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.

Hey Reese, Mike Walsh here from Endless Gaming & 40K Wrecking Crew!

I just wanted to pipe in with a few small thoughts.

Firstly, I appreciate the efforts you are putting forth to find a BALANCED 40K. We all love the game. There are even some, like the both of us, who eventually went into business selling toy soldiers.

There is a huge outcry from the community right now. Both supporters and detractors of some of the new units, rules, and such that GW has released. I think the single MOST and I can't stress enough MOST important thing we can do right now is to get people to stop, take a breath, and think about ask the following three questions 1. Where is 40K? 2. Where 40K is going? and 3. How do we help get it there?

I think we all agree there are broken combos in 40K. I think we can all agree that a wild west shootout, unlimited free reign style of 40K could leave to even more harsher combos.

But, is that better or is it worse? Can we find solutions to the problems we have within the new rules that are coming out? Maybe? Maybe not? I think somewhere in the middle is the answer.

 EndlessGamingNC wrote:
But, is that better or is it worse?

And for that question we can look at what happened in other games. Look at "combo winter" in MTG's history and see how it almost killed competitive MTG (and possibly MTG as a whole) before the worst offenders were finally banned. If 40k reaches that state (and arguably things like Revenants/screamerstar/etc have already brought it to that point) there will be a simple choice: the community can do GW's job and ban/modify the game-breaking rules, or tournament 40k can become that thing you used to play back in the good old days.

tiber55 wrote:

I am going to be very curious about how grant does, getting this nerf, he is going to just have to adapt his tactics more in line to if he didn't roll foturne even if he does, but with his depth of practice with the army its going to be fun to see how he does.

As someone who plays against his seer council on a consistent basis, I can tell you that it can still do well. The re-rollable 2+ mechanism is stupid, but even a 2+/4+ nerf is still very strong in the hands of a capable, experienced player. The only difference is that now, he's just going to have to use his brainpower just a little bit more, like 3x as much.

BTW, my prediction is that he will probably be playing Fantasy at the LVO.

Before we start banning models. Before we start restricting models. (And for the record I'm not against EITHER, but I think people are WAY jumping the gun.)

We need to figure out how we got here.

What is the cause of the current META GAME in 40K? Maybe a good place to start is the current size of most events. At 1750 and 1850 points the game is viewed as rock, paper, scissors. It can be very polarizing. Maybe we need to expand to a higher point total?

At 1750 and 1850 armies are not very balanced. The point total largely drives out anything but the most efficient, multi-purpose units, strong VOLTRON units. Also, most armies are not able to be well rounded enough to battle against psykers, flyers, FMCs, 100+ models, 6 tanks, and VOLTRON. That is why armies such as; Demons, Eldar, Tau, and Necrons before them were the most powerful.

40K has always been very cyclical and we always have to strive to fine solutions to problems.

Screamer Star isn't fun to play against, but I have gone 3/4 - 0 versus it with my Rhino Ultramarines lately. Rhinos and combat squads were a great solution for me.

Gareth Hunt recently (at FOB) told me he went to Screamer Star because of the rise of Tau/Eldar. That was his solution to the problem.

Nick Rose and me discussed his army and changing it after Nova. He made a few different choices and won FOB. He included a second Wraithknight because he saw that as a solution to problems.

Similarly Tau became good because of their powerful guns, efficient costs, and for how well they matched up against Necrons. Which were the big bad guy in the room for 6 months last year.

I think we need to allow the game to continue to evolve without making up rules.

By expanding the game to 2,000 points or 2,250 points maybe more armies would be able to take units in their armies to solves problems. Similar to in Warmachine when in expanded from 35 to 50 and widely became more balanced. At 2,250 points you can play double force org and try to take units to kill hordes, flyers, FMCS, and the such.

Maybe these new Escalation units can help evolve the game similarly to how Colossals helped fix some of the problems Warmachine faced before the expansion from 35 to 50 points.

Good data all around, thanks for sharing Reece. My thoughts:

- The end result here is a very clean, clear, and thorough list of what's legal to bring. That's a major plus.

- I do agree with you, I'm a little surprised/disappointed datalstate characters are viewed so negatively, but it definitely is a much cleaner cut to just say no to all dataslates.

- Hopefully this calms everyone down, because the last week or so has been filled with way too many people going nuts! Things will be fine!

- I hope other GT's can take note from this polling data and the logical response you guys made to it, rather than making radical comp changes involving banning and restricting specific wargear/units. Cough cough.

Calming voices are probably the most important for 40K atm. It's most popular players, teams, content producers, need to come together and lead the charge in keeping the peace and making sure we can move forward in a productive manor.



The one thing we can all agree on I think is that the formations are a little WONKY. LOL. Those seem like they could be legislated a bit. But, whose to say.

---

I understand Reese was in a tight spot for his GT. I understand 100%! I think you made the right choice releasing a poll. A conservative approach in the immediate is safest. Reese used great word choices and articulated his struggles to find balance in a fantastic way. Hopefully going forward this will be the attitude that is taken.

---

Below are the last 3 comments from me for the night.

1.

We need to AVOID using charged language. Things like "THIS IS MORE FUN" , "THAT ISN'T FUN" to play against, and "SHOULD BE BANNED!"

That type of charged language is polarizing. It's my belief that those sorts of things will only divide an already shaky community. The FOB could probably do the whole community a service by delaying their recently released BANNED LIST article for the time being. (There is plenty of time later for this!) I think this being released this week ONLY added fuel to an already contentious fire.

We have a long time until FOB qualifiers! Avoiding a witch hunt for "broken" "un-fun" armies in the immediate short term is probably the safest avenue. We need to test the hell out of lists, models, & much much more. I'll be happy to contribute anything we at Endless Gaming find and anything that the 40KWC finds to be abusive.

2.

I love Warhammer 40k. We all do. That's why we care so much! Remember that!

.................. And 3

The Magic the Gathering comparisons to banned lists need to be stopped. In Standard MTG few cards have ever been banned. I played Ravager Affinity in the height of it's power. I played every version of the deck and had a full foil deck. I loved that deck. But, it was too strong. It had to be banned. Arcbound Ravager was too good and too synergistic for the time. Similarly to how powerful Jace TMS was in Cawblade before it was banned. Here is an article about the banning of Jace TMS and Stoneforge. https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/148

There is nothing in 40K that is Arcbound Ravager or Jace TMS! Please stop saying that. <3

 EndlessGamingNC wrote:

By expanding the game to 2,000 points or 2,250 points maybe more armies would be able to take units in their armies to solves problems. Similar to in Warmachine when in expanded from 35 to 50 and widely became more balanced. At 2,250 points you can play double force org and try to take units to kill hordes, flyers, FMCS, and the such.

Maybe these new Escalation units can help evolve the game similarly to how Colossals helped fix some of the problems Warmachine faced before the expansion from 35 to 50 points.

40k - wall - apocalypse

That's how I see it and with points going up instead of down it seems to get further and further away from what I consider to be "40k". Full disclosure, most of my games are 1500 and that tends to frame my perspective. In any case, I like that firewall between 40k and apoc and I don't think increasing game size is a good direction to go.

Just curious because I am thinking about buying a inquisitorial detachment, but should I even other with buying it? The way it looks now everyone doesn't seem to want 3 sets of allies. When it comes to inquisition I think it should be allowed however, because it doesn't take away from any of the fluff and doesn't have backbreaking combos. Yes it goes outside the norm, but I think it should be thought of as a normal codex like SoB with a slight exception. I mean if supplements are in then why not inquisition that can ally into two armies?

toocool61 wrote:
Just curious because I am thinking about buying a inquisitorial detachment, but should I even other with buying it? The way it looks now everyone doesn't seem to want 3 sets of allies. When it comes to inquisition I think it should be allowed however, because it doesn't take away from any of the fluff and doesn't have backbreaking combos. Yes it goes outside the norm, but I think it should be thought of as a normal codex like SoB with a slight exception. I mean if supplements are in then why not inquisition that can ally into two armies?

Once you have more than two armies in one it gets to be a bit much. In many ways fielding too many factions was one of the main problems with formations, people would have been able to field 4 armies in one. I think that's a bit much and sets a bad precedent and I think a lot of people agreed. I don't think the inquisition codex would have been as big a deal if it was an allie like others instead of existing outside that somewhat.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Mike. It's very helpful. : )

Reecius, good job taking charge in a bad situation, polling the people, and actually going with the results. GW has been telling us forever that they're not interested in making their game with tournaments in mind, so steps such as the one you just took need to be made by the Tournament Organizers to reign in what many have viewed as an unbalanced meta. The changes were largely conservative, and the 2+/4+ is an out of the box tweak that allows current super-deatstars to retain much of their effectiveness while giving those playing against them a glimmer of hope. Kudos to you and those who have the courage to lay their reputation on the line in an attempt to save the game many of us want to continue playing from it's creators who have chosen to obliterate it.

To those who think Reecius is making a mistake. It's one tournament weekend, and the results of his "test" will be scrutinized by those who would be making similar decisions (or non-decisions) for their Tournaments. The LVO isn't the end of the journey. It's the beginning.

 EndlessGamingNC wrote:
At 2,250 points you can play double force org and try to take units to kill hordes, flyers, FMCS, and the such.

And the game takes so long that one-day tournaments are no longer an option, and even two-day tournaments have to cut the number of rounds. There's already a big enough problem getting 1750-1850 point games to finish within the time limit, expanding to 2250 would be a disaster. It doesn't matter what 2250 would do for balance, it just isn't a viable option.

@Endless Gaming

Thanks for the thoughtful commentary, much appreciated.

We are open to reasonable solutions but as you noted, were behind the 8 Ball and had to make some calls, ASAP. I think we did as best we could with the limitations we were working with.

The community wants something done but everyone is screaming their head off as to what that should be =)

I agree that patience, and careful consideration is the best call.

We're batting around some ideas for the BAO to integrate more stuff. We're looking at going down in points with limitations and even up in points with less limitations as you noted.

But, we need to try it out and test it to see what works and what doesn't. Until we do that I don't feel ready to jump on this stuff in competitive play, and as our polls show, neither does the community.

We'll get there though, it will just take a little time.

@Morgendonner

Thanks! Yeah, playing it safe is smart for now, and we'll go forward from there to see what we can do.

I think a systematic approach is best, and we'll go from there.

We do need to calm down though, haha, the D Slap that was Escalation was a bit shocking, but we'll figure it out!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@TooCool61

You can still use them of course, and this is just our format, not everyone's. We are just limiting the amount of books in a single game as it gets so crazy.

As Crablezworth pointed out, it just goes nuts. And with 3, every Imperial army takes Coteaz because why not? It becomes passe.

But, other events may do it differently.

@Voidwraith

You said it, this is going to be a good test run.

Choices had to be made and we made what we thought were the best one.

Thanks for the support.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Peregrine

I think bigger, mini Apoc games could be fun but as you said, time is a big issue. We have actually been talking about it as a 1 day format with 2-3 rounds, max. Just an idea, but it could be a fun way to introduce the big boys into organized play!

That's all my votes right down the board. Glad that the field will not be split, I want the thrill of winning the best player out of 256... rofl jk. Should be a great event! Reece has his finger on the pulse of west coast 40k.

 Reecius wrote:


@Greg

I understand why you would say that and I did see those results. We align largely with those results with the one big difference being FW.

We pushed and campaigned for it for well over a year before our polls showed a majority in favor of allowing it and now we have over a year of using it here and people have acclimated to it. Now, it is a non-issue. I have poll data that supports it overwhelmingly and anecdotal evidence, too (players talking to us at events, etc.).

There are some units folks don't like (Thudd Guns, Sabers, etc.) and we get those, but has just not been an issue and folks like using it now. People at this stage have gotten used to bringing their Contemptor dreads and Vulchers or whatever, and don't want to give it.

You still should have re-visited it. There have been a lot of events with FW and now that people have had more knowledge and experience with it their view might have changed. When was the last time you even had a FW poll?

And do you still have the link to the results of your last poll? I was looking for them and could not find them. All I remember was the poll you asked after the BAO where you asked people what they thought of FW after it and them saying it was not that bad (when really only a few players showed up with it).

You should have asked:

I would like:
Unrestriced access to FW
I would like FW limited to (0-1)
I would like to see FW banned

 Blackmoor wrote:
You still should have re-visited it.

Other than your personal dislike of FW rules, why? Why does there need to be a constant re-evaluation of the decision? Do we also need poll after poll after poll about whether orks should be legal?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
You still should have re-visited it.

Other than your personal dislike of FW rules, why? Why does there need to be a constant re-evaluation of the decision? Do we also need poll after poll after poll about whether orks should be legal?

Because his last poll was taken over a year ago, just after 6th edition had just come out.

Several things have changed since then. In that time more people have had more experience with forge world from events like Adepticon and Wargames Con so they can make a more informed answer, and also before all of this crazyness with the codexs and all of the downloadable rules.

So it is hardly "constant re-evaluation"

Its is just a question, there is nothing to be afraid of.

Nice, thats generally what i expected (and how i voted). I have a quick question as maybe I'm reading into this too much.

So if we're limited to 2 source books for our armies, does that mean that marines can take marine(primary)+marine(allies)+inquisition? What about Farsight tau+tau empire with possible inquisitors? Or by 2 books do you mean you can only have marines+inquisitors with no other allies, even if those allies could also be from the marine book? I want to make sure because if I were to take farsight+tau I'd want a servo skull inquisitor, and i dont want to build an illegal list.

That is a good question on the "2 book" limit. Is it 2 factions or 2 books. I assume it is the latter as the first means Iyanden Eldar cannot take any allies. You would only be able to use 1 FW book for additional units and if you did no allies.

So I assume it is really 2 Factions

Codex + ally/inquisition.

My concern with that is you open marines up to taking marines+marines and inquisition as the only army that can ally specifically within their own book. Thats not hugely abusive if so, but it is a bit of an advantage since you can make a few janky lists with marine+marine with inquisitors. Otherwise i totally agree with breng.

I think you treat marines of different chapters as different factions. If the point is to essentially say you are allowed primary + 1 detatchment.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
You still should have re-visited it.

Other than your personal dislike of FW rules, why? Why does there need to be a constant re-evaluation of the decision? Do we also need poll after poll after poll about whether orks should be legal?

Because his last poll was taken over a year ago, just after 6th edition had just come out.

Several things have changed since then. In that time more people have had more experience with forge world from events like Adepticon and Wargames Con so they can make a more informed answer, and also before all of this crazyness with the codexs and all of the downloadable rules.

So it is hardly "constant re-evaluation"

Its is just a question, there is nothing to be afraid of.

I'd like to see this revisited as well, perhaps as Frontline develops a ruleset for the BAO or their next event. But since the LVO has been marketed as a FW friendly event since the beginning, I don't think it'd be fair to remove that option so close to the tournament date.

The FW rules tend to change every 3 months also (gotta sell those books), so the Mortis Contemptor has only gone through 2 rule changes since a year ago! Not a bad idea to reevaluate based on current rules.

 Reecius wrote:
@Mark

Yes and no. My personal bias: form day about, 3 of 6th ed we found the 2+ reroll thing and I viscerally hate the rule. However, up until now it has been pretty manageable.

I think the catalyst to actually do something like this is the Seercouncil and Screamerstar. The Seercouncil is much, much worse than the Screamerstar. We have a teammate that plays it, so we have tons of experience against it and while it is beatable it is so absolutely not fun to play against.

I definitely expressed my opinion on the subject with the open intent to sway people, but in the end it was strictly up to the players.

I do recall that you were one of the more vocal "Kumbaya, give Narrative a chance!" posters when 6th edition came out and people were unhappy with 2 force orgs and allies in the core rules in standard games. While it was admirable that you wanted to give it an actual playtest and base your opinions off of practice rather than theory, I think alot of older players saw the writing on the wall based off of previous experience. Players who lived/played through 2nd edition/mid 3rd when bat-crap crazy things existed and GW-run tournament rules had longer lists of what they DIDN'T allow compared with what they did.

@Warboss

I am one of those older players

I've been playing since the very beginning of 2nd. The thing is I just don't think you can prejudge things before trying them. I think the only real way to make an informed decision is with actual experience.

That is one of the things that frustrates me to no end is when internet pundits go off on something before they've tried it. Like Escalation for example, I have people practically screaming at me to include it in the LVO who've never even tried it! haha and then they get insulted when I tell them they're arguing from a position of ignorance on the topic. It's funny.

At any rate, we always try to test something a least once before passing judgement as we feel it gives us a more informed opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Breng77

We mean 2 different factions, yes. That is a better way to say it, and sub-factions count.

So: Wolves/IG

But no: Wolves/IG/Inquisition

or

White Scars/Ultramarines

but no

Eldar/Dark Eldar/Inquisition

Thanks for bringing that up. I will use that verbiage.

@Thread

You guys will all be able to voice your opinions again on the exit poll from LVO.

We always ask our players what they like, don't like, etc. after each event so that we can keep up with what's going on.

I will post that data as well and use it with the BAO which will be in May/June sometime.

 Reecius wrote:
@Warboss

I am one of those older players

I've been playing since the very beginning of 2nd. The thing is I just don't think you can prejudge things before trying them. I think the only real way to make an informed decision is with actual experience.

That is one of the things that frustrates me to no end is when internet pundits go off on something before they've tried it. Like Escalation for example, I have people practically screaming at me to include it in the LVO who've never even tried it! haha and then they get insulted when I tell them they're arguing from a position of ignorance on the topic. It's funny.

At any rate, we always try to test something a least once before passing judgement as we feel it gives us a more informed opinion.

I agree with you in principle but sometimes a trend is obvious even with only two data points. You don't have to try yellow snow or a urinal cake to know that its a bad idea. Gw historically has trouble balancing a single codex or force org with the variety of authors out there left alone 4 sources at once.

Well, let me tell you, you haven't lived until you've tried a urinal cake!

Kidding, of course.

And yes, while you may see these things clearly, and me too, not everyone else does. In fact, most don't. It is often as much for the observer's knowledge that we run tests on film as our own. Showing people how something works is the best way to inform them as to the impact it will or won't have.

Not everyone is an old grognard in the game and has the depth of experience to draw on that the older dudes, do.

So Reecius what are your plans to change next?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So Reecius what are your plans to change next?

I take issue with your purposeful flame baiting. Reece is addressing issues that his constituency clearly, from the polling data, said needed to be addressed. He wouldn't have made a single change has we, the people attending the LVO in February, not voted for it.

The majority of people voted no to lords of war which are basically FW units so how does that interact with you allowing FW units?