Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 16:28:39
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Haemonculi Flesh Apprentice
|
Breng77 wrote:Very true....people are likely to just tell me that it is not a good lits  . I would have written my own but here at work I don't have my nid dex in hand.
I'm also not sure I would even go fully in with my idea unless I wanted to run a comped event on that scale of comp...I just find it a bit better than the 0-1 ideas going around...and lots of people have responded (in other places) that it Hurts X faction, or type of list too much...and not one has proven really to be true.
I'll also not argue the merrit of whether Double Flyrant is good or not...more my point is that it is not the only good list, so curbing it does not invalidate current nids.
Actually I think that is the best solution put forward so far. You aren't changing game design or mechanics. You aren't banning anything, just limiting resources which IMHO makes list building much more challenging and fun.
I personally hope this idea gets more attention and vetting and not simply drowned out by all the wight noise and loud voices.
edit* added quote due to second page lols
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/12 16:29:33
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 16:31:20
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Oberleutnant
|
The game needs moderation because GW has shown that it cannot and will not moderate itself. I am thinking the design team is run by twelve year olds.
With that in mind, tournament organizers are able to limit the scope of what is available as they see fit. This approach is, in fact, the current GW talking point...use what you want, how you want.
As long as the organizer is willing to make that announcement prior to the event and refund moneies paid by people should the rules change before the day of the event, they can do whatever they want. Make it a vanilla marine only tournament...people will make thier position known by attending or not.
Personally, I will not pay to play in any event that has the newer books or data sheets in it. I refuse to play a game in a world where it seems that the only codex that the core rules apply to is the Forever Alone Dark Angels.
GW's current approach seems to be that there are no rules, only opportunities that have not yet been explored/exploited yet.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 16:37:30
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
Red Corsair wrote:Breng77 wrote:Very true....people are likely to just tell me that it is not a good lits  . I would have written my own but here at work I don't have my nid dex in hand.
I'm also not sure I would even go fully in with my idea unless I wanted to run a comped event on that scale of comp...I just find it a bit better than the 0-1 ideas going around...and lots of people have responded (in other places) that it Hurts X faction, or type of list too much...and not one has proven really to be true.
I'll also not argue the merrit of whether Double Flyrant is good or not...more my point is that it is not the only good list, so curbing it does not invalidate current nids.
Actually I think that is the best solution put forward so far. You aren't changing game design or mechanics. You aren't banning anything, just limiting resources which IMHO makes list building much more challenging and fun.
I personally hope this idea gets more attention and vetting and not simply drowned out by all the wight noise and loud voices.
edit* added quote due to second page lols
I might try it out as a tournament at my LGS and see how people respond to it....at least that way if turnout sucks I am not out a bunch of money.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 17:31:14
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Haemonculi Flesh Apprentice
|
I think this is a great approach to any formatting solution. Again I applaud your ideas, I have advocated a % based system for a while now, but was unsure how to structure it. I think you nailed bud! Hopefully you can lead by example and it will snowball. We'll see I guess
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 17:42:30
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Are you saying HARD limits on slots or COMP based punishment on slots?
That is the old 3rd edition comp format basically. 40%+ troops, 25% or under for all other slots.
I am not sure there is a need to limit dedicated transports because they already count as part of the unit they are bought for and it is reasonable to have all transport armies if needed, but even a 4 battlewagon 1800 list would be less than 25%.
Right now, I am willing to try anything, so if an event ran custom rules or something, I would be open to it. I think % limits is better than banhammer
|
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 17:56:18
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
I am saying Hard limits (+ flex points), using a comp score would be tricky, how much do you get penalized for going over, and by how much...because certain abuses will be better return on comp hits...as a hard cap...there is no getting around it with a minimal hit either your army works or it does not.
As for the dedicated trasports they do need a cap unless we are ok with
Autarch
6 5 man DA squads in serpents with Ghost walk Mantles
2 Wraith Knight
2 x 5 Swooping hawks
being legal at 1850 (with the 5% flex)
Really that is what it is there for (and Night Scythe spam to an extent, though you still can get 5). A battle Wagon list like you said is uneffected. But having Unlimited points on troops for dedicated transports allows the above a 25% limit brings it down to max 4 Wave Serpents (which is still a good amount but it helps a bit.) Otherwise you can get up to 8 Waves serpents in an army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for all transport armies
Rhinos, Razorbacks, Trucks, Chimeras are largely uneffected by the limit.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/12/12 18:07:44
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 18:13:20
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Yeah, now that I think about it... An all transport army with the 50pt and less transports is largely unaffected. It basically targets where people are taking a minimal troop simply to buy a tank with a huge gun on it.
Actually, I just checked my past 3 years of tourney lists and all of them fit this % no problem. But that could also speak to how the Ork codex and codexes from 'the before time' worked opposed to codexes now.
|
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 18:21:00
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
yeah an ork list would need to try pretty hard not to fit this (or bring allies.)
you could run Nob bikers with no warboss and probably do it...but why?
I guess 45 Lootas break it as well.
The largest effected transport is the Dedicated land raider because you can really only take 2. But most marine codices (not Blood Angels) can take them as Heavies so you could run 4 legally at 2k points. With Blood Angels Primary you are stuck at 3 if you ally. Or run BA as allies and run 4.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/12 18:22:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 19:46:07
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Evasive Pleasureseeker
Lost in a blizzard, somewhere near Toronto
|
So much Daemon hate... I coulda sworn this was actually a Fantasy thread, until someone mentioned Taudar/Eltau.
Feth, and here I thought being a Daemon player couldn't possibly make me any more of a pariah.
Apparently though, Screamerstar is now considered to have completely 'broken' 40k.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 21:43:56
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
By the way: This is what I think will happen if you let Escalation in. Now I may be wrong, but hear me out:
I think after seeing battle reports where Titans lose games over and over ( http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/567993.page) people will realize that Titans aren't autowin buttons for noobs with Little Mans Syndrome. Most won't take them, and the few that do take them will do average. But the chance of encountering sD will also lead people to abandon Deathstars alot. It will create balance, but it will take time for people to see that titans ain't some crazy stuff that wins you guys while you sip a Fanta Pineapple.
|
13000
12000
:daemon 14000
:darkeldar 5000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 22:00:30
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
To be fair, I played the Screamerstar in DaBoyz Doubles and won. And...its not really all that much fun to play, either with or against.
|
"I was not making fun of you personally - I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers
Don't settle for the pewter horde! Visit http://www.bkarmypainting.com and find out how you can have a well-painted army quickly at a reasonable price. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 22:12:19
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Indiana
|
I think in all honesty it has less to do with competativeness or not. I think the most recent forge the narrative podcast summed it up best.
"Is this the game you want to play"
At this point it is not about figuring out how to make the game perfectly balanced or anything like it. It is about making it FUN.
I have played against necron airforce, I have played against jetseer star+wave serpent spam. I have played against Flying daemon circus, I have played against the Ovesa Star, I played against flamers/screamers before they were updated. I have done ok considering I bring more themed lists. However it is not a matter of winning or losing but not a single one was a fun game. I spent entire games literally doing nothing but removing my own models and maybe trying to shoot something(with no results). I know tournaments are at a higher level of competition than I am able to compete at. I understand that
Are there ways to build an army to combat these armies? Sure, but the problem is that most of them involve playing one of the three power armies to combat the power armies. Leaves a lot of variety out in the cold which is sad because that is what I look forward to in tournaments. Will a "comp" result in a shift in meta and new players reaching the top? Definitely, that is always going to happen, however if it even increases the useability of entire books just a little bit I am 100% okay with this.
My last tournament the first game was jetseer. He was not a very good player and failed fortune on the last turn. It was 100% down to that roll and some bad decisions on his part. Any one of those differences and he would have completely tabled me.
Second game was against a good opponent with necron air and annhilation barges. That game basically consisted of me trying to shoot his fliers and him removing entire units per turn with tesla and deathmarks. Once again, not very fun.
Third game was against orks. In this one we just had a blast. I charged in and we tried to just be in combat for as much of the game as we could. His warboss accepted whatever challenge came his way which resulted in lysander punking him, however he then got wiped out by the rest of the meganobz next turn. He told me after the game "That is the most combat my meganobz have ever seen, it was aweomse". Am I saying that I want all tournament games to be like this? Heck no, I just want to have fun.
I would rather lose because I got out maneuvered or outplayed instead of knowing bar absolute gak/hot rolls I have no chance.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/12 22:20:08
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 22:21:14
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces
|
I like percentage caps also, at least for some applications. They won't "balance" 40K, if that's someone's goal. But it's a simple overarching framework that can prevent certain extremes and rein in allies to some degree. Even better, it's adjustable depending on the TOs' needs.
In many ways, this is a very old discussion that goes back 15 years. In 2nd edition, percentages are what guided army construction -- there was no FOC. Third edition introduced the FOC, which was an improvement in some ways and a problem in others. For instance, players immediately recognized that they could do things like take 3 Wraithlords in a 750 game. And so TOs started looking at percentages again as a way to control "slots abuse." They disappeared again when the game became more balanced overall and composition became unpopular.
The criticism of percentages has always been that different armies get their strength from different areas of the FOC. And that's 100% legit. However, I think that if you're careful about how you set the percentage caps, they won't become straightjackets. Obviously, there are other problems (such as 2+ rerolls just being unfun) that they won't address.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 22:24:48
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot
|
Experiment 626 wrote:So much Daemon hate... I coulda sworn this was actually a Fantasy thread, until someone mentioned Taudar/Eltau.
Feth, and here I thought being a Daemon player couldn't possibly make me any more of a pariah.
Apparently though, Screamerstar is now considered to have completely 'broken' 40k.
The existence of Screamerstar or Jetseer council alone did not start the crusade to fix Tourny-K, though these lists are the only things ACTUALLY impacted, because people HAVE been playing them in the past months whereas everything else being cut out of the tournament scene hasn't been around long enough for people to purchase, paint, or playtest. I doubt anything would have changed had they not introduced Titans into the mix. Once that happened, TOs felt forced to start making decisions, and once the conversations were started, a few other rules that people had long been bemoaning were open for debate.
Then, the TAU FIREBLADE SUPPORT CADRE formation was spawned, and it became crystal clear that GW has no intention of releasing rules with any sort of balance in mind (if you don't know the impact of this dataslate, listen to the most recent 11th company podcast). I honestly believe this was the straw that broke the camel's back. I know if I was a TO and felt it was a personal goal for people to have "fun" at my event, I would have a hard time not wanting to do something...
Having said all that, remember that this is just one tournament's guidelines. Nothing is keeping anyone from fielding their Eldar/Dark Eldar Seer Council with a Tau Fireblade Support Cadre that gets Tank Hunter and PE:Space Marines against their buddies Blood Angels in a "friendly" basement game of 40k. Go sick...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/12 22:48:06
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
gorgon wrote:I like percentage caps also, at least for some applications. They won't "balance" 40K, if that's someone's goal. But it's a simple overarching framework that can prevent certain extremes and rein in allies to some degree. Even better, it's adjustable depending on the TOs' needs.
In many ways, this is a very old discussion that goes back 15 years. In 2nd edition, percentages are what guided army construction -- there was no FOC. Third edition introduced the FOC, which was an improvement in some ways and a problem in others. For instance, players immediately recognized that they could do things like take 3 Wraithlords in a 750 game. And so TOs started looking at percentages again as a way to control "slots abuse." They disappeared again when the game became more balanced overall and composition became unpopular.
The criticism of percentages has always been that different armies get their strength from different areas of the FOC. And that's 100% legit. However, I think that if you're careful about how you set the percentage caps, they won't become straightjackets. Obviously, there are other problems (such as 2+ rerolls just being unfun) that they won't address.
Correct it does not fully "balance" things, just brings them a bit more in line.
The above does to a large part address 2+ re-rolls. If you look at the 2 primary culprits for 2+ re-rolls
1.) Screamer star. - cannot bring Fateweaver and More than 3 mastery levels worth of heralds with the grimoir. (Either 1 Level 3 or 1 Level 1 and a level 2), unless you drop disks... So it really reduces the reliability...Either you only get 4 rolls (fateweaver +3) to get Forewarning, or you lose your grimoir re-roll. So the combo becomes unreliable either way. (either you sit at about 2/3rds chance to roll the power, or 2/3red chance to roll the grimoir successfully.
2.) Seer Council - You cannot take more than 2 Bike Seers and 5 Jetlocks..which again reduces the reliability of getting the powers you need and loses you hit and run...or you can take baron, and 1 farseer. and 5 Locks.. . or you can take 2 Farseers, Baron, and 3 Warlocks.... Automatically Appended Next Post: and that is at 2k points. Drop down and you won't be able to do it at all.
As for the strength from different FOCs that is why it is more than 100% possible, and I built in flex percentage (5-10% not sure yet what, and may vary depending on point limit)
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/12 22:49:22
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/13 05:18:46
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
Breng77 wrote:...I have actually been looking at a similar but slightly different approach
Keep the Regular FOC except go percentile based on points
HQ <= 25%
Elites <= 25%
Fast <= 25%
Heavies <= 25%
Troops >= 25%(in theory you could drop this and just require 2 troops)
Dedicated Transports <=25%
5-10% additional flex spending on Elites, Fast, heavies.
Allies and Inquisition take up part of this %
Units in formations count as their respective slots and count against this %
More or less this curbs most of the abusive builds
Seer Council either cannot include Multiple Farseers, or Barron or be short on Warlocks
Screamer star cannot max out heralds and include fateweaver
Limit on Dedicated transports limits wave serpents and Necron flyers to fairly reasonable levels
The issue with your particular 0-1 method is that it is extremely narrow and does not address things like cronair and serpent spam...meaning likely that serpent spam will rise to the top.
Actually, your idea is not bad either. A max 25% for each type ( HQ, Elites, Heavy Support, Fast Attack) is fair.
Although I think the 5-10% "flex" might not be such a good idea. 3 Heldrakes would be 25.5% of a 2000 point army.
But still, overall I like it!
I also had another idea. I know there's been a lot of issues with Divination, as certain combos rely on it. How about borrowing an idea from Chaos and saying only half of your spells can come from a single discipline? For example, a level 3 Psyker could have 2 spells from Divination, and a 3rd from another discipline.
I don't have all the new codexes, so please tell me if there is something wrong with this.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/13 09:03:25
Subject: Re:A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
Hrm.
I just played in a tournament, 1850, with 3 screamerstar armies, and 1 made it t the final table and lost to an Ork army that featured Nobz Bikers, a couple units of lootas, 2 units of Boyz, a battlewagon, some Meganobz and 2 warbosses. Not the most over powered list...
3rd place was a Tervigon spam army.
Since some people find 2++ rerollable too overpowered, and while we are banning things, can be ban Ork Nobz Bikers???? they are still pretty annoying.
|
.Only a fool believes there is such a thing as price gouging. Things have value determined by the creator or merchant. If you don't agree with that value, you are free not to purchase. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/13 09:23:14
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Noise Marine Terminator with Sonic Blaster
|
Breng77 wrote:The largest effected transport is the Dedicated land raider because you can really only take 2. But most marine codices (not Blood Angels) can take them as Heavies so you could run 4 legally at 2k points. With Blood Angels Primary you are stuck at 3 if you ally. Or run BA as allies and run 4.
Or make the Dedicated Transport pool only apply to those that are skimmers and flyers?
|
Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch."
Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/13 09:45:30
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Mighty Vampire Count
|
As far as I was aware tournaments have always been house rule environments that banned or restricted elements of the game or hobby like say Mysterious terrain, Forge World Models and rules.
Some did the same with Flyers...........some not.
The few I have been too have also always been very light on terrain - it would be good for the game IMO to have a mixture tables with a bit, some and lots................
|
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page
A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/13 10:28:27
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
Lord_Aaron wrote:Breng77 wrote:...I have actually been looking at a similar but slightly different approach
Keep the Regular FOC except go percentile based on points
HQ <= 25%
Elites <= 25%
Fast <= 25%
Heavies <= 25%
Troops >= 25%(in theory you could drop this and just require 2 troops)
Dedicated Transports <=25%
5-10% additional flex spending on Elites, Fast, heavies.
Allies and Inquisition take up part of this %
Units in formations count as their respective slots and count against this %
More or less this curbs most of the abusive builds
Seer Council either cannot include Multiple Farseers, or Barron or be short on Warlocks
Screamer star cannot max out heralds and include fateweaver
Limit on Dedicated transports limits wave serpents and Necron flyers to fairly reasonable levels
The issue with your particular 0-1 method is that it is extremely narrow and does not address things like cronair and serpent spam...meaning likely that serpent spam will rise to the top.
Actually, your idea is not bad either. A max 25% for each type ( HQ, Elites, Heavy Support, Fast Attack) is fair.
Although I think the 5-10% "flex" might not be such a good idea. 3 Heldrakes would be 25.5% of a 2000 point army.
But still, overall I like it!
I also had another idea. I know there's been a lot of issues with Divination, as certain combos rely on it. How about borrowing an idea from Chaos and saying only half of your spells can come from a single discipline? For example, a level 3 Psyker could have 2 spells from Divination, and a 3rd from another discipline.
I don't have all the new codexes, so please tell me if there is something wrong with this.
That is true on the triple heldrakes...I honestly don't see it much though, but the system still needs testing overall I'm not really for the divination fix....part to the good part of the system is that it is finished at list building, so once players are at the table they don't need to remember the rules are changed. I also don't think that there are any broken combos left in this system that rely on it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Baragash wrote:Breng77 wrote:The largest effected transport is the Dedicated land raider because you can really only take 2. But most marine codices (not Blood Angels) can take them as Heavies so you could run 4 legally at 2k points. With Blood Angels Primary you are stuck at 3 if you ally. Or run BA as allies and run 4.
Or make the Dedicated Transport pool only apply to those that are skimmers and flyers?
The whole point is not to specifically target units...again I don't see that it hurts many armies. Yeah someone cannot run say 6 or 7 land raiders but there are plenty of other builds that are restricted as well.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/13 10:30:04
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/13 15:04:32
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
General Hobbs wrote:
...Since some people find 2++ rerollable too overpowered, and while we are banning things, can be ban Ork Nobz Bikers???? they are still pretty annoying.
Well, I would simply restrict them equally with everything else. Not ban.
Breng77 wrote:That is true on the triple heldrakes...I honestly don't see it much though...
I hear a lot of hate for Heldrake Spam these days.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/13 15:26:59
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
I used to hear it, but not as much since Daemons, Tau, and Eldar. Furthermore though I heard it I rarely saw 3 Drakes on the table.
The other thing to think about is what removing the flex means accross the table.
If you limit to 25% hard, then no army can ever field more than 2 Flying MC. (at least buffed ones, a Daemon prince with armor and wings will run you 205 points so if you want to add anything else to it you are out of luck)
That said I am also not married to the flex...I put it in to give players a little wiggle room. Now you can go completely without this as part of the system.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/13 15:44:35
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Haemonculi Flesh Apprentice
|
No I really like the flex as it gives less for players to bemoan about since they have that little bit of personally flexibility that is up to them.
I think this would make for an interesting poll. I think this could be widely accepted.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/13 16:48:32
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
Yeah I have not put it up as a poll as of now...I am considering running an event using it next month if I can as a test run to see how players in my area feel. I may put a poll up in a bit...it seems like too many are running right now. I have posted this up in a number of places for feedback though.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/13 17:07:37
Subject: Re:A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
General Hobbs wrote:
Hrm.
I just played in a tournament, 1850, with 3 screamerstar armies, and 1 made it t the final table and lost to an Ork army that featured Nobz Bikers, a couple units of lootas, 2 units of Boyz, a battlewagon, some Meganobz and 2 warbosses. Not the most over powered list...
3rd place was a Tervigon spam army.
Since some people find 2++ rerollable too overpowered, and while we are banning things, can be ban Ork Nobz Bikers???? they are still pretty annoying.
Edit: Whoops, misread
So a screamerstar made it to the final table but lost instead of winning the event, got it...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/13 17:08:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/21 07:21:07
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter
|
Breng77 wrote: Keep the Regular FOC except go percentile based on points HQ <= 25% Elites <= 25% Fast <= 25% Heavies <= 25% Troops >= 25%(in theory you could drop this and just require 2 troops) Dedicated Transports <=25% 5-10% additional flex spending on Elites, Fast, heavies. Allies and Inquisition take up part of this % Units in formations count as their respective slots and count against this % Here's a list I recently built, that got crushed horribly (by Grav-guns), and that I intend to try again. GK w/ Inquisition Allies GK HQ: Mordrak+4 Ghosts = 360 GK HQ: Malleus Inq, PML1, Psycan, Termie = 110 Inq HQ: Coteaz = 100 GK Troop: GKSSx10, 2psycans, Psybolts = 220 GK Troop: GKSSx10, 2psycans = 200 GK Fast: GKIx10, 2incins, 4halbs, Psybolts = 335 GK Heavy: Dreadknight, Incinerator, Sword, Teleporter = 260 GK Heavy: Dreadknight, Incinerator, Sword, Teleporter = 260 Fort: Martyrs Bunker, Void Shield, Icarus = 115 Now, I'd hardly call this an OP list. And yet, my HQ is at 28.5%, and my Heavy is at 26%. Does this mean that it's illegal? Or could I use the "flex" to boost two separate categories, so long as I don't go over the 5-10%? If we go to Daemons, let's just consider NOT Tzeentch. Another typical build is Khorne Dogs. If I take 2 full units at an 1850 game (which sounds pretty reasonable), that's 34.6% of my list in Fast. According to you I can't do that. Why not? We know that a Hound list isn't OP, at least according to the tourney scene.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/12/21 07:25:48
LVO 2017 - Best GK Player
The Grimdark Future 8500 1500  6000 2000 5000
"[We have] an inheritance which is beyond the reach of change and decay." 1 Peter 1.4
"With the Emperor there is no variation or shadow due to change." James 1.17
“Fear the Emperor; do not associate with those who are given to change.” Proverbs 24.21 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/21 10:18:37
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
So that is the whole thing with comp though not everything would be legal. Addressing your 2 lists.
List one is not legal because you cannot flex on hq, but also you troops don't reach 25%. You can flex into the heavies so that is a non issue. So to make it legal you would need to drop something from the hq (2 ghost knights or an inquisitor.) and add 40 points to troops
As for khorne dogs... That depends with a 10% shift you are totally legal at 2 full squads otherwise you are stuck at 2 squads of 17 oh the horror.
Point is in general if you go comp there will be some limits
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/21 10:19:42
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/21 17:20:13
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter
|
Alright. I'd vote against your comp, then, based on both these sample lists. And I'll say why: As to the GK list, with a Grand Master you can make D3 additional units scoring. This makes a GK player able to get by in a game with less Troops than other armies. I've already got up to four scoring units (with Combat Squads), and now I can add another PAGK unit and/or Dreadknight(s)? Pouring points into my Troops is, in this meta, a silly option. I have very expensive Power Armour (20pts/model), and my other choice is Termies (40pts/model, no Storm Shield option). With all the plasma and grav-guns running around, I may as well just sweep my expensive models off the table. Sure they're good at shooting...but when a Command Squad can pop out of a Drop Pod and annihilate my 450pt troop choice in one round of gravity goodness, I wouldn't say that's a good option. Protecting them in a LR means I've already used up 14% of my Heavy option at 1850, or 13% at 2000. I should be taking Psyflemen and Dreadknights, but I can't because of the flex problem. I NEED SUPPORT, from HQ and Elite and Fast and Heavy, and I need the ability to get more than 25%. And with Daemons: Let's just stick with mono-Khorne lists, since no one's throwing fits about playing against them. Khorne Dogs is a tactically viable option that definitely doesn't need any nerfing. Yet at 1850 I'm limited to 28 Hounds (34 with 5% flex), meaning I can't even get two full units! Lame. ALSO, if I want to take two Heralds on Juggernauts (one for a Hound unit, one for my Juggernauts unit), Karanak, and a Bloodthirster for my HQ choices (again, pretty common and pretty expected at this point), that'd put me at ~38% in HQ, which I can't do. Lame. And finally, I'd need at minimum 47 Bloodletters in order to satisfy the 25% Troops. That's not actually so hard to do with Khorne.... But if I'm playing Slaanesh, I'd need at least 52 Daemonettes. And that's getting into silliness, forcing me to spend so many points on such a weak choice when I have much better options to sink points into, like Sleralds, Keepers, DPs, Chariots, and Fiends. My point is that some armies depend on NOT TROOPS to make a good list. Marines in general have solid Troop choices. But Daemons? You definitely need lots of support from other FOC slots, especially the HQ slot (which you can't flex). This type of flex will nerf ANY Daemon list, not just the Tzeentch Flying Circus. And if we look at an Eldar build.... At 1850, you can still fit in 3 Serpents with Scatter Lasers and Holo Fields at <=25%. At 2000 and sans Holo, that bumps up to 4. Is that better than 7 Serpents? Sure. Does it still count as Serpent Spam? Maybe, since it will still take an ungodly amount of Str7+ shots to destroy 3-4 Serpent Shields; and if it does still count, your comp is fairly pointless! You've fixed the RIP Tide, the Flying Circus, Serpent Spam (maybe). But you haven't fixed ScreamerStar or SeerStar. I can still take 2 Farseers and 4 Warlocks at 1850, or 2 and 5 at 2000. While it's certainly not quite as formidable without the Baron, it's still as survivable as what's currently being run. 6 rolls on Divination and Fate is all that's needed to get that re-rollable 2+. I can still have 9 Screamers and three PML3 Tzeralds with Grimoire at either 1850 or 2000. Now admittedly, I won't be backing that up with DPs...but it's still a 2++ re-rollable most of the time, which is what everyone's so cheesed about in the first place.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/21 17:33:32
LVO 2017 - Best GK Player
The Grimdark Future 8500 1500  6000 2000 5000
"[We have] an inheritance which is beyond the reach of change and decay." 1 Peter 1.4
"With the Emperor there is no variation or shadow due to change." James 1.17
“Fear the Emperor; do not associate with those who are given to change.” Proverbs 24.21 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/21 18:21:03
Subject: Re:A Few Reasons Why Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
Wales: Where the Men are Men and the sheep are Scared.
|
Also, 3), being a slippery slope argument, is inherently fallacious.
Ad-hominem much? Asking where the ban-list ends isn't unreasonable dude. If people are voting against Allies and Codex Supplements than surely you can see that this needs to be controlled? I am not trying to come off as a radical nuthead. I think there is some misunderstanding here
Either you have accidentally used the wrong term or you don't understand the ad-hominem fallacy. Ad-hominem is when you attack the person not the argument. His comment was very much attacking the argument by saying it was fallacious.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/21 18:22:11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/21 18:30:00
Subject: A Few Reasons Why 40K Tournaments SHOULDN'T Start Restricting/Banning
|
 |
Evasive Pleasureseeker
Lost in a blizzard, somewhere near Toronto
|
Elric Greywolf wrote:Alright. I'd vote against your comp, then, based on both these sample lists. And I'll say why:
As to the GK list, with a Grand Master you can make D3 additional units scoring. This makes a GK player able to get by in a game with less Troops than other armies. I've already got up to four scoring units (with Combat Squads), and now I can add another PAGK unit and/or Dreadknight(s)?
Pouring points into my Troops is, in this meta, a silly option. I have very expensive Power Armour (20pts/model), and my other choice is Termies (40pts/model, no Storm Shield option). With all the plasma and grav-guns running around, I may as well just sweep my expensive models off the table. Sure they're good at shooting...but when a Command Squad can pop out of a Drop Pod and annihilate my 450pt troop choice in one round of gravity goodness, I wouldn't say that's a good option. Protecting them in a LR means I've already used up 14% of my Heavy option at 1850, or 13% at 2000. I should be taking Psyflemen and Dreadknights, but I can't because of the flex problem. I NEED SUPPORT, from HQ and Elite and Fast and Heavy, and I need the ability to get more than 25%.
And with Daemons:
Let's just stick with mono-Khorne lists, since no one's throwing fits about playing against them. Khorne Dogs is a tactically viable option that definitely doesn't need any nerfing. Yet at 1850 I'm limited to 28 Hounds (34 with 5% flex), meaning I can't even get two full units! Lame. ALSO, if I want to take two Heralds on Juggernauts (one for a Hound unit, one for my Juggernauts unit), Karanak, and a Bloodthirster for my HQ choices (again, pretty common and pretty expected at this point), that'd put me at ~38% in HQ, which I can't do. Lame.
And finally, I'd need at minimum 47 Bloodletters in order to satisfy the 25% Troops. That's not actually so hard to do with Khorne....
But if I'm playing Slaanesh, I'd need at least 52 Daemonettes. And that's getting into silliness, forcing me to spend so many points on such a weak choice when I have much better options to sink points into, like Sleralds, Keepers, DPs, Chariots, and Fiends.
My point is that some armies depend on NOT TROOPS to make a good list.
Marines in general have solid Troop choices. But Daemons? You definitely need lots of support from other FOC slots, especially the HQ slot (which you can't flex). This type of flex will nerf ANY Daemon list, not just the Tzeentch Flying Circus.
And if we look at an Eldar build....
At 1850, you can still fit in 3 Serpents with Scatter Lasers and Holo Fields at <=25%. At 2000 and sans Holo, that bumps up to 4. Is that better than 7 Serpents? Sure. Does it still count as Serpent Spam? Maybe, since it will still take an ungodly amount of Str7+ shots to destroy 3-4 Serpent Shields; and if it does still count, your comp is fairly pointless!
You've fixed the RIP Tide, the Flying Circus, Serpent Spam (maybe). But you haven't fixed ScreamerStar or SeerStar.
I can still take 2 Farseers and 4 Warlocks at 1850, or 2 and 5 at 2000. While it's certainly not quite as formidable without the Baron, it's still as survivable as what's currently being run. 6 rolls on Divination and Fate is all that's needed to get that re-rollable 2+.
I can still have 9 Screamers and three PML3 Tzeralds with Grimoire at either 1850 or 2000. Now admittedly, I won't be backing that up with DPs...but it's still a 2++ re-rollable most of the time, which is what everyone's so cheesed about in the first place.
And this is a perfect example of why %-based comp is broken as feth in 40k...
Why? Because not all Troops are created equal!
In Fantasy, the 25%+ requirement for Core, (basically Fantasy's version of Troops), works well because across every army book, the Core options are roughly equal in terms of their worth/value to eachother. While some armies may only spend up to or just over the required minimum, they're not actually gimping their army in any way by being forced to do so. (ie: most HE players will only spend roughly the 25% min, but that 25% is highly functional with options for Archers, Silverhelms, Reavers & Spears.)
In 40k however, only a few armies all told really want to be spending additional pts on their Troops. MEQ's in general are well off, while IG & Orks have some flexibility. But overall, most non-Imerpial/ CSM armies don't have really good value for their Troops and tend to require much heavier use of their other slots in order to gain the synergies for success.
Daemons are perfect example of this. Forcing a Daemon player to spend additional pts on the weakest part of their codex is bad enough. Adding an additional junk-shot of gimping their HQ allotment which is easily the most important part of their book is basically telling all Daemon players to just go screw themselves at the door.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|