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.

 Peregrine wrote:
Welcome to the FW "debate" all over again. The unfortunate fact is some people are so afraid of allowing the game to change that they'll fight to the death to defend blanket bans on entire categories of rules that they declare to be "not real 40k".

I know...

For all the complaints of the Eldar's Wave Serpent spam/council or screemer stars or Draigo-wing or whatever uber-list flavor of the month... these dataslates in my mind looks like an attempt to balance things out.

I'm not even afraid of the Riptide spam anymore (especially since there's a ton of grav guns army floating around now).

I agree with OverwatchCNC. I know it may seem silly to most of you, but the fairest way to play the game (in a tournament setting) is for every player to have access to all the rules available in the game. If you allow dataslates, then I need to purchase all the dataslates so I can be as prepared as possible walking into a game. What if I don't have an iDevice? I guess I could look up everything on the internet or ask my opponent to see his information every time he does something I'm not familiar with. I can trust that the TOs didn't miss anything in reviewing lists and making sure the slots are all where they're supposed to be.

The point is in 5th Edition tournaments, you prepared in a vacuum. You could know every rule, every unit and, if you played long enough, many lists that you might see on the tabletop. Things like adding FW and dataslates take that and throw a wrench in the works by adjusting what you might see. So now, if a tournament allows dataslates and FW, I need to study up on all FW models I might see and all the dataslates (which, as of now aren't many, but will be growing in the future).

Add to that the supplemental rules increased with each codex release and the FAQs re-wording the things you've already learned and it can be tough for a tournament player to prepare.

 puma713 wrote:
I agree with OverwatchCNC. I know it may seem silly to most of you, but the fairest way to play the game (in a tournament setting) is for every player to have access to all the rules available in the game. If you allow dataslates, then I need to purchase all the dataslates so I can be as prepared as possible walking into a game. What if I don't have an iDevice? I guess I could look up everything on the internet or ask my opponent to see his information every time he does something I'm not familiar with.

How is this really different than the way it was before? Everyone already does have equal access to all the rules. You can buy slates and codices as easily as I can, and even if you don't buy them all (because you really don't need to purchase them all to know what's coming) I'm sure you can find out just about everything by viewing dakkadakka forums. And besides, dataslates are available in many different formats so you're not limited to iDevices. You said it yourself - "for every player to have access to all the rules available in the game."

Things like adding FW and dataslates take that and throw a wrench in the works by adjusting what you might see. So now, if a tournament allows dataslates and FW, I need to study up on all FW models I might see and all the dataslates (which, as of now aren't many, but will be growing in the future). Add to that the supplemental rules increased with each codex release and the FAQs re-wording the things you've already learned and it can be tough for a tournament player to prepare.

Oh no. You might see something unexpected. We can't have that. Forgive me for being blunt, but your argument is essentially that it's too much hassle and that it would be harder to prepare. That's about it. There's really no difference between a dataslate and all the other codicies out there if it comes down to, "Well, I guess I just have to know all these rules!" Wouldn't you rather see more variability in a tournament scene than what's currently offered?

 puma713 wrote:
I know it may seem silly to most of you, but the fairest way to play the game (in a tournament setting) is for every player to have access to all the rules available in the game.

You do have access to all of the rules. None of these are limited-edition books that you can't get anymore, if you want the rules just get them like everyone else.

If you allow dataslates, then I need to purchase all the dataslates so I can be as prepared as possible walking into a game.

How is this different than codex rules?

What if I don't have an iDevice?

Get them for your PC. The iThing-only problem doesn't exist anymore, GW is now releasing them in a variety of formats.

Add to that the supplemental rules increased with each codex release and the FAQs re-wording the things you've already learned and it can be tough for a tournament player to prepare.

I really don't see the problem here. Aren't tournaments supposed to be a test of skill and dedication? Why shouldn't people who spend more time preparing for the tournament have an advantage over people who just read their own codex and maybe briefly skim the forums to see the key points of the other armies? It sounds like what you're saying here is that it's more important for you to be able to win despite your lack of effort than for other people to be allowed to play their perfectly legal armies.

 puma713 wrote:
I agree with OverwatchCNC. I know it may seem silly to most of you, but the fairest way to play the game (in a tournament setting) is for every player to have access to all the rules available in the game. If you allow dataslates, then I need to purchase all the dataslates so I can be as prepared as possible walking into a game. What if I don't have an iDevice? I guess I could look up everything on the internet or ask my opponent to see his information every time he does something I'm not familiar with. I can trust that the TOs didn't miss anything in reviewing lists and making sure the slots are all where they're supposed to be.

The point is in 5th Edition tournaments, you prepared in a vacuum. You could know every rule, every unit and, if you played long enough, many lists that you might see on the tabletop. Things like adding FW and dataslates take that and throw a wrench in the works by adjusting what you might see. So now, if a tournament allows dataslates and FW, I need to study up on all FW models I might see and all the dataslates (which, as of now aren't many, but will be growing in the future).

Add to that the supplemental rules increased with each codex release and the FAQs re-wording the things you've already learned and it can be tough for a tournament player to prepare.

So if you run up against something you've never seen before, from the codex mind you, you won't ask what their rules are? At the LVO I ran a unit of 10 slaaneshi possessed and I grimoired them so they had 3++/5+ FNP. That was a dumb thing that most people never saw coming, esp after I would infiltrate them with Huron Blackheart's warlord trait. People are supposed to expect that? I've never seen either of those units in a tournament list. Heck, I even brought 2xnoise marines and no helturkies, many of the guys I played against had never seen noise marines either.

You are pretty much saying that you'll buy all the codecies, but only study the meta anyways. Dataslates are only like 4$ a piece, and most of them are not worth playing anyways. They just add some nice flavor to some armies(IE Cypher and Bel'akor).

Well there hasn't been a ton of time with the RTT / Tourney scene to see the real impact / cheesiest combo's appear on the scene with the formations / dataslates.

That said, I help run a monthly RTT at Huzzah In Ashburn, and we decided to allow all the data slates, but made a provision that formations were a special slot 0-1. We did have a few regular GT players show up with formations, including a very classy 4 army list. IG / SW / INQ / TAU, and it definitely provided for some mind-boggling combos, but It didn't win the games. (Though blob guard w/ rune priests, and inquisitors w/ psychotroke + rad is pretty crazy).

I mean the whole thing is iffy, because formations don't do anything that codex inquisition isn't doing in terms of breaking the FoC (and thus both are garbage in my eyes, b/c GW should manage to fit inside of their own core rules box, but that's a whole different discussion)

I think in general we end up with a situation where formations / codex inquisition empower the already powerful armies more than they empower the lower teir armies (CSM / orks ect).

But by restricting the use of formations 0-1, the most heinous spamming of said cheese to a minimal level, while letting people play with new dataslate toys which are neat, like cypher, or the tyranid formation.


TBH, I play CSM as my primary army, and I have yet to find a way cypher, or even Bel'kor really add that much to the army that taking daemon allies wouldn't probably accomplish better anyways. Bel'kor is certainly good, no denying that, but he's flimsy and can be difficult to fit into a list.


As far as some of the other arguments I've seen. I think the standard rule still applies, if you bring an army / model, bring a copy of the rules for it. Expecting your opponent to know the rules is fine, but you should still bring them, its a courteous gesture. I'm not even sure why that's a question up for discussion.

Of course it slows down the game to pull up the rules on our e-devices, but a clever person can figure out how to print them out no?

I'm just waiting for GW to release 2-3 crazy non formation dataslate models, then we'll have to end up going 0-1 on all dataslates, not just formations.

citadel wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


Things like adding FW and dataslates take that and throw a wrench in the works by adjusting what you might see. So now, if a tournament allows dataslates and FW, I need to study up on all FW models I might see and all the dataslates (which, as of now aren't many, but will be growing in the future). Add to that the supplemental rules increased with each codex release and the FAQs re-wording the things you've already learned and it can be tough for a tournament player to prepare.

Oh no. You might see something unexpected. We can't have that.

Exactly. You're trying to be snarky, but this is exactly right. A tournament is a controlled environment. So, when I email the TO to find out if Dataslates and FW are going to be allowed, I know what the controlled tournament scene is going to include. If they say, "Yes, FW, Dataslates and Formations will be included", then I need to make the decision as a tournament player if I want to prepare for all of the extra information and scenarios.

I didn't say that this was the opinion of everyone or even a majority, but I can see this "hassle" as a reason to limit their use in tournaments.

citadel wrote:
Forgive me for being blunt, but your argument is essentially that it's too much hassle and that it would be harder to prepare. That's about it. There's really no difference between a dataslate and all the other codicies out there if it comes down to, "Well, I guess I just have to know all these rules!" Wouldn't you rather see more variability in a tournament scene than what's currently offered?

I don't, no. But, to each their own. Some love chaotic, bring whatever you want type of events (like what 6th Edition is lending itself to - armies including 3 different codices). I do not. It's personal preference. But some TOs may have the same personal preference that I do. I can see where they are coming from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


Add to that the supplemental rules increased with each codex release and the FAQs re-wording the things you've already learned and it can be tough for a tournament player to prepare.

I really don't see the problem here. Aren't tournaments supposed to be a test of skill and dedication? Why shouldn't people who spend more time preparing for the tournament have an advantage over people who just read their own codex and maybe briefly skim the forums to see the key points of the other armies? It sounds like what you're saying here is that it's more important for you to be able to win despite your lack of effort than for other people to be allowed to play their perfectly legal armies.

I think you missed my point. I am one of those people who tirelessly prepare. I build lists for every codex, I study lists and tactics that are dominating the current meta, etc. To do so does take a lot of effort, but it is fun - it is something I enjoy doing. So, when I prepare a list or two for tournament play, I can enjoy knowing that I have made the best take-all-comers list that I can through test games, practice and theoryhammer. And then, a week or two before the event, someone says, "Dataslates, FW and Formations will be included." Then I have to make a decision if I want to start again with all available units coming in from FW, etc.

Again, as I pointed out before, I don't expect you all to agree with me, but there are others like me and some of those may just be TOs. Those TOs may feel that these aspects of the game clutter the field and so restrict them. Either way, you're going to make one group unhappy, so it just depends on which group for that tournament.

Finally, I am not saying that all tournaments should ban these things. I am saying that including them may hamper your tournament turnout.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I think it should be noted that Reece polled the players that were actually attending the LVO and the majority of the players did not want data slates being included.

Truth. I believe it was a significant majority too if memory serves.

This is exactly my point. Everyone in the thread is saying, "Oh, they didn't allow them because they are too new." Being new doesn't matter if it is not all about preparation, which is what I've been talking about. If ability to prepare for the meta does not come into the equation, then banning them because they are "too new" doesn't make sense.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I think it should be noted that Reece polled the players that were actually attending the LVO and the majority of the players did not want data slates being included.

Truth. I believe it was a significant majority too if memory serves.

It would make sense that a majority of players at an event wanted to play with the rules the event set up. How many people that wanted to play with cool or fluffy data slates just didn't turn up because of the blanket ban? How much of this banning is just knee-jerk "ermahgerd change" reactions? I think Escalation and SA shouldn't be in normal 40k games (after playing against supers and void shield gens with wave serpents under them(not the same list)). Banning things because of 'too much' is wrong. More options is always better.

Regardless of how T Os feel about it, and it is of course their tournament.

from a logical standpoint the dataslates, escalation, and stronghold assault all are rules outside of the BRB but are not optional.

These supplements are as optional as the space marine codex, or the tau codex.

*** I know stronghold assault has some rules listed as optional but they are rules regarding how models interact with buildings, and what-nots, the buildings contained in the supplement are not optional***

The idea that some of the data slates are overpowered is somewhat ludicrous as many of the armies can ally with another faction to create powerful combos as well through the allies system, and guess what? Allies are as legitimate of a rules system as data slates, and vice versa.

ie Fortune+baron

Dark eldar + Imotekh

Tigurius + necrons

etc.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Ifurita wrote:
you could always make a tourney rule that data slate units take up a FOC slot

Which is then messing around with the core rules which most TOs are quite leery of doing for good reason.

All the major tournies already mess with the core rules so this argument is rather comical.

Random objectives
Placing terrain
Missions
Allowing allies but restricting everything else when they are also optional
Banning FW

So all major tournies I am aware of are guilty of something on that list off the top of my head.

I am not disagreeing with your stance, but I think it is already done poorly. Either play raw vanilla 40k with know options. One core codex, straight rulebook. Or allow it all.

Somewhat related to this topic, it will be interesting to see how tournaments treat the upcoming Imperial Knights release, particularly as (from what the leaked WD pages stated) they'll be able to be fielded as their own army of 3-6 Knights or as an Allied detachment, bringing Superheavies and D weapons in outside of Apocalypse and Escalation entirely.

40k will be a much more varied place indeed by the end of 2014, particularly if the rumored new push of FW stuff also takes place as well.

I was actually really surprised people voted down Be'Lakor (Cypher wasn't out yet) honestly. I thought for sure the Formations would get nixed, though.

We are 99% likely going to let characters in for the BAO like Be'Lakor, Cypher, etc.

It is a weird place we are in, right now. The Knight Titan looks bad ass and most of the Super Heavies and Formations are totally fine, but some of them are so insanely OP that it is hard to imagine using them in regular games.

I am going to shoot out the LVO exit poll tonight or tomorrow and we will share the results to get more feedback.

I think the answer going forward will be to just ban or limit very specific things, and let most of everything else in.

We will see what the community thinks.

 puma713 wrote:
So, when I prepare a list or two for tournament play, I can enjoy knowing that I have made the best take-all-comers list that I can through test games, practice and theoryhammer. And then, a week or two before the event, someone says, "Dataslates, FW and Formations will be included." Then I have to make a decision if I want to start again with all available units coming in from FW, etc.

It sounds like your problem here is that you did all of your theory and playtesting work based on an assumption that the tournament would include a certain set of house rules that limit what is allowed, instead of asking the TO in advance if they were going to have those house rules or not. There's really no excuse for being surprised if a tournament uses the standard rules for army lists.

 Peregrine wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
So, when I prepare a list or two for tournament play, I can enjoy knowing that I have made the best take-all-comers list that I can through test games, practice and theoryhammer. And then, a week or two before the event, someone says, "Dataslates, FW and Formations will be included." Then I have to make a decision if I want to start again with all available units coming in from FW, etc.

It sounds like your problem here is that you did all of your theory and playtesting work based on an assumption that the tournament would include a certain set of house rules that limit what is allowed, instead of asking the TO in advance if they were going to have those house rules or not. There's really no excuse for being surprised if a tournament uses the standard rules for army lists.

I assume you're not understanding what I'm saying. I do not have a problem. If I do not like the rules that a tournament is using, I will not attend. It's not like I go to a tournament and then bitch about the rules that everyone else is allowed to use. My entire point was to illustrate how a TO (like Reece) could vote down these FW models/dataslates/formations and how I can see why for the reasons I stated. You may lose some players for allowing them in games (like myself, perhaps). You may not lose any (or very few) by not allowing them.

Reece took a vote and the overwhelming majority voted against them. I would have been one of them.

slaede wrote:
To the best of my understanding, dataslates have been banned largely because of the Tau formation. I haven't seen anyone complaining about the Astartes Stormwing or the three new Tyranid formations. I have no particular gripe with the Tau formation myself, but I see the shennanigans involved with messing with the traditional force org chart, and I feel this is reasonably addressed by letting folks take only a single allied detachment, which a formation would count towards.

My question to TO's is why is everything that comes out in digital format being banned simply because people don't like one of them? Adepticon, Broadside Bash and many other large tourneys have followed LVO's lead in banning every dataslate across the board. Are Be'lakor and Cypher so egregiously overpowered that they merit banning? Are they so much worse than toolbox Commanders letting blobs of Riptides ignore all the rules of the game, or Jetseer Councils flying around indestructibly?

Currently, Eldar are the top of the meta, having taken half the spots in the LVO finals, and owning the very highest win percentage on TOF. Banning Be'lakor and Cypher deprive Chaos Space Marines (considered a very poor army by most) of two very useful and interesting tools to help them compete with the big boys and shake up the meta.

Thus, I humbly request all TO's consider not lumping all dataslates together, and go about reigning in force org shennanigans a bit differently. Thank you.

I agree with you 100%. Is it 40K anymore when core rules and approved options aren't allowed? Its like 1999+1. What's the current version of TO modified 40K? 39+1K...?

A 39+1K(no slates, no formations, no stronghold, no FW, no...) tourney!... Yayyy!

I don't know anything about tournaments, never played in one, but I will go ahead and disagree with the OP.

I think Dataslates should all have physical hard copies, real ink and paper. Well... really my argument is that they ought to include whatever is on the dataslate in the appropriate codex or supplement. The idea that now not only am I constrained by cost but I also have to buy a "dataslate" to run Belakor is kind of ludicrous.

Please stop supporting these rules snippets and demand real books people, it's the only way.

 Byte wrote:
Is it 40K anymore when core rules and approved options aren't allowed? Its like 1999+1.

Which was widely accepted! I want the extra units / characters allowed, but the formations? No thanks...

There's not one right way to play 40k, despite internet hyperbole. TOs like Reecius, MVBrandt, etc figure out things the best they can. But 1999+1 was a pretty popular solution. Allowing units / characters but not formations from data slates would be another, most likely.

Birdux wrote:
Well there hasn't been a ton of time with the RTT / Tourney scene to see the real impact / cheesiest combo's appear on the scene with the formations / dataslates.

That said, I help run a monthly RTT at Huzzah In Ashburn, and we decided to allow all the data slates, but made a provision that formations were a special slot 0-1. We did have a few regular GT players show up with formations, including a very classy 4 army list. IG / SW / INQ / TAU, and it definitely provided for some mind-boggling combos, but It didn't win the games. (Though blob guard w/ rune priests, and inquisitors w/ psychotroke + rad is pretty crazy).

And that right there is my big problem. There is NOTHING fluffy about that and you are playing that simply by trying to bring the most OP cheese combos to the table in one army. Not to mention it completely negates any semblance of internal codex balance. Tau suck in close combat, so ally in cc from another codex problem solved, but Tau suck in CC because they are gods in shooting..thats the balance. The helldrake is REALLY good, but the remainder of the codex is meh...so I load up on helldrakes and then ally in X. Internal balance offset again. Finally when I play a game I want see it like I see it in my head from novels. Take IG....lots of tanks and infantry defiantly standing in a trench system staring down whatever aggressor is arrayed against them. Not that hodge-podge mess you listed up there. The truth is and I know big shock, GW did all the formation, allies, escalation dataslate BS, to sell models. Why would you buy another mid-strength unit from your own codex when you can buy the shiny Riptide. And when 6.5 or real 7th makes CC godly again, everyone will be buying blood angels and khorne to ally in. There is nothing balanced about it, nor fluffy. I like and only play in tournaments that allow no escalation, no fortification and only two armies represented in your list. Just like VW shot down the auto-workers union, we as a community sometimes have to stand up and say "uhhhhh, no...no man...^%## no" (<----office space ripoff). I for one applaud Nova and Adepticon for taking every effort to keep some semblance of 40K still in 40K.

For those that want to keep the game like it was in fifth edition you're holding back the game IMO. I don't think GW is going to roll back the game. Sure it is more stuff to have to learn but oh well things change. I like what TSHFT is doing and taking a chance. A lot of comp had been introduced over the past year. This is a big part of the reason why see a handful of specific lists winning over and over again and it's not fair.

"I think the answer going forward will be to just ban or limit very specific things, and let most of everything else in."

I think this is the right way to go forward - start adopting the new things or eventually there will be a huge rift. The people who want to keep the game at their level (just the codices and even no allies) to remain in their own comfort zone are holding it back. They might think they are more competitive but it's not really true, they are more set in their ways.

There has been a lot of ground gained to accept Forge World over the past year or so... It's pretty much the same thing if you think about it in a lot of ways. I know it's more work for the TOs but that is part of the job and comes with the territory.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
For those that want to keep the game like it was in fifth edition you're holding back the game IMO. I don't think GW is going to roll back the game. Sure it is more stuff to have to learn but oh well things change. I like what TSHFT is doing and taking a chance. A lot of comp had been introduced over the past year. This is a big part of the reason why see a handful of specific lists winning over and over again and it's not fair.

"I think the answer going forward will be to just ban or limit very specific things, and let most of everything else in."

I think this is the right way to go forward - start adopting the new things or eventually there will be a huge rift. The people who want to keep the game at their level (just the codices and even no allies) to remain in their own comfort zone are holding it back. They might think they are more competitive but it's not really true, they are more set in their ways.

There has been a lot of ground gained to accept Forge World over the past year or so... It's pretty much the same thing if you think about it in a lot of ways. I know it's more work for the TOs but that is part of the job and comes with the territory.

Okay well why don't we just do away with allies, all codexes and codex supplements and dataslates. We can put ALL the units in one BIG book and then you can just bring whatever you want. Ork lootas, Tau Riptide, a Swarmlord, couple drop pods, but I will load them with necron warriors.... oh wait nevermind I need to be WAAC and the necron transport is better, so lets run that but with vanguard vets coming out of instead. Def need an inquisitor in there....no no wait...JOTWW priest...yep def the way to go.

At some point you lose the background of 40k and you might as well just be playing any other plastic men game. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but "holding the game back"? If that means "holding it back" from going down the road it appears to be going.....I'll take that label

Well , I won't play or play against electronic only rules. Period. So if that extends to tournys , so be it.

It takes time to change too, fellas. People need a period to acclimate to new rules, especially when it is big changes like GW has launched at us, lately.

Tournaments are a different way to play too, as other's have noted.

GW is trying to push sales, hardcore, right now. We want a balanced game that is fun and fair to play. When you assume people coming to the event will bring the most powerful combos they have available to them, and some of those combos are insanely over powering, you have to think twice about letting them in. It is very easy to ruin the tournament experience for people if the insanity goes too far and then you risk everything you've built in your tournament.

You really can't blame TOs for being conservative. They risk a LOT. Being a player and wanting to use some cool combo is a far different perspective.

 Reecius wrote:
. When you assume people coming to the event will bring the most powerful combos they have available to them, and some of those combos are insanely over powering, you have to think twice about letting them in. It is very easy to ruin the tournament experience for people if the insanity goes too far and then you risk everything you've built in your tournament.

I assume you are talking about formations and Escalation, specifically D-Weapons, here. My first thought when reading this was the abusive Battle Brothers matrix. Everything you wrote is what I think about in terms of Battle Brothers in the game right now.

This may be where both sides of the issue are having a disconnect. Some people think the game is already full of insanely over powering combos, I.E. Deathstars through Battle brothers, so what's the harm in adding more.

Other people think the game is not full of insanely over powering combos and formations brings that into the game.

I think a reasonable person can see the game is currently full of over powered combos which break game balance in as much as if you can't do the same overpowering BB combo, you can't compete. These lists also break the force org. chart through allying so breaking it through formations won't alter the way the game is played right now.

 Reecius wrote:
I was actually really surprised people voted down Be'Lakor (Cypher wasn't out yet) honestly. I thought for sure the Formations would get nixed, though.

We are 99% likely going to let characters in for the BAO like Be'Lakor, Cypher, etc.

It is a weird place we are in, right now. The Knight Titan looks bad ass and most of the Super Heavies and Formations are totally fine, but some of them are so insanely OP that it is hard to imagine using them in regular games.

I am going to shoot out the LVO exit poll tonight or tomorrow and we will share the results to get more feedback.

I think the answer going forward will be to just ban or limit very specific things, and let most of everything else in.

We will see what the community thinks.

This news makes me extremely happy. The less I have to play diplomat to field the coolest DP mini ever made the better.

I'm really not worried about knights at all. The Errant in particular is really underwhelming, and it doesn't look like they have any way to win games outside of going for the table as a primary army.

The rules on the Knights look awful unless we're missing something, lol!

@Darth

You make some good points, but I think it more a case of the Devil you know.

While tournaments are healthy, and growing, I see more and more people moving to other games. GW needs to pull a rabbit out of their hat because we're watching the same people coming to our events every year, but playing not GW games. 40K is going strong and I am not worried that it will vanish or anything like that, but it most certainly not the dominant game that it was by a mile. We as TOs are very sensitive to that and don't want to further the changes by opening the door to more insanity.

As for Super Heavies and such, I love them, I really want to use the big boys, but some of them make the game unenjoyable to play. At least to me and the guys we play-test with. Baneblades and such are no big deal, but the Revenant and units like that are so OP it is flat out silly. While some people may disagree I can tell you that many, many folks would not come back to a tournament that allowed that stuff.

 Reecius wrote:
It takes time to change too, fellas. People need a period to acclimate to new rules, especially when it is big changes like GW has launched at us, lately.

Tournaments are a different way to play too, as other's have noted.

GW is trying to push sales, hardcore, right now. We want a balanced game that is fun and fair to play. When you assume people coming to the event will bring the most powerful combos they have available to them, and some of those combos are insanely over powering, you have to think twice about letting them in. It is very easy to ruin the tournament experience for people if the insanity goes too far and then you risk everything you've built in your tournament.

You really can't blame TOs for being conservative. They risk a LOT. Being a player and wanting to use some cool combo is a far different perspective.

The problem is we already have things that are powerful combo's...

And they are single dex, or joined together as allies. They are called Eldar and Tau.

Or Daemonstars, though that isn't as far up as those two.

It's weird hearing "Ban this and that" But not the things that are so actively overpowered that the meta revolves around them.

I haven't had a chance to peruse this whole thread yet, but I wanted to pop in and point out that not all major events are unilaterally banning digital products. I think it's entirely reasonable for events that have or are being run at this point in the year to have gone forward without allowing them, since the first big wave only hit in December. That being said, I know they're under review for other upcoming tournaments.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
It takes time to change too, fellas. People need a period to acclimate to new rules, especially when it is big changes like GW has launched at us, lately.

Tournaments are a different way to play too, as other's have noted.

GW is trying to push sales, hardcore, right now. We want a balanced game that is fun and fair to play. When you assume people coming to the event will bring the most powerful combos they have available to them, and some of those combos are insanely over powering, you have to think twice about letting them in. It is very easy to ruin the tournament experience for people if the insanity goes too far and then you risk everything you've built in your tournament.

You really can't blame TOs for being conservative. They risk a LOT. Being a player and wanting to use some cool combo is a far different perspective.

The problem is we already have things that are powerful combo's...

And they are single dex, or joined together as allies. They are called Eldar and Tau.

Or Daemonstars, though that isn't as far up as those two.

It's weird hearing "Ban this and that" But not the things that are so actively overpowered that the meta revolves around them.

So instead we should add things that make Tau and Eldar more powerful? This is the part I never get. The game is already broken, so why break it even more? IMO adding formations and super heavies, narrows the meta, invalidates a ton of lists, and makes a lot of games a win loss at the list building phase, so much so that games end on turn 2 one way or the other. I'm fine with character data slates, but formations are poorly implemented, and some are stupidly broken. As for super heavies..ld weapons should not existing standard 40k, they negate the usefulness of too many units.. No weapon should deny all saves and cause instant death, and be able to do so for multiple models at once....d was a mechanic designed to speed up apoc games....nothing more.

@Zebio

True, but that doesn't mean we just open the floodgates further.

Try this stuff out, too. A lot of people that advocate for allowing everything haven't even tried it. We always try the new stuff to make at least a partially educated decision as to how the things play in the game. So many people on the net argue purely from theory.

As Rob pointed out, it was way early when this stuff came out, we had a month to adapt and we went conservative, which can hardly be surprising from a TO or player perspective.

But, as Rob said, we all talk and a lot of folks are looking forward towards new events. Rob's events are very permissive and he runs them at 2K, Double FoC, and it is super fun! I really enjoy the way he runs a different event and that is cool.

There's room for lots of styles of events.

 Reecius wrote:


While tournaments are healthy, and growing, I see more and more people moving to other games. GW needs to pull a rabbit out of their hat because we're watching the same people coming to our events every year, but playing not GW games. 40K is going strong and I am not worried that it will vanish or anything like that, but it most certainly not the dominant game that it was by a mile. We as TOs are very sensitive to that and don't want to further the changes by opening the door to more insanity.

Any way for us to see how many Warmachine players attended LVO this year? My group is leaning towards a break from 40k to play Warmachine and I was wondering what the adoption rate of more people attending the tournaments is. We will be hitting Adepticon for 40k but afterwards we plan to dabble with WarmaHordes.

I love 40k but for a balanced tournament setting, its bonkers right now. So this may be a case of the grass is always greener but we feel its time to explore different options while the dust settles on the 40k tournament scene. I really don't envy you big event organizers as you are going to get flak from all sides which ever way the dice fall.