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.

 Reecius wrote:
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.

If you wanted to do it that way, I wouldn't object. It just seemed most fair to have everyone using the same standard. Plus, you catch the next abusive combo before it happens. Who knows what IG holds next month?

I came into this thread expecting a celebration of the proud Irish traditions of infanticide and cannibalism, and instead I got a reasonable proposal for fixing Allies. 0/10, would not read again.

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

You're not punishing codices your punishing abusive lists. The codices themselves will still be more than viable without those characters being able to join BB squads.

Reece, I would agree with that list. Personally I would prefer a change to BB and the Ally Matrix as a whole but I could live with those characters being banned from BB status. Or allow Escalation into the events

The reason that the BB rule should be eliminated is two-fold:


1) It greatly widens the performance level gap between themed armies and hardcore armies.

2) It greatly helps to remove competitive army composition from anything even resembling a force that matches the background fiction of the game.


On point #2: 40K is, and always has been, a game based on it's background. The goal of it's rules, therefore, has been to bring that background to life on the tabletop. Throughout it's long history, those rules have succeeded in varying degrees to accomplish this goal. However, the BB rules reward players for finding Independent Characters that have special rules which can then be used with allied units to produce incredibly effective results. This comboing of IC with allied BB units has absolutely no basis in the background of the game...it is being done *purely* for the rules manipulation potential that it brings.

Therefore, more than ever before, highly competitive armies do not represent anything close to the background presented for the game. This is a problem because in the past, even highly competitive players could create armies that were both incredibly functional, but still represented an army that wasn't out of place within the existing background material. That meant just looking at armies at a tournament was still a celebration of the game's background in general, as well as being a showcase of competitive armies.

The more disconnected highly competitive army compositions get from the source background of the game, the less they inspire players who like the game for it's background. The more it starts to turn into almost chess like quality of just taking certain pieces for your army because they work well and not caring what faction they come from or how ridiculous it is in the universe of 40K to do so.

You might say: 'well it's no big deal if a tournament force composition for an army really matches it's background material...anyone who gets too caught up on that isn't going to win tournaments anyway.'

But that's the point. 40K is a game based on a background, so a good set of rules should mean that a quality army composition should still represent something that is found in the background of the game. When competitive army builds no longer do represent the background of the game, then you potentially lose a chunk of people that do care about that stuff, and it's never a good thing to be losing potential tournament players.


On point #1: Ever since 40K has been played as a tournament game, there have been players that show up to win with highly tuned lists and those players who just show up with an army that they like the look and/or background of (i.e. a themed list) and don't really care about how well it plays.

In the past, the gap between these theme players and the competitive players wasn't *that* huge, and in fact some really talented competitive players could/would bring what would be considered by many to be a themed list and still do really well.

The BB rules have helped to widen this gap to the point where someone playing a themed list really has no chance against an army list that is using BBs to exploit combinations of special rules. This makes those theme players more irrelevant than they ever have in a tournament, which can only be disheartening to those players who do like to bring heavily themed lists. So again, as with point #2, this is the case of the BB rule helping to foster a situation that encourages less players to attend tournaments, because it says that if you like playing with themed army lists, you might as well not even bother attending the tournament.

I second what Yakface has put forth...the baron rolling around with a bunch of warlocks and farseers spits in the face of the reason I got into the game...please do not get me wrong, I attend tourneys all over the east coast looking for competitive games and mostly to socialize...it just used to be that I thought I had a chance at placing well...Now I know my best games will be at the end of tourney's once the BB deathstars have all hit the top tables...However before I personally would advocate sweeping rules changes, I think the meta still needs time to adjust...possibly just a bump in the road...

Eyjio wrote:

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.

Any rules set Matt Ward touches turns to gak. He's like the reverse-King Midas.

 puma713 wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

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.

Any rules set Matt Ward touches turns to gak. He's like the reverse-King Midas.

They turn out better then Kellys and Cruddace however. Except fantasy anyways.

Nice post, yak. Totally agreed... I think many people wouldn't mind a tourney adjusting this BB rule to put a stop to the allied characters shenanigans. Most units are still really viable without it, but become insane with it... it's an easy fix.

It would not deter me from attending an event at all; it would actually incentivize me to go to it.

 RiTides wrote:
Nice post, yak. Totally agreed... I think many people wouldn't mind a tourney adjusting this BB rule to put a stop to the allied characters shenanigans. Most units are still really viable without it, but become insane with it... it's an easy fix.

It would not deter me from attending an event at all; it would actually incentivize me to go to it.

Agreed on all points.

TBH I stopped playing 6th edition because of battle brothers. I don't need to play a fluffy list, but I don't want to play one that goes against the lore either to be competitive. I play dark eldar mostly, so yeah.. F the eldar.

I am hoping the upcoming 7th/not 7th does something to fix it.

I like to have fun, but also like to feel like there is a competitive chance. With many of the "top lists" today there is not much of a chance. It doesn't matter much who is playing them, or what the dice rolls are because the law of averages with enough rerolls works out in favor of rolling more dice.

You end up with pretty much slight variants of the same things at all the top tables in a competitive environment, and this is not because the players are good, they may be. It is because those units and combinations of units are so effecient for their cost that there are not other units that can come close to competing. This is a statement of fact, and will remain so until you see someone win a major event that is not using one of these "overly efficient combinations"

Competitive players that are good will not mourn the loss of access to this combinations, nor will they refuse to attend an event because of them. Competitive players will continue to be competitive and will still place at the top tables, they just wont completely trash the non competitive players at the tournament on the way to those tables. Many of these "competitive players" existed before allies, and will continue to do so if allies are reigned in.

It is obvious that these "overly efficient models" are an issue, because everyone in this thread, and many people outside of commentary on this thread know exactly what they are without them being named. This further shows that these models/combos are completely OTT.

Jimsolo wrote: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.

In principle the idea that 40K is an ever changing game that is constantly self-correcting itself is a romantic concept and has worked that way to a degree in the game's long lifespan, but there is now an incredibly clear indication that the company producing this game has no further interest in making a game that is balanced across it's factions in any way, shape or form.

That fact is clear because GW put out rules for a weapon (D weapons), that are far and away better than any other type of weapon out there, and in the vast majority of the cases they cost no additional points cost over other weapon types. This is the equivalent of saying that you can swap out all the bolters on your Marines for Lascannons for no additional points cost.

The choice to increase the potency of D weapons from the previous edition of Apocalypse without altering their points cost was already an incredibly questionable choice, but it was excused because Apocalypse games are known to be 'just for fun' (even though that should make no difference on whether or not point values should properly represent the abilities of a model). But once GW had the gumption to port those rules over into standard games of 40K via Escalation, they could not have held up a bigger sign saying: 'WE DON'T CARE ABOUT GAME BALANCE AT ALL.'

All indications are that GW will continue to push Lords of War into the main game. While it's fairly easy for people and tournaments to ban using Escalation to avoid ranged D weapons, there is nothing in the expansion itself that suggests GW considers it to be optional...and that is made even more clear by the new Knight rules. If people think GW 'allowed' Knights into the game as non-Lords of War because they don't have ranged 'D' weapons then I would say those people are choosing to delude themselves, plugging their ears with their fingers and yelling 'LA-LA-LA'.

The fact that GW allowed D weapons for no additional points cost into standard 40K via Escalation tells you all you need to know about how they feel about game balance. If they felt that Knights should have ranged weapons based on their fluff, then they would have given them those weapons, plain and simple. If you think they didn't give them ranged D weapons to preserve the delicate balance of the tournament meta-game, then again, all evidence points to the contrary.

GW could not care less about the tournament meta and they continue to push the game further and further away from anything remotely resembling intentional balance across the factions as a whole. And if you don't think that the next edition of the game won't have Lords of War (along with their ranged D weapons), then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

So if GW has no interest in making a balanced game, and in fact keeps pushing the game in the *opposite* direction, then how does it make sense to try to play that game competitively? Super-heavies with ranged D weapons will be 100% legal with no basis for anyone to doubt otherwise at some point. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon enough.

And when that happens, trying to play THAT game competitively means either trying to pack your army full of as many D-weapons as you can and/or only taking units that ignore D weapons (like flyers)...so the tiny slice of units out of each codex that will actually be competitively viable will be teeny-tiny.

Is that the tournament hobby that anyone wants to be involved in? Where tournaments are basically comprised of Revenant armies and Necron flyer hordes with Transcendent C'Tans?

So the point is...if the company making the game isn't interested in making a competitively balanced version of the game, and is actively pushing the game the opposite direction, why does it make any sense to try to play that game against their wishes AND THEN also try to say that we shouldn't change any of their rules because doing so would effectively be ruining game balance (that the company isn't trying to provide)?

GW has said time and time again that the rules for the game are there for the players to use as their own. If you like certain rules, use them, if you don't like other rules, don't use them. They have now really kicked that concept into high gear and are challenging everyone to decide what type of 40K game they are interested in playing. If the answer is: a competitively balanced one, then you're going to need to take your pruning shears to the hedge that is the current set of 40K rules and carve that game out yourselves.

I think its a great idea to stop IC's joining other units not in their book. The other good thing would be to simply limit the amount of buffs a unit can get. A) No unit can ever benefit from more than 1 blessing at a time, nor can any unit have more than 1 malediction on it at time.

There lies the rub... People say they want certain special exceptions on the first pass but then they typically bolt on some more restrictions... It's literally never ending.

Every time I see this thread in the recent list, I just imagine a bunch of marines easting Tau and guardsmen >.>

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:
Every time I see this thread in the recent list, I just imagine a bunch of marines easting Tau and guardsmen >.>

What?

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:
Every time I see this thread in the recent list, I just imagine a bunch of marines easting Tau and guardsmen >.>

What?

http://www.art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:
Every time I see this thread in the recent list, I just imagine a bunch of marines easting Tau and guardsmen >.>

What?

http://www.art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

clearly I am more under the weather than I think if I couldn't pick up on a reference to one of my favorite pieces of political satire ever...

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There lies the rub... People say they want certain special exceptions on the first pass but then they typically bolt on some more restrictions... It's literally never ending.

I don't think that will happen here, but we won't know until an event tries it. Particularly just trying this without a lot of other changes.

But again, you need a TO who's willing to be a guinea pig at the possible risk of losing ticket sales and taking a personal financial hit. An Adepticon might be able to do whatever it wants based on the crazy demand it generates. But most events are in a very different category.

And it's easy for people to say "I'd attend an event with X change." But that's different than actually *doing it.* Competitive players tend to be conservative in nature...they want "good ground" for their tourney army, and may be leery of changes that introduce unseen risk factors that might hinder their chances of finishing well. That's not a criticism -- it's human nature, really.

 gorgon wrote:
But again, you need a TO who's willing to be a guinea pig at the possible risk of losing ticket sales and taking a personal financial hit. An Adepticon might be able to do whatever it wants based on the crazy demand it generates. But most events are in a very different category.

And it's easy for people to say "I'd attend an event with X change." But that's different than actually *doing it.* Competitive players tend to be conservative in nature...they want "good ground" for their tourney army, and may be leery of changes that introduce unseen risk factors that might hinder their chances of finishing well. That's not a criticism -- it's human nature, really.

The competitive players aren't staying home because you nerfed the unfun, broke-ass armies. They'll deal with it and try to find something else. TO's are concerned with getting attendees who know they have no prayer of winning going in, which is the majority.

 gorgon wrote:
But again, you need a TO who's willing to be a guinea pig at the possible risk of losing ticket sales and taking a personal financial hit. An Adepticon might be able to do whatever it wants based on the crazy demand it generates. But most events are in a very different category.

And it's easy for people to say "I'd attend an event with X change." But that's different than actually *doing it.* Competitive players tend to be conservative in nature...they want "good ground" for their tourney army, and may be leery of changes that introduce unseen risk factors that might hinder their chances of finishing well. That's not a criticism -- it's human nature, really.

Again.

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.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
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.

And yet for the last several years, it really seems like the top players are what TOs have been catering to in a lot of events, to me. I'd really like for that to shift, and GW is pushing the envelope and almost forcing TOs to make calls on some things. It could be a good thing, in the end... or at least, work out for the best, by putting to ultimate rest the idea that GW is putting out anything like a tournament-worthy game without needing any tweaks at all for competitive play.

slaede wrote:


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

Have an exault!

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
But again, you need a TO who's willing to be a guinea pig at the possible risk of losing ticket sales and taking a personal financial hit. An Adepticon might be able to do whatever it wants based on the crazy demand it generates. But most events are in a very different category.

And it's easy for people to say "I'd attend an event with X change." But that's different than actually *doing it.* Competitive players tend to be conservative in nature...they want "good ground" for their tourney army, and may be leery of changes that introduce unseen risk factors that might hinder their chances of finishing well. That's not a criticism -- it's human nature, really.

Again.

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.

TOs need everyone. You say "average" and "top" players, but for many events the split is probably more accurately about locals and travelers. There are plenty of people who travel to tourneys that aren't necessarily on the top tables all the time. Travel is expensive, and even the guys who travel a lot can't hit every event. So when the traveling guy with the BB army -- "top player" or not, "top list" or not -- has a choice between an event that allows BB and an event that doesn't, guess which event has the better chance of landing his patronage? Changing the rules at one event doesn't make it a "shifted meta" to adjust to. It just creates differences to other events, which then generate purchasing decisions for those players.

You hope the locals come out and make up the better part of your attendance, but everyone wants those traveling guys too because they really like tournaments and will spend to attend. No one likes giving them reasons *not* to attend, which is all a rules change at a single tournament might create for some of them. Cripes, look at the debates here about FW, comp, prices, etc.

Sure, if you make the event friendlier for the less competitive player, maybe they'll come out and make up any difference. But then do you worry that you're targeting your event to a group of people who are probably less inclined to attend an tournament in the first place? It's potentially heavier lifting. Can it work? Maybe -- to be clear, I'm not saying that it won't. But everything I've seen in all my years playing in and helping organize events says that it's not as easy as "build it and they'll come anyway."

TL;DR All I'm saying is that most TOs would carefully consider the ramifications of doing something very different than everyone else in the circuit, especially when it might not be popular with everyone. That's why everyone's doing surveys.

The best solution here would obviously be for the rumored 7th edition to make some positive changes. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Nothing indicates that "travelers" would be less likely to attend an event tweaking that BB ruling, from what I've seen. Unless there's a poll stashed away somewhere that says otherwise.

People make the same argument for/against FW all the time. Yet several big events either allow, or don't allow, FW and both get traveling players.

So, the connection of allowing / disallowing something either gives or takes away traveling players doesn't hold water, to me... it probably gives at least as many as it takes away, with something "minor" like this.

Everybody can still run their armies- they just can't put their super-character in a unit of their allied detachment.

I probably wouldn't travel for it. Not when there are so many other events I could travel to that would cater to me. Similar to how i won't travel to unrestricted FW events.

(That's right, I brought in FW friends!)

But if the LVO is any indication, enough people have preferences the other way (wanting FW inclusion) that an event can do well either allowing or disallowing FW.

Similarly, I think an event could do well allowing or disallowing BB characters joining allied units... just my take.

Another option is a large tourney taking a risk and having a smaller 'guinea pig' tourney. Smaller events like combat patrols and the like are run all the time alongside the main events. It would be an excellent way to test the waters.

Adepticon's Team Tourney began as a minor sideline event, and now it virtually dominates the attendance.

 Reecius wrote:
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.

You're right about specific models causing issues, but I don't think your solution - targeting those specific units for rules changes - is appropriate. The issue, from my perspective, is the fact that the current Battle Brothers mechanic can be exploited by a handful of army combinations to create power units capable of running roughshod over an entire metagame. This is something called a design constraint; it limits the freedom designers have in creating new units (or altering existing units) during the design process, because the inclusion of something as simple as a single USR can wreak havoc on the game's ecosystem. There's no upside to design constraints: either the codex writer pays attention to them and waters down his book or he ignores them and 35% of the competitive field at every major event is running some Eldar variant.

Addressing the specific abuses of this design constraint today doesn't do anything to protect the game from new abuses tomorrow. Whether savvy players are able to cobble together some combination that's less powerful than what we see today but still potent enough to dominate the game, or a careless designer includes an abusive mechanic in an upcoming codex, addressing the issue on a case-by-case basis is a slippery slope and will inevitably draw you back to the table every time you're prepping for another event.

All of that having been said, I still hope to avoid directly modifying the rules of the game and instead help to create a solution to the stagnant metagame through asymmetrical mission design. I believe that missions are where TOs have the most authority to address these issues, because we're never going to be involved in the GW design process -- in modifying rules we'll always be chasing a bleeding man with a package of band aids.

That's just my $0.02.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

MCRobot wrote:
Another option is a large tourney taking a risk and having a smaller 'guinea pig' tourney. Smaller events like combat patrols and the like are run all the time alongside the main events. It would be an excellent way to test the waters.

Adepticon's Team Tourney began as a minor sideline event, and now it virtually dominates the attendance.

We're doing this for Escalation and Stronhold Assault: on the Friday before our Saturday-Sunday main event we're running a Total War tournament, a 3-round event that allows virtually everything. I'm excited to see the results and to gauge the fun factor of a tournament allowing Lords of War and unrestricted data slates.

MCRobot wrote:
Another option is a large tourney taking a risk and having a smaller 'guinea pig' tourney. Smaller events like combat patrols and the like are run all the time alongside the main events. It would be an excellent way to test the waters.

Adepticon's Team Tourney began as a minor sideline event, and now it virtually dominates the attendance.

Honestly I think the answer is for any event of a decent size to run multiple events that cater to different players.

Hulksmash, for example, has no interest in attending an event that excludes the battle brothers rule, and there are obviously lots of players out there that feel that way.

I, for example, have no interest in attending an event that continues to use the battle brother rules (among other things) because I find that the armies look unrecognizable from the 40k background, and I don't care for that, and I'm sure there are other players out there that feel the same way (or some that are getting there).

So events that can run a more 'pure' tournament that caters to those who want to play that and also run at the same time a more curated tournament that looks to craft the experience to those who prefer to see more themed armies seems like it accomplishes the best of both worlds and keeps encouraging all types of players to attend competitive 40K events.


I'm just interested to see how the high-level competitive players react as GW continues to cram completely broken things into the game. Almost everyone can universally agree not to include ranged D weapons into the tournaments, but what happens if/when GW makes that unabashedly part of the core game? Is there a point where people can recognize that GW is not making any attempt to provide a competitively balanced game and universally look for player-driven change (We're almost at that point, but the fact that Escalation is an expansion is kind of putting the issue off for now)?