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.

My post concerning dataslates generated a fair amount of discussion, and it seemed the overall feeling is that most dataslates are fine. One topic being brought up to address balance issues is to ban battle brothers. Goatboy has suggested this as well as several other prominent players.

Rather than making everybody allies of convenience outright, simply create a house rule that prohibits any independent character from one detachment from joining a unit from any other detachment. You can still cast psychic powers and benefit from warlord traits on your battle brothers, but no Baron with Warlocks on bikes, no fearless IG blobs, no O'vesa star etc...

That gets rid of a lot of shennanigans, but Eldar can still twin-link their Tau allies, DA and SW can twin link their IG allies, Daemons can twin link their CSM allies, etc... It's not abusive, but still allows some benefit for taking fluffier ally combos, and it's completely fair to all factions, assuming Nids one day get an ally...

(Edit: And also we should eat Irish children.)

I like it. I always have.

Kevin, I'm still in favor of ending Battle Brothers all together. I think it's enough of an advantage to add units from a second codex to cover one's weaknesses without allowing those chosen units to affect the USRs of the main force.

Bright Lights,
Coldsteel

Coldsteel wrote:
Kevin, I'm still in favor of ending Battle Brothers all together. I think it's enough of an advantage to add units from a second codex to cover one's weaknesses without allowing those chosen units to affect the USRs of the main force.

Bright Lights,
Coldsteel

I used to agree until the Space Marine codex came out. I think any ruling on allies would need to exclude choices from the Space Marine codex. Not their supplements, just the main codex.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Coldsteel wrote:
Kevin, I'm still in favor of ending Battle Brothers all together. I think it's enough of an advantage to add units from a second codex to cover one's weaknesses without allowing those chosen units to affect the USRs of the main force.

Bright Lights,
Coldsteel

I used to agree until the Space Marine codex came out. I think any ruling on allies would need to exclude choices from the Space Marine codex. Not their supplements, just the main codex.

I would contend that going that far puts those armies without access to divination at a disadvantage against those that do. With apologies to Necrons, Orks, Sisters and Nids.

How about No? Is there really a big problem things like this? What is the problem of the buff mander with other units? Why is the Baron so bad?

slaede wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Coldsteel wrote:
Kevin, I'm still in favor of ending Battle Brothers all together. I think it's enough of an advantage to add units from a second codex to cover one's weaknesses without allowing those chosen units to affect the USRs of the main force.

Bright Lights,
Coldsteel

I used to agree until the Space Marine codex came out. I think any ruling on allies would need to exclude choices from the Space Marine codex. Not their supplements, just the main codex.

I would contend that going that far puts those armies without access to divination at a disadvantage against those that do.

Then amend Battle Brothers to read that no IC can join a unit not from it's codex. Then casting divination is fine just not being a member of the squad. I am not saying get rid of Allies altogether just Battle Brothers.

I replied to the wrong post. Was meant for coldsteel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How about No? Is there really a big problem things like this? What is the problem of the buff mander with other units? Why is the Baron so bad?

Well, a lot of folks seem to think they're a bit game-breaking when combined with certain other units.

There will always be game breakers. Removes the baron? Cool now the deathstar is only super good, not duper. Buffmander is what makes some units gd, like Lascannon Devs or other such units like Dark Reapers.
Fearless IG? OMG, its not like I want my IG blob to fall back because of on bad roll, depriving me of points and one of my few scoring units.

I'd be in favor of this for some events- it certainly does seem to be the main "issue" with battle brothers. It's not a huge tweak, but deals with a lot of aggravating scenarios that have resulted.

I don't see it being widely adopted, but I'd certainly attend an event that decided to try this out.

You could just give allies "Demonic Instability" or whatever so they can have "battle brothers" like Chaos, lol!

Well it's not really a modest proposal. My vote is no.

I have mixed feeling about the idea. I do agree that battle brothers independent characters are where most the problems people have arise, but something like this I would only be ok with it if it would be widely accepted by the vast majority of tournaments. IMO it would not be good for the game if a random GT or two made such drastic rules changes and splintered the game even more.

I do think it's funny though that you called this a modest proposal, I was expecting to find something satirical about eating babies as a solution to the woes of battle brothers.

My post concerning dataslates generated a fair amount of discussion, and it seemed the overall feeling is that most dataslates are fine. One topic being brought up to address balance issues is to ban battle brothers. Goatboy has suggested this as well as several other prominent players.

Rather than making everybody allies of convenience outright, simply create a house rule that prohibits any independent character from one detachment from joining a unit from any other detachment. You can still cast psychic powers and benefit from warlord traits on your battle brothers, but no Baron with Warlocks on bikes, no fearless IG blobs, no O'vesa star etc...

That gets rid of a lot of shennanigans, but Eldar can still twin-link their Tau allies, DA and SW can twin link their IG allies, Daemons can twin link their CSM allies, etc... It's not abusive, but still allows some benefit for taking fluffier ally combos, and it's completely fair to all factions, assuming Nids one day get an ally...

The idea isn't bad, but it is important to examine what specifically the proposal would stop:

-Seer Council would still exist, but lose "Hit and Run", which is pretty crucial. The build could still be used, but players would have to be more careful.

-Screamer-star is untouched.

-O'vesa-star gets neutered pretty hard. Losing the Buffmander is bad for business.

-Cent-star can't go all out via a Buffmander or other characters.

Pure Eldar with Serpents/Wraithknights, Jetbikes is untouched. Standard Taudar can no longer hide a Farseer attached to a Riptide, but is relatively untouched. Daemons/CSM alliances are still potent, and remain untouched. Guard blobs go from endangered species to extinct. Marines with other Marine combos, which aren't all that bad at all, are now weaker. The Inquisition Codex may as well not exist. GK/Crons/Orks all have no bat bros and stay the same. Nids are still Nids.

I think that the idea has some merit as a relatively non-intrusive way of powering down some of the crazier deathstars that have taken over right now. I do think that it requires some careful playtesting before any kind of implementation though.

 JGrand wrote:

My post concerning dataslates generated a fair amount of discussion, and it seemed the overall feeling is that most dataslates are fine. One topic being brought up to address balance issues is to ban battle brothers. Goatboy has suggested this as well as several other prominent players.

Rather than making everybody allies of convenience outright, simply create a house rule that prohibits any independent character from one detachment from joining a unit from any other detachment. You can still cast psychic powers and benefit from warlord traits on your battle brothers, but no Baron with Warlocks on bikes, no fearless IG blobs, no O'vesa star etc...

That gets rid of a lot of shennanigans, but Eldar can still twin-link their Tau allies, DA and SW can twin link their IG allies, Daemons can twin link their CSM allies, etc... It's not abusive, but still allows some benefit for taking fluffier ally combos, and it's completely fair to all factions, assuming Nids one day get an ally...

The idea isn't bad, but it is important to examine what specifically the proposal would stop:

-Seer Council would still exist, but lose "Hit and Run", which is pretty crucial. The build could still be used, but players would have to be more careful.

-Screamer-star is untouched.

-O'vesa-star gets neutered pretty hard. Losing the Buffmander is bad for business.

-Cent-star can't go all out via a Buffmander or other characters.

Pure Eldar with Serpents/Wraithknights, Jetbikes is untouched. Standard Taudar can no longer hide a Farseer attached to a Riptide, but is relatively untouched. Daemons/CSM alliances are still potent, and remain untouched. Guard blobs go from endangered species to extinct. Marines with other Marine combos, which aren't all that bad at all, are now weaker. The Inquisition Codex may as well not exist. GK/Crons/Orks all have no bat bros and stay the same. Nids are still Nids.

I think that the idea has some merit as a relatively non-intrusive way of powering down some of the crazier deathstars that have taken over right now. I do think that it requires some careful playtesting before any kind of implementation though.

Good points all the way around. I think this goes a long way towards ending the most abusive combos without effecting the naturally strong builds and units contained in each codex. I hope the rumored 7th edition in May will address the issues with the entire Ally matrix and BB in particular. A bit pie in the sky I know...

Battle Brothers aren't the problem. Eldar are.

Why do people want to play 3rd edition so badly? Go back to days of Rhino-spam?

No. As a TO, I wouldn't do this. As a player, I wouldn't want it.

It's a game mechanic that people are still adjusting to, but I don't think we should just ban it. The Overwatch rule also gives some armies a distinct advantage over others, and I don't think we should ban that. The Ignores Cover USR is pretty instrumental in making certain armies 'superior' in the eyes of the community, but I don't think we should ban that either.

If a TO actually DID this, I would highly suspect he was attempting to make the tournament less challenging for one or more of his friends.

Instead of fighting change in 40k by banning all the rules from the BRB we don't like, we should try to adapt. It's a living, dynamic game, which is part of what makes it so great, and part of why it has endured for as long as it has. Let's not throw that away just because a new change makes us a little uncomfortable.

Jim, from another thread that I believe applies here.

mikhaila wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I have been playing in tournaments for a while and this is the first edition I can remember that TOs are struggling with how to run their tournaments. I think that is very telling as well, as is the simple fact that threads like this exist at all.

This is a good point. In years past there were things you debated about, but they look so very small in hindsight compared to today.

GW is tossing rules up online, putting out new codices, and supplements at a rapid pace. And they consider them all to be core 40k rules. Because it's all about selling as many models each month as possible.

So does a TO include it all , when the only reason some rules exist is because someone at GW wanted to up sales by getting people to buy 6 riptides? But then the guy that bought them wants to play them, doesn't he?
Do you cave and let the guy that bought a Warhound get to use it? Or the guy with the cardboard scratchbuilt titan play too, because it shouldn't be 'pay to win' ? Hell, does a TO even have access to all the rules people want put in? So much fun having to buy an endless collection of GW downloads, Codices, FW books, just so you can work to put on a tournament and not get to play yourself...

Used to be we argued about playing 1750 or 1850, and how much terrain to use.

You're over simplifying the issues. I would argue that those people opposed to changing the single most abusive aspect of the game don't want to do it out of their own, or their friends, best interests because those people, or friends, are currently abusing the BB rules.

How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

OverwatchCNC wrote:You're over simplifying the issues. I would argue that those people opposed to changing the single most abusive aspect of the game don't want to do it out of their own, or their friends, best interests because those people, or friends, are currently abusing the BB rules.

A fair point, and no way to defend against it with anything other than a "nuh-uh!"

I think that we can argue about whether or not to ban dataslates, or Escalation, or any other add-on material. But when we start talking about banning core rules from the main rulebook, it's definitely crossing a line into different territory. Ultimately, I can't support it, and would be very leery about playing it a tournament that did.

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

You can only abuse the rules if the abuse is allowed within them. Otherwise you're breaking the rules, not abusing them.

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

Nevermind Jim addressed it.

Jimsolo wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:You're over simplifying the issues. I would argue that those people opposed to changing the single most abusive aspect of the game don't want to do it out of their own, or their friends, best interests because those people, or friends, are currently abusing the BB rules.

A fair point, and no way to defend against it with anything other than a "nuh-uh!"

I think that we can argue about whether or not to ban dataslates, or Escalation, or any other add-on material. But when we start talking about banning core rules from the main rulebook, it's definitely crossing a line into different territory. Ultimately, I can't support it, and would be very leery about playing it a tournament that did.

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

You can only abuse the rules if the abuse is allowed within them. Otherwise you're breaking the rules, not abusing them.

Most events already change the core rules. Are your events using Mysterious terrain?

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

Nevermind Jim addressed it.

Jimsolo wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:You're over simplifying the issues. I would argue that those people opposed to changing the single most abusive aspect of the game don't want to do it out of their own, or their friends, best interests because those people, or friends, are currently abusing the BB rules.

A fair point, and no way to defend against it with anything other than a "nuh-uh!"

I think that we can argue about whether or not to ban dataslates, or Escalation, or any other add-on material. But when we start talking about banning core rules from the main rulebook, it's definitely crossing a line into different territory. Ultimately, I can't support it, and would be very leery about playing it a tournament that did.

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

You can only abuse the rules if the abuse is allowed within them. Otherwise you're breaking the rules, not abusing them.

Most events already change the core rules. Are your events using Mysterious terrain?

Some events do. But it's a bad comparison anyway, because mysterious terrain's inclusion or exclusion isn't something that tends to affect decisions about attending -- i.e. ticket sales.

TOs have a real dilemma with a lot of this stuff right now. Try to rein in some aspects of 6th, and you may make the more average tourney goer happier at the cost of losing more competitive players who don't like having their tourney build messed with. Do nothing and you may keep the competitive guys but lose the average player who's tired of facing Baron von Seerstar.

It's a really tough decision, complicated by the fact that people don't agree on the worst problems in the game right now. And it's not easy to say "damn the torpedoes" with thousands of dollars at stake.

 JGrand wrote:


The idea isn't bad, but it is important to examine what specifically the proposal would stop:

-Seer Council would still exist, but lose "Hit and Run", which is pretty crucial. The build could still be used, but players would have to be more careful.

-Screamer-star is untouched.

-O'vesa-star gets neutered pretty hard. Losing the Buffmander is bad for business.

-Cent-star can't go all out via a Buffmander or other characters.

Pure Eldar with Serpents/Wraithknights, Jetbikes is untouched. Standard Taudar can no longer hide a Farseer attached to a Riptide, but is relatively untouched. Daemons/CSM alliances are still potent, and remain untouched. Guard blobs go from endangered species to extinct. Marines with other Marine combos, which aren't all that bad at all, are now weaker. The Inquisition Codex may as well not exist. GK/Crons/Orks all have no bat bros and stay the same. Nids are still Nids.

I think that the idea has some merit as a relatively non-intrusive way of powering down some of the crazier deathstars that have taken over right now. I do think that it requires some careful playtesting before any kind of implementation though.

Indeed. The Seer Council becomes extremely susceptible to getting tarpitted by an Ironclad without hit and run. It only works because of the Baron. This is already the major weakness of the Screamerstar. Every turn it isn't flying around wiping something out is a victory for the other guy.

The Screamerstar and Seer Councils would be further nerfed by the 2+/4+ that is gaining popularity as a way to deal with that bit of brokenness.

Disallowing the Buffmander from joining a O'vesa simply prevents Tau from granting TL shooting with ignores cover and tank hunters to two Riptides instead of one, but can still be used in a Farsight bomb, or with a single Riptide, or Broadsides. Beaststars would be completely untouched, but they're not particularly abusive in the first place. (Edit, well I guess you couldn't attach the Farseer with the Shard to make it fearless anymore.)

My original post is in reaction to having read multiple prominent figures in the community suggest making all BB into allies of convenience. I suggest a less heavy-handed version.

 gorgon wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

Nevermind Jim addressed it.

Jimsolo wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:You're over simplifying the issues. I would argue that those people opposed to changing the single most abusive aspect of the game don't want to do it out of their own, or their friends, best interests because those people, or friends, are currently abusing the BB rules.

A fair point, and no way to defend against it with anything other than a "nuh-uh!"

I think that we can argue about whether or not to ban dataslates, or Escalation, or any other add-on material. But when we start talking about banning core rules from the main rulebook, it's definitely crossing a line into different territory. Ultimately, I can't support it, and would be very leery about playing it a tournament that did.

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

You can only abuse the rules if the abuse is allowed within them. Otherwise you're breaking the rules, not abusing them.

Most events already change the core rules. Are your events using Mysterious terrain?

Some events do. But it's a bad comparison anyway, because mysterious terrain's inclusion or exclusion isn't something that tends to affect decisions about attending -- i.e. ticket sales.

TOs have a real dilemma with a lot of this stuff right now. Try to rein in some aspects of 6th, and you may make the more average tourney goer happier at the cost of losing more competitive players who don't like having their tourney build messed with. Do nothing and you may keep the competitive guys but lose the average player who's tired of facing Baron von Seerstar.

It's a really tough decision, complicated by the fact that people don't agree on the worst problems in the game right now. And it's not easy to say "damn the torpedoes" with thousands of dollars at stake.

I am fairly certain 0 of the GTs, and even most RTs, run Straight Book missions. Few of them run the missions with Player Placed Terrain, Mysterious Terrain, or the correct sequence of events for placing fortifications, rolling traits, placing objectives, or choosing sides. Because going by the book means having a less competitive game that feels more lopsided from the get go. The way BB work creates the same situation for most people who come up against lists abusing the BB rules and Allies Matrix. If TOs are more than willing to tweak one aspect of the core book, and every one of them does in one way or another, why not fix the single biggest imposition to balanced games? Mysterious Terrain, along with all my other examples, have far less impact on the playability, enjoyment, and competitive nature of the game than the BB and Allies Matrix.

The average players are who TOs need. The top players will play whatever the shifted meta tells them to play next. They will buy it, paint it (or pay for it to be painted) and play it. Those top players aren't going anywhere.

I think if you wanted to go this route, you don't need sweeping changes per se. For example, is a SM character in an IG blob really that bad? I don't think so.

It is certain, specific models that cause issues.

The Baron.
O'Vessa
Buffmander
Farseer

To a lesser extent, Coteaz.

Those are the primary troublemakers that cause the truly insane combos to pop up.

But then you are just punishing certain codexes and you look like you are playing favorites

 JGrand wrote:
Guard blobs go from endangered species to extinct.

What about the meta changed to make these cease to exist, by the way? Tony Kopach won Nova with it and now you never see them?

Very nice post, just had a question about that part.

Also, I agree with hotsauceman that punishing certain characters is less preferable to simply not allowing allied characters to join units from the other detachment. It's such an easy fix that stops the vast majority of stupid combos, and is applied evenly across the board. It's certainly much better than simply making all battle brothers into allies of convenience! Does the job in a less heavy-handed way, as slaede said.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But then you are just punishing certain codexes and you look like you are playing favorites

Yes because blanket bans work so well when the main issue is a few very specific things.

These few combo's are of the 'This actively changes the meta so much that everyone has to revolve around it or die.' sort

Yeah it looks like favorites.. Because a few bad apples are going to spoil that bunch. You don't just toss the whole thing out when you know which ones are bad.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But then you are just punishing certain codexes and you look like you are playing favorites

That's because it's logical to do so when those "favorites" are wiping the floor at tournaments. If one piece of something is broken and another isn't, you only throw out the broken bits if it's possible to do so. Your earlier arguments to this effect are also silly:

Removes the baron? Cool now the deathstar is only super good, not duper.

Actually, it's far worse, as it's not that good in combat - being stuck there ruins most of the uses of it which make it so tough.

Buffmander is what makes some units gd, like Lascannon Devs or other such units like Dark Reapers.

So? Virus bomb in 2e made terrible armies win, yet it was banned because it made the best even less beatable. You don't analyse things by looking at the reasonable combinations, you look at them with the best possible. That's like looking at the collapse of Enron, then saying nothing needed to be done because most companies didn't mess up with the same tools. So? It's meaningless - they're too good in conjunction with some units, lesser ones are irrelevant.

Fearless IG? OMG, its not like I want my IG blob to fall back because of on bad roll, depriving me of points and one of my few scoring units.

Tough luck? Almost every other horde needs to deal with falling back in some form, why on earth should IG be the sole exception? Plus, if you have few scoring units with an IG/SM combination... what on Earth are you playing?! Morale is in the game for a reason and, though GW seems to like giving everyone immunity to it, it should bear some impact on the game.

Something definitely needs doing about these combinations. I really don't see 40k continuing in its current state much longer without a substantial comp consideration. The rules are in a worse shape than Fantasy, which has almost died its death already sadly; let's not let the same happen to 40k.

What about the meta changed to make these cease to exist, by the way? Tony Kopach won Nova with it and now you never see them?

Very nice post, just had a question about that part.

Thanks! To answer your question, Tau and Eldar came around. The Guard Blob was a nice response to flyers (specifically Cron Air), which didn't have the volume of fire to put them down. The ability to get cover easily via a 50 point Aegis helped a ton too. As of now, Tau/Eldar can easily drop half a blob in a turn. It isn't necessarily a dead unit, but it is no longer as good as it was.