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.

 FeindusMaximus wrote:
Just another reason for not feasting for blades.

+1 to this.

Oh look he is banning again glad I crossed this event off the list when the 6th bans came out.

Streamlining/limiting Codices/allies/data sheets - A good move: force selection is getting a little confusing and appears to be more open than ever to creating super cheese lists.

Removing the D weapon profile - Again this is a good move, D weapons have no place in standard 40k imo.

Downsizing fortresses - Again I see no problem with this.

Removing grimoire - Moronic. For a page that belittles GW for supposedly not performing playtests, I could make the same accusations against them on the grounds of this ridiculously short sighted botched idea of a patch. Whilst it certainly removes 2++ saves from some daemon lists, it nerfs almost all other competitive Daemon builds.

Limiting psychic levels - Again, a ridiculous idea that attempts to solve a problem that is not the core issue. Psychic powers are already balanced through random generation, psychic tests and deny the witch. If powers could be chosen, then limited choices would be acceptable, but as it stands it will hurt armies that wish to build around psychic powers. This combined with the grimoire removal will guarantee Daemons are severely under represented and under performing at this tournament.

Limited dedicated flyers - Why? This might have been justified one year ago, but even then only barely. Today this rule has no reason to be included. There are more units capable of dealing with flyers. Unnecessary.

Rules with good intentions - though very poorly implemented and counter productive to creating game balance.

Let me preface this entire post by saying I am not a tournament player, and haven't been in a very long time (and even then, I never really was a "tournament player" to begin with). I avoid said tournament scene because of the metagame and what I feel is a WAAC mentality amongst the playerbase...

That being said, I think you're wrong for doing this. You are not a game designer, you do not have any concept of what game 'balance' is beyond your own perception of what is occurring in the metagame.


Also, I find this extremely ironic:

We are interested in running an event where many builds are possible

And you accomplish this by preventing a whole slew of builds by arbitrarily picking what you think is broken or overpowered and preventing them from being taken, etc. You are creating a more restrictive environment to play in, and as you point out in your article, new builds will 'rise to the top' and become power builds. What are you going to do then? Ban and/or restrict more things? Unban and/or unrestrict things? You will accomplish nothing, you will only replace one set of broken with another and break the game in new ways. And in a roundabout, counter-intuitive sort of way, you are actually working against your desire to make the game "more about player skill" by catering to the lowest common denominator. I have seen TRULY SKILLED players defeat "power lists" using balanced or even mediocre lists in the past. That is a true test of skill. I don't deny that the game would revolve purely around skill if two players faced eachother with two equally matched builds, but you're never going to get that with the bans and such you propose.

Want to know what I think the CORRECT way to go about this is? Don't ban or restrict anything at all. In fact, do the opposite. Allied Detachments? Formations? Esclation? Strength D? Double Force Org? Forgeworld? All-in. I'm of the mind that if you introduce enough variety, options, and possibility into the game, you will "dilute" the meta, essentially breaking it and creating a level playing field. My experience with 6th has been that with each new release GW has got out, the metagame became a bit more balanced. I suspect that the new Tyranids book will go a long way to kill the Screamerstar and any build that is heavily reliant on psychic powers to work (because in my experience, screamerstar doesn't work against nids as it stands, but nobody plays nids anymore). Are there broken things from Forgeworld? Yes, a few (FW Riptide, I'm looking at you...), but they are for the most part "experimental" units still in open playtest (and therefore I would say that you shouldn't allow those units marked experimental), and the overwhelming majority of the lists and/or units they put out aren't this kind of broken.

If you wan't to put a restriction on things, the only thing I would be in support of is the Horus Heresy Lord of War restriction of no more than 25% of your points or whatever it was. This way, you won't see too many Strength D weapons proliferate into the tournament scene, and the ones that do should be easily dealt with without the use of a superheavy on your end.

 yankeedave wrote:
I love the fact that all the naysayers are ignoring the line that read "This is a living document". It isn't set in stone, it hasn't been handed down to Moses from God, it isn't the Constitution. Its a work in progress. I am sure this will be tested a lot in the next 10 months in the run up to the FOB. Chill out folks.

Living document or no, the very first thing on the list is "The Grimoire is BANNED!!!!!1". Someone has to advocate loudly against such a poor decision lest it become more commonly accepted at other tournaments.

I am really disappointed. Also I don't like the holier than thou attitude that permeates the article.

In the end there is only one real type of ban.

It occurs when a paying customer walks away from an event...

We shall see when he publishes a list of what is banned and what is not and how many customers he has left afterward.

Obviously the qualifiers will have to have that list and rule changes since I can not believe they would have one set of rules for the qualifiers and another for the main event in Denver.

That does not leave as much time to lock the changes done as many think...

I am inclined at this time to pass since I believe in playing by all the rules but I will make my final decision based on those rules they must publish before the qualifiers..

 avedominusnox wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
As sad as I am to see some of these rules changes/restrictions, I am actually glad someone is stepping up to the plate to address issues that GW has chose to ignore. We are not sheep following a blind shepard. We need to start making decisions ourselves in regards to how we want to run or play in our tournaments. That's right. GW isn't doing jack for the tournament scene. Why must we show them such fierce loyalty and follow their broken rules to the T, these rules with obviously little regard for any balance at all. Time to dictate the terms of our own tournaments, not GW's.

So do you or not agree with the ban list?

Some I do. Some I don't.

I don't agree with the Grimoire ban whereas so far, nothing for the seer council. I'm all for a 2+/2+ to be replaced by a 2+/4+ mechanic instead.

Others, I'm going to have to wait to see more details before deciding. But overall, I think FoB is heading in the right direction. TO's need to make some changes in order to make their tournaments more fair again. Otherwise, follow GW blindly and it's going to kill the tournament scene, or at the very least, turn a lot of people away.

 jy2 wrote:

 avedominusnox wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
As sad as I am to see some of these rules changes/restrictions, I am actually glad someone is stepping up to the plate to address issues that GW has chose to ignore. We are not sheep following a blind shepard. We need to start making decisions ourselves in regards to how we want to run or play in our tournaments. That's right. GW isn't doing jack for the tournament scene. Why must we show them such fierce loyalty and follow their broken rules to the T, these rules with obviously little regard for any balance at all. Time to dictate the terms of our own tournaments, not GW's.

So do you or not agree with the ban list?

Some I do. Some I don't.

I don't agree with the Grimoire ban whereas so far, nothing for the seer council. I'm all for a 2+/2+ to be replaced by a 2+/4+ mechanic instead.

Others, I'm going to have to wait to see more details before deciding. But overall, I think FoB is heading in the right direction. TO's need to make some changes in order to make their tournaments more fair again. Otherwise, follow GW blindly and it's going to kill the tournament scene, or at the very least, turn a lot of people away.

I think just banning fortune would do the job. Forcing a reroll whenever it is rolled on the table.

This will be the first of many tournaments doing the same.

As a company, GW has to keep up growth in order to satisfy investors and it's ownership group. They are going to continue doing things that increase sales because they are driven by commercial interests.

Eventually, given the realities of being a 40k player, GW is going to run out of things to release and focus instead on making old things more attractive to consumers. There's an example of this going on right now with expansions and 'dataslates.' They are testing market elasticity around product pricing, moreso than trying to make the game better.

This is going to catch up the company and impact tournaments. Eventually, someone is going to realize the products that move are not necessarily the ones with the coolest models, but the ones with the most powerful rules. They will take publishing rules as a way to drive sales to a whole new level, and there will come a time where 'competitive' is functionally equivalent to having the most recently released Codex (which may be happening right now.)

Call me simple, but I like the idea of buying a rulebook, a Codex for an army, and some models. I do not like having to buy supplements, expansions, or other things that should have been included in the rulebooks in the firstplace. This feels like a gimmick to simply get more of my money instead of increasing the quality of a hobby I enjoy.

My prediction is that every tournament will eventually need it's own set of rules for the game just to deal with the constant merchandizing of the game. Good work Feast of Blades for knowing where you are. That said, add all the C:SM USRs to your list and we will be all set.

In my state one store has already decided not to repeat holding the qualifier again next year.

 techsoldaten wrote:
This will be the first of many tournaments doing the same.

According to the voting in the tourny section, not that many people voted for banning things, I wouldnt say this will be the last but I doubt we will see lots of tournies going this way, I can see them opening up another tourny, so one being everything goes, another being comp'ed.

 techsoldaten wrote:
As a company, GW has to keep up growth in order to satisfy investors and it's ownership group. They are going to continue doing things that increase sales because they are driven by commercial interests.

Eventually, given the realities of being a 40k player, GW is going to run out of things to release and focus instead on making old things more attractive to consumers. There's an example of this going on right now with expansions and 'dataslates.' They are testing market elasticity around product pricing, moreso than trying to make the game better.

Of course GW are a company, they have to make money otherwise there wouldnt be a GW or 40k. The dataslates are for acutally not bad value box sets (value in regards to the cost of buying them seperate).

 techsoldaten wrote:
This is going to catch up the company and impact tournaments. Eventually, someone is going to realize the products that move are not necessarily the ones with the coolest models, but the ones with the most powerful rules. They will take publishing rules as a way to drive sales to a whole new level, and there will come a time where 'competitive' is functionally equivalent to having the most recently released Codex (which may be happening right now.)

Can you say, Heldrake?. There has always been codex creep no?, it wasnt bad for the first few dex's (DA and CSM) but the other three there has been.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Call me simple, but I like the idea of buying a rulebook, a Codex for an army, and some models. I do not like having to buy supplements, expansions, or other things that should have been included in the rulebooks in the firstplace. This feels like a gimmick to simply get more of my money instead of increasing the quality of a hobby I enjoy.

My prediction is that every tournament will eventually need it's own set of rules for the game just to deal with the constant merchandizing of the game. Good work Feast of Blades for knowing where you are. That said, add all the C:SM USRs to your list and we will be all set.

I do agree with the gimmick comment though fluff wise I can see the purpose of some of them (dex inq can be very fluffy, sadly doubt we will ever see that on a tourny tabletop). I do think they have dropped the ball on these changes though.

Hmmmm Kirby is a Taudar player. Coincidence?

As of now, I don't think the changes they are thinking of are very good.

During my 10 years of going to tournaments, I have always been against comp, but recently I have been warming to the idea.

The main problem with what FoB seems to be doing here is the old concept of comp: the blanket bans, and the comprehensive rules changes.

First issue is obviously the Grimoire. We all know the Screamerstar is the real reason for banning it, but by doing so Daemons as a whole get shafted. So why try to be subtle and clever? Just screw over the Screamerstar. Be specific. Very specific.

As for slapping a 0-1 on Heldrakes; I don't mind that at all. Personally, I have no problem playing against them, and the last time I played against one such army in a tournament I pretty much tabled the guy with minimum casualties. But then, I'm playing Eldar with Tau allies. The problem with trip-drakes is that it invalidates so many armies that are already struggling.



I hope the FoB guys can refine this further, and I hope other tournaments get on board with it, so we'll have a tourney scene where people can bring their Orks and Blood Angels and at least make a game of it. They still won't win the whole thing, but at least won't be tabled every bloody time.

I think people shouldn't all be dragged down to make room for other codexes. They simply should make a "Best General" award for each army. That will encourage people to bring Orks, Blood Angels, etc., because even if they get tabled by Taudar they can still go home winning best general for that army.

What if someone is playing a triple helldrake list because they like the model rather than because of the rules? What if their list is literally 3 helldrakes, a lord, and then 6 chaos marine squads? Is that player really playing with a WAAC powerbuild? Do they deserve to have their list neutered simply because they're bringing 3 helldrakes to the table?

Well the first salvo is fired.

We will see how this pans out. personally I think this is probably one of the worst ways to try to balance, by banning, but time will only tell weather it affects attendance or not.

The whole article plus the reasons is hilarious.
I can't believe at all as a CD and CSM player what I read. The most amazing thing someone said is something like thanks for the ban, tau and eldar can at last compete. seriously, I ve seen a lot of comedies and heard a lot of jokes this year, but this, will be the pick of 2013.
Why not ban more than 2 riptides? Ban 2++ from DE? Ban something else for feth sake. People spend money into buying stuff. Probably csm products are bannable but eldar wow super cool are not. Gimme a break. If you can't win CD leave your eldar to the shelf, as my IG sit..

chaos0xomega wrote:What if someone is playing a triple helldrake list because they like the model rather than because of the rules? What if their list is literally 3 helldrakes, a lord, and then 6 chaos marine squads? Is that player really playing with a WAAC powerbuild? Do they deserve to have their list neutered simply because they're bringing 3 helldrakes to the table?

And what if someone takes a Seer Council because it's cool?

It sucks for them, yes, but I think it's better to do that than to invalidate so many other armies.

Or, maybe something different altogether, and have some sort of an application thingie where you can apply to have the restrictions lifted to your army if the rest of your list is so horribad that you won't roflstomp anyone anyway.

avedominusnox wrote:I can't believe at all as a CD and CSM player what I read. The most amazing thing someone said is something like thanks for the ban, tau and eldar can at last compete. seriously, I ve seen a lot of comedies and heard a lot of jokes this year, but this, will be the pick of 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

herpguy wrote:I think people shouldn't all be dragged down to make room for other codexes. They simply should make a "Best General" award for each army. That will encourage people to bring Orks, Blood Angels, etc., because even if they get tabled by Taudar they can still go home winning best general for that army.

But that assumes that the Ork and BA players aren't taking their armies to events just because they can't get any prizes. I don't think that's the case at all.

For instance, I bring my Eldar. It's not optimized because there are a few units that I really like and I can't be bothered with converting up a Seer Council, so I'm cool with not winning the event, but I know I can at least give it a go. But I'm not bringing my BA because I don't want to get tabled every game for two days running. Having six crap games and then getting a boxed set and a handshake doesn't really make taking BA to a tournament a much better experience. I'd much rather have one win, one draw, and four almost draws and no prize.

Took these fools too long to realize what they had to do to stop WAAC players from ruining not only the game, but the tournament scene.

Course we haven't had any good FAQs for 3/4ths a year now, so that's part of the problem.

MarkyMark wrote:
I do agree with the gimmick comment though fluff wise I can see the purpose of some of them (dex inq can be very fluffy, sadly doubt we will ever see that on a tourny tabletop). I do think they have dropped the ball on these changes though.

Look, all I am saying is watch out for the release of the Ork codex. It's going to be the most powerful book since Tyranids and the two of them will be dominating the tournament scene in 6 months.

Thud wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

I lol'd.

Back on topic, does anyone have numbers for attendance at last years tournament? Would be interesting to keep a comparison of the number of people if they enforce these rules.

What is un-fun? I am all for not allowing LOW and massive forts, those seem to be so very game altering, but in many cases, people go to tournaments for different reasons. Case in point, none of these "super hard lists" ended up winning renegades, so out of a 60+ person even you had necrons v necron/csm at the top table. Other events have varied, but part of the game is generalship and the ability to adapt. If you , as a general cannot do that, you are destine to lose, and if all you care about is your win/loss tally, maybe you should reconsider your hobby.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/567539.page