has very bad luck. Tactics dont matter at all.

Every army gets the nerf bat now and then. DE were good now they suck, GK were incredible now they are average, Demons were good then got incredible, Biker Nobs were good now they are a liability, etc...etc....You make it sound like nobody else has ever had to face this and that your army choice has always sucked and now that it is unbeatable it should go untouched.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Uh...sniff sniff?

I played GK in those day and Demon Armies were the most competitive against me because they came back on the table edge due to demonic infestation. Back in the day with these lists there was at least some kind of tactical counter giving you a chance. With the current Demonic reroll of 2++ there really is not much counter to it. It is just a matter of rolling a crap ton of dice then watching your demon playing opponent roll a crapton of dice to counter your roll then reroll what did not counter just to counter it. Its not a game of tactics at all. I played against it this weekend and forced 80 armour saves of which I caused one wound...one wound. I am not saying what FOB is doing is right or wrong (that is there call) but I can attest that it is just about pointless to play against that list unless your opponent has very bad luck. Tactics dont matter at all.

Every army gets the nerf bat now and then. DE were good now they suck, GK were incredible now they are average, Demons were good then got incredible, Biker Nobs were good now they are a liability, etc...etc....You make it sound like nobody else has ever had to face this and that your army choice has always sucked and now that it is unbeatable it should go untouched.

The counter is to not shoot a bazillion things at the 1:36 fail deathstar. Its pretty bad when people are saying its too good because i shot my army at it and it only did a couple wounds. Its like saying my rhino is bad because I drove it next to the wraithknight and it got destroyed.

Tactics are the only thing that matter against a 800 point deathstar...... you have to play the anti deathstar game which is try to feed it as little as possible as you kill everything else on the board. Add to that, that the Screamerstar at least has a weakness to high toughness MC and being tarpitted, and its really not as bad as the seer council.

And calling the ban of the grimoire the same as Edition/Codex changes is pretty silly because one is the game changing as a whole, and the other is a T.O. deciding that a piece of wargear shouldn't be in his tournament.

The 2++ re-rollable is an issue with how the game plays in a tournament setting, but if you really look at it, daemons aren't dominating the game, they are just making games that aren't enjoyable to play in terms of tactics.

We will have to wait and see how the packet turns out but as the first draft looks, it looks overly harsh on the daemon builds while letting other slide; which should ritefully make daemon players mad, the army wasn't dominating every tournament it was just making games unfun.

The most dumb part of the old Daemon vs Grey Knight battles was that all daemons had eternal warrior, which made the force weapons irrelevant.

The biggest problem I have with the FoB comp system they have is that daemons got singled out. Limit daemons grimoire to 0-1.. Wait a sec, it is. The only other logical option is to make it 0-0? I think not. If that's the case, remove all relics/artifacts/signature systems from all books That would even the field a little more than just scalpeling out one.

Singling out one codex puts all of the players on the defensive. Core rulebook rules being tweaked: sure, go on ahead, it affects everyone. Army books being changed: heck no, it applies bias to an entire codex, giving people fuel for their fiery torches and pitchforks.

*Edited for clarity

The problem I have with limits etc is it just makes the second best thing the new best thing. Its almost impossible to "completely balance" warhammer. They dont produce it that was and its just hard.

I wish they would actually playtest a bit before releasing dumb stuff like formations etc. 4 detachment lists... come on...

Some of these are changes that needed to happen, others are to heavy handed.

The changes they made to D-weapons, Detachments/allies, and using supplement books to self ally was way to silly. These are changes that needed to happen and I feel most tournies will follow suit with.

banning grimoire and enforcing 0-1 units? This starts to have alot of strange consequences.

Torn here, as a longtime xenos player.

On the one hand:
Rerollable 2+ saves should never have been allowed to exist by any game mechanic EVER, especially invulnerable saves.

Things like Strength D should not exist in any form, let alone standard games of 40k.

The allies thing is so far out of hand that its getting rid of the last semblance of normal looking armies in the game, as opposed to the mathematical exercises in combat calculus we see now.

But on the other hand:
No one was talking about toning down the leafblower armies, hamminator spam, or long wang missle fests back when those armies made taking a xenos army to an event mean a day long poop sandwitch eating session.

No one really gave two craps when SM variants had the best means of holding objectives and nearly all xenos armies were relying on T3 derps wearing Tshirts to do this. But now unkillable (but still tar pitable) scoring units are suddenly an issue when its Xenos doing it.

Finally, and most hilariously, the same personalities who spent the last decade driving soft scores out of the game are the ones pushing for selective bans all of a sudden. Careful what you wish for.

So, I think something has to be done, but I feel pretty unmoved by the part of the community this is most directly affecting.

 Phazael wrote:
Finally, and most hilariously, the same personalities who spent the last decade driving soft scores out of the game are the ones pushing for selective bans all of a sudden. Careful what you wish for.

It seems completely consistent and logical that people who maintained that comp wasn't needed when the game was well-balanced now advocate for comp when they feel the game is poorly balanced. What's hilarious about people wanting 40k to be viable as a competitive game?

 Phazael wrote:
Torn here, as a longtime xenos player.

On the one hand:
Rerollable 2+ saves should never have been allowed to exist by any game mechanic EVER, especially invulnerable saves.

Things like Strength D should not exist in any form, let alone standard games of 40k.

The allies thing is so far out of hand that its getting rid of the last semblance of normal looking armies in the game, as opposed to the mathematical exercises in combat calculus we see now.

But on the other hand:
No one was talking about toning down the leafblower armies, hamminator spam, or long wang missle fests back when those armies made taking a xenos army to an event mean a day long poop sandwitch eating session.

No one really gave two craps when SM variants had the best means of holding objectives and nearly all xenos armies were relying on T3 derps wearing Tshirts to do this. But now unkillable (but still tar pitable) scoring units are suddenly an issue when its Xenos doing it.

Finally, and most hilariously, the same personalities who spent the last decade driving soft scores out of the game are the ones pushing for selective bans all of a sudden. Careful what you wish for.

So, I think something has to be done, but I feel pretty unmoved by the part of the community this is most directly affecting.

Agreed with phazeal on all counts. I've been sucked into the void by a vortex wielding Space Marine captain with a jump pack in Rogue Trader, Blasted off the board by CML Terminators and Design rule Land raiders with 20 heavy bolters in second edition, Run over by rhino rushing death company that took 100 shots to kill one guy in 3rd edition, got blasted by cheap dreadnoughts and predators in 4th (though I'll admit I never used my own skimmer spam), and got blown off the board by superior fire power of imperial armies in 5th. Now we get to 6th, and my Eldar have something really good (I'll even call it too good) and suddenly the calls of "ban it" go up.

It's funny what happens when the Emperor's nancy boys can't just point and say die and make it so.

 Danny Internets wrote:

 Phazael wrote:
Finally, and most hilariously, the same personalities who spent the last decade driving soft scores out of the game are the ones pushing for selective bans all of a sudden. Careful what you wish for.

It seems completely consistent and logical that people who maintained that comp wasn't needed when the game was well-balanced now advocate for comp when they feel the game is poorly balanced. What's hilarious about people wanting 40k to be viable as a competitive game?

Because 40k never was "well balanced" at any point maybe?
Or maybe that's its ALWAYS been about exploiting the silly/OTT units/abilities to their fullest & roflstomping your opponent?

Funnily enough though, it always seems to be the Imperials who beg for comp when Xenos get their OTT tricks, but laugh it off as unneeded when they're the ones who are tops.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Because 40k never was "well balanced" at any point maybe?
Or maybe that's its ALWAYS been about exploiting the silly/OTT units/abilities to their fullest & roflstomping your opponent?

Funnily enough though, it always seems to be the Imperials who beg for comp when Xenos get their OTT tricks, but laugh it off as unneeded when they're the ones who are tops.

While I agree with the first part.. the last part not so much. Do you really think the community cleanly divides itself along "Imperial" and "Xenos" lines like some grimdark West Side Story dance number? I've know dozens of 40k players over the past 15 years and only two players with multiple armies have been only Imperial or only Xenos... the vast majority who could afford multiple forces did both.

Nice to see from 40kGlobal podcast that their line of thought is aligned to mine, meaning we expect to see in the UK no banning of anything available from a Codex.

We expect to see tournaments run with: Rulebook/Codex/Supplements.

We expect to see the following not allowed in most tournaments:
Dataslates/Formations/Superheavy & Fortification expansions.

Banning Grimoire is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
I was looking to attend a US tournament like Adepticon or Nova next year. I won't be flying over if they start getting heavy with Comp and I should imagine this will be the same for most guys in the UK.

 warboss wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
Because 40k never was "well balanced" at any point maybe?
Or maybe that's its ALWAYS been about exploiting the silly/OTT units/abilities to their fullest & roflstomping your opponent?

Funnily enough though, it always seems to be the Imperials who beg for comp when Xenos get their OTT tricks, but laugh it off as unneeded when they're the ones who are tops.

While I agree with the first part.. the last part not so much. Do you really think the community cleanly divides itself along "Imperial" and "Xenos" lines like some grimdark West Side Story dance number? I've know dozens of 40k players over the past 15 years and only two players with multiple armies have been only Imperial or only Xenos... the vast majority who could afford multiple forces did both.

Perhaps a majority of players do over time end up owning both Imperial/Xenos sides, but look at the vocal cries ever since 3rd edition;

- Once the likes of Eldar, Craftworld Eldar, 3.5 CSM's, Necrons & Tau hit the scene, the cries for comp intensify because of their abusive builds.
Though SW's & BA's are also very well off and somewhat ran the show up until the likes of the later books, (3.5 CSM's, Craftworld, Tau, 'Crons), most cries for comp early on were shouted down as unneeded, or else heavily favoured Imperial armies.

- Comp for the most part dies off in 4th... until 'Nidzilla, Fish of Fury & Flying Circus rear their ugly heads.

- 5th is the Imperial edition of utter dominance. SW's, BA's, Leafblower, GK's, Hammernator spam, Razorback spam... Xenos pretty much get to either sit out the entire edition, or else get to enjoy cutting their teeth to little effect against all the Imperial love.
Comp however disappears entirely! And anyone who brings up the subject is typically called out for being a noob/whiner by the same vocal crowd who're now crying for comp's return.

- 6th in the early days is the 'Flyer edition' with Flying Bakery & Vendetta spam, but has quickly shifted to Xenos domination. Now suddenly we absolutely need comp to 'fix' the game...



I agree that things like Strength-D, Formations and fortresses really don't belong in 'normal' 40k without prior agreements between players as to what/how much will be used. It's also probably better left to the 'middle weight' games of 2k - 2500pts or so where it's easier to bring more counters, AND, games can also be played on slightly larger tables such as 8'x4' or 10'x6'.

But right now, we're getting comps that aren't looking at just being logical & using common sense. We're getting comp that's adding in additional comp geared specifically at mainly Xenos armies! (but Imperials get to keep all of their toys thus far)


So yes, from my perspective, there is and has always been an underlying divide of Imperial players having an air of entitlement about them in competitive play.

FoB has come out and said they won't be implementing many of these. Someone must have jumped the shark.

Just adding my wishlist of restrictions, doubt these will ever occur, but would in my opinion make games more fun:

Restricties:
- The Battle Brothers rule "can be joined by Allied Independent Character" is removed.
- Your Force may only fill up the options of a single standard force organisation chart. This means a combination of primary + allied detachment can at most have 2 HQ, 6 Troops, 3 Elites/Fast Attack/Heavy Support.
- Only 2 vehicles/vehicle squadrons/monstrous creatures chosen as a single Force Organisation choice with the same primary weapon can be included.
- The maximum reroll on a save is a 4+.
- A maximum of one Flying units and/or Flying monstrous Creatures per 400 points spend is allowed.
- Dataslates are not allowed.
- Escalation is not allowed.
- Forgeworld is not allowed.
- Stronghold assault is not allowed.

DutchSage wrote:
Just adding my wishlist of restrictions, doubt these will ever occur, but would in my opinion make games more fun:

Restricties:
- The Battle Brothers rule "can be joined by Allied Independent Character" is removed.
- Your Force may only fill up the options of a single standard force organisation chart. This means a combination of primary + allied detachment can at most have 2 HQ, 6 Troops, 3 Elites/Fast Attack/Heavy Support.
- Only 2 vehicles/vehicle squadrons/monstrous creatures chosen as a single Force Organisation choice with the same primary weapon can be included.
- The maximum reroll on a save is a 4+.
- A maximum of one Flying units and/or Flying monstrous Creatures per 400 points spend is allowed.
- Dataslates are not allowed.
- Escalation is not allowed.
- Forgeworld is not allowed.
- Stronghold assault is not allowed.

Just a note.

Have you even read strong hold assault?

tiber55 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:


The 2++ re-rollable is an issue with how the game plays in a tournament setting, but if you really look at it, daemons aren't dominating the game, they are just making games that aren't enjoyable to play in terms of tactics.
.

Some army is always going to dominate, there is no need to change that, but your reason is the BEST reason to change something, it makes a game UNFUN. At the core of it, past all the prizes and prestige, tournaments are really about fun. So you already made the best argument for change.

 Therion wrote:
If the game sucks, don't play it at all.

Sadly this is more what I'm leaning towards myself.