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.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

carmachu wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
To all you Deathstar haters out there: Go run your own 5th edition tournament, kthxbye.

JY2 complaining about balance, that's a new one

The same tools are available to every player. It's up to people to best use them. It's not like you can't buy and build a deathstar of your own. If you're whining about combos, maybe the tournament scene isn't for you.

Still not sure how FMC spam topped out, but Adepticon had a helluva odd mission pack. I doubt his list would place in a UK setting.

Wow, real mature response. *rolls eyes*

Here's the thing- not everyone wants a deathstar. Further still I shook my head at all but3 lists of uing multiple books. Maybe 'm a grogand, but 40k has jumped theshark as far as I can tell.

You know a lot of the people who run these lists (myself included) arnt very fond of them and don't think they are very fun or good for the game and are activity trying to figure out ways to rebalance the game. That said we arnt going to stop brining what wins to top level gts ( some players have) you can't fault competitive players for trying to win a competitive event.

Sure we can, it's called taking responsibility for your own actions. It's easy in life to solve your problems by throwing another person under a bus, even if it's within the rules but that that doesn't make it right.

Players should take a long hard look at their lists before attending an event and ask if it's whats best for the community.

It's not like many people outside those few top tables care who wins these events. Winning at a broken game is bittersweet to say the least. Making all your opponents love the game more by showing personal restraint and a higher level of integrity should be the goal. Instead it has devolved into a number by a list of names on TOF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

You know a lot of the people who run these lists (myself included) arnt very fond of them and don't think they are very fun or good for the game and are activity trying to figure out ways to rebalance the game. That said we arnt going to stop brining what wins to top level gts ( some players have) you can't fault competitive players for trying to win a competitive event.

Didn't say I fault you for running what needs to win, but I also don't have to support you, tournements or GW while having rule sets I find sucky either. My free time is too precious to waste time, money and energy building and playing something I don't like or consider fun just for the sake of winning. but to each their own.

I agree, this is also why so many people I know have stopped playing.

Remember these events are highly competitive national competitions, this is not a local rtt we are talking about (which I agree, restraint needs to be shown). You can disagree with people brining the hardest stuff they can come up with, but I don't think you can go as far as saying they are ruining events. There were plenty of other things at adepticon to do if the championships were not your thing.

 krootman. wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

carmachu wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
To all you Deathstar haters out there: Go run your own 5th edition tournament, kthxbye.

JY2 complaining about balance, that's a new one

The same tools are available to every player. It's up to people to best use them. It's not like you can't buy and build a deathstar of your own. If you're whining about combos, maybe the tournament scene isn't for you.

Still not sure how FMC spam topped out, but Adepticon had a helluva odd mission pack. I doubt his list would place in a UK setting.

Wow, real mature response. *rolls eyes*

Here's the thing- not everyone wants a deathstar. Further still I shook my head at all but3 lists of uing multiple books. Maybe 'm a grogand, but 40k has jumped theshark as far as I can tell.

You know a lot of the people who run these lists (myself included) arnt very fond of them and don't think they are very fun or good for the game and are activity trying to figure out ways to rebalance the game. That said we arnt going to stop brining what wins to top level gts ( some players have) you can't fault competitive players for trying to win a competitive event.

Sure we can, it's called taking responsibility for your own actions. It's easy in life to solve your problems by throwing another person under a bus, even if it's within the rules but that that doesn't make it right.

Players should take a long hard look at their lists before attending an event and ask if it's whats best for the community.

It's not like many people outside those few top tables care who wins these events. Winning at a broken game is bittersweet to say the least. Making all your opponents love the game more by showing personal restraint and a higher level of integrity should be the goal. Instead it has devolved into a number by a list of names on TOF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

You know a lot of the people who run these lists (myself included) arnt very fond of them and don't think they are very fun or good for the game and are activity trying to figure out ways to rebalance the game. That said we arnt going to stop brining what wins to top level gts ( some players have) you can't fault competitive players for trying to win a competitive event.

Didn't say I fault you for running what needs to win, but I also don't have to support you, tournements or GW while having rule sets I find sucky either. My free time is too precious to waste time, money and energy building and playing something I don't like or consider fun just for the sake of winning. but to each their own.

I agree, this is also why so many people I know have stopped playing.

Remember these events are highly competitive national competitions, this is not a local rtt we are talking about (which I agree, restraint needs to be shown). You can disagree with people brining the hardest stuff they can come up with, but I don't think you can go as far as saying they are ruining events. There were plenty of other things at adepticon to do if the championships were not your thing.

First off, I apologize if it seemed I was calling you out. I wasn't trying too.

I see your point, but it is a bit of a cop out. I understand wanting to win but this is WAAC list building in a lot of cases. Player responsibility is still an important aspect at every level of competition. You don't get a pass just because its a bigger event. The event is there for all types and as such each player should aspire to make the day as enjoyable as possible. When lists start to devolve into whatever cuts the edge closest to gain an edge, you may need to take a step back and reflect. I am not judging mind you, I just don't think players at the "top" have a right to complain when they aren't even trying to mitigate the issue themselves. Reformating the game ad nauseum because a few players won't act responsibly is the wrong route IMO.

Again, none of this is directed to you necessarily.

People will always bring the best lists, and it's not just a few players, imo. GW is only going to become more extreme in oddball releases, and a source limit brings some sanity back to tourney lists.

I don't think so. Really it will just shift the bar. It still takes the same diligence for players to be up to date with 2 as a limit as it would with no limit because you never know what combo is coming.

 RiTides wrote:
People will always bring the best lists, and it's not just a few players, imo. GW is only going to become more extreme in oddball releases, and a source limit brings some sanity back to tourney lists.

That's really it, GW has abandoned the idea of even trying to balance the game and worse yet, abandoned tournament players to govern themselves, and no one has step to the plate to keep the game sane. They just went slowed and made it feel more like MtG

 Red Corsair wrote:

First off, I apologize if it seemed I was calling you out. I wasn't trying too.

I see your point, but it is a bit of a cop out. I understand wanting to win but this is WAAC list building in a lot of cases. Player responsibility is still an important aspect at every level of competition. You don't get a pass just because its a bigger event. The event is there for all types and as such each player should aspire to make the day as enjoyable as possible. When lists start to devolve into whatever cuts the edge closest to gain an edge, you may need to take a step back and reflect. I am not judging mind you, I just don't think players at the "top" have a right to complain when they aren't even trying to mitigate the issue themselves. Reformating the game ad nauseum because a few players won't act responsibly is the wrong route IMO.

Again, none of this is directed to you necessarily.

A player can't mitigate the issue themselves if they still want to have a competitive chance in the event. Its a collective action problem: unless everyone is forced to play nice, you get an advantage in playing 'mean'.
Plus, what some people call 'WAAC list building', to others is simply 'not gimping yourself'. Building lists with synergy and the ability to take anything on is a big part of the game.


As for TO's restricting what is allowed in the tournament - you really need to, if you want to have any kind of a fun game. Have you seen what the game looks like if people bring ranged D weapons? It's really boring. If 2 people have ranged D weapons it is a case of 'who got first turn': if only 1 has a ranged D weapon, you have approximately 1 chance to take it out before the game dies. D-weapons seem like the ultimate counter to Deathstars, but games with them tend to be similarly boring and one-sided.

I think the difficulty TO's are facing now is that there is not really any one thing that is universally overpowered, save for perhaps re-rollable 2++. Combining characters from multiple Codexes into a single unit? It makes devastating death-stars for Eldar/Tau, Eldar/Dark Eldar, Tau/SM... but on the other hand it makes very fluffy units for Inquisitors/Sisters of Battle. D-Weapons are super powerful - but now that Imperial Knights is a bonafide Codex you can't just unilaterally ban Strength D. Most dataslates or formations aren't bad at all - but the ones that are good are VERY good - but there is now a Codex which contains formations at its core.

IMO the problems with the game need to be solved with a scalpel - but the only tool the community accept TO's using is a hammer. And that view from the community is not unjustified - it just makes the problem nigh unsolvable.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
People will always bring the best lists, and it's not just a few players, imo. GW is only going to become more extreme in oddball releases, and a source limit brings some sanity back to tourney lists.

That's really it, GW has abandoned the idea of even trying to balance the game and worse yet, abandoned tournament players to govern themselves, and no one has step to the plate to keep the game sane. They just went slowed and made it feel more like MtG

To be fair, MtG does alot of play testing to balance their mechanics. But even formats that were originally casual become WAAC when people start mining it for combos to exploit (Elder Dragon Highlander anyone?)/

 WarOne wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
People will always bring the best lists, and it's not just a few players, imo. GW is only going to become more extreme in oddball releases, and a source limit brings some sanity back to tourney lists.

That's really it, GW has abandoned the idea of even trying to balance the game and worse yet, abandoned tournament players to govern themselves, and no one has step to the plate to keep the game sane. They just went slowed and made it feel more like MtG

To be fair, MtG does alot of play testing to balance their mechanics. But even formats that were originally casual become WAAC when people start mining it for combos to exploit (Elder Dragon Highlander anyone?)/

Yeah Ive seen the type, the point I was trying to make is that they try and find the stupidest combos possible and then roll with it like they are a genius. Grand tournaments used to be won by unassuming armies by generals with brains in their heads. Not armies where half the work is already done and you're just along for the ride.

It is almost like GW is trying to breed the stupidest players (and customers) possible, so that they just accept any amounts of bulshit.

I find the attitudes of some posters in this thread inexplicable. My approach to the game places a much greater emphasis on fluffy lists and 'narrative' than building a list designed to stomp face. Also, painting and collecting are my main focus, with gaming almost an excuse to use those models I spent hours on.

However to accuse those players who build power lists of being damaging to the game is ludicrous, short-sighted and elitist. Firstly, not everyone places a high emphasis on painting and modelling. For some, this is just a chore to get through to be able to play the game. What right does anyone have to tell them that this is the wrong approach? It might be different to mine, but it's equally valid. What if they got their army commission painted? Would this be wrong to and mean that they're not proper gamers?

Also, a White Scars biker army is very fluffy, and until fairly recently was only taken by real fluff bunnies as it wasn't a competitive build at all. Eldar seercouncil is also fluffy. Eldar, Dark Eldar and Inquisition is a bit silly, but it doesn't take much effort to write a short piece of background to make it believable, e.g. Tyranid invasion fleet about to destory a subsector which also has an Eldar craftworld and a Dark Eldar world. The Inquisition worked with the Eldar during the 13th Black Crusade too, and there are examples in the fluff of Inquisitors going over to Tau which could justify these allies.

Also, to suggest that power lists are a new phenomenon is completely false. I was reading a White Dwarf from around 15 years ago where a Chinese tournament winner laid the smackdown on Phil Kelly with a very 'beardy' [that's what they called cheese back then] Eldar list. Interestingly Eldar were a very strong codex back then to. If this approach was damaging to the game then it's still managed to survive. I think the only difference is the growth of the internet which has put a spotlight on these power builds.

Finally, it's a tournament. What do you expect? For these people, competition is what 40k is all about. Tournaments were always going to be 'cheese' 'beard' fests. No-one has the right to tell other people how to play their hobby

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Finally, it's a tournament. What do you expect? For these people, competition is what 40k is all about. Tournaments were always going to be 'cheese' 'beard' fests. No-one has the right to tell other people how to play their hobby

I think the thing is that we'd like to see a larger variety of lists present at the top levels of competition. It's not the fault of the players for choosing powerful lists - its the fault of the game for having so few powerful lists (or rather, a few lists which are so much more powerful than others).

I agree, there's nothing wrong with folks taking the most powerful lists available to them, and at a competitive event that it what is going to happen (and has in fact always, except when soft scores were in play, and then it was just shifted).

The real question is, does it make sense for TOs to put out a restriction that GW refuses to, such as "2 sources per army" or "2 sources per army plus a few exceptions" (Belakor). I think we've definitely reached that point.

I'd still prefer a 3 source limit with Knights being an ally instead of a special detachment but now that my guard have their own psykers and fearless models I can at least play my army at 2 sources.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Also, a White Scars biker army is very fluffy, and until fairly recently was only taken by real fluff bunnies as it wasn't a competitive build at all. Eldar seercouncil is also fluffy. Eldar, Dark Eldar and Inquisition is a bit silly, but it doesn't take much effort to write a short piece of background to make it believable, e.g. Tyranid invasion fleet about to destory a subsector which also has an Eldar craftworld and a Dark Eldar world. The Inquisition worked with the Eldar during the 13th Black Crusade too, and there are examples in the fluff of Inquisitors going over to Tau which could justify these allies.

That totally explains why the impromptu alliance of I can't believe they're not Chaos Dark Eldar, regular Eldar, and Inquisition are fighting the White Scars biker army across the table... not. I'm fine with explanations that stretch (to put it mildly) the imagination and make Matt Ward stories seem logical but the allies system is way too abusable and nonsensical (one time necrons and BA fought together in one widely panned story so now they're BFF???!?) and the dataslates and quasi detachments ignoring the FOC is just plain broken. That already ignores the fact that multiple sources just throws any semblance of a single codex having weaknesses and strengths (like IG in close combat) out into the garbage and is bad enough. I hope GW fixes both with the future 7th edition (whether this summer or later). Other than lords of war, all that stuff should just fit on one FOC. I hope GW fixes both with the future 7th edition (whether this summer or later). Other than lords of war, all that stuff should just fit on one FOC and the list of what counts as battle brothers needs to be severely curtailed.

 warboss wrote:

I'm fine with explanations that stretch (to put it mildly) the imagination and make Matt Ward stories seem logical but the allies system is way too abusable and nonsensical (one time necrons and BA fought together in one widely panned story so now they're BFF???!?) and the dataslates and quasi detachments ignoring the FOC is just plain broken. That already ignores the fact that multiple sources just throws any semblance of a single codex having weaknesses and strengths (like IG in close combat) out into the garbage and is bad enough.

 warboss wrote:
I hope GW fixes both with the future 7th edition (whether this summer or later). Other than lords of war, all that stuff should just fit on one FOC. I hope GW fixes both with the future 7th edition (whether this summer or later). Other than lords of war, all that stuff should just fit on one FOC and the list of what counts as battle brothers needs to be severely curtailed.

You contradict yourself too much here. How can you say you can agree with Matt Ward fluff AND say you hope GW fixes "anything"!?

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

 warboss wrote:

I'm fine with explanations that stretch (to put it mildly) the imagination and make Matt Ward stories seem logical but the allies system is way too abusable and nonsensical (one time necrons and BA fought together in one widely panned story so now they're BFF???!?) and the dataslates and quasi detachments ignoring the FOC is just plain broken. That already ignores the fact that multiple sources just throws any semblance of a single codex having weaknesses and strengths (like IG in close combat) out into the garbage and is bad enough.

 warboss wrote:
I hope GW fixes both with the future 7th edition (whether this summer or later). Other than lords of war, all that stuff should just fit on one FOC. I hope GW fixes both with the future 7th edition (whether this summer or later). Other than lords of war, all that stuff should just fit on one FOC and the list of what counts as battle brothers needs to be severely curtailed.

You contradict yourself too much here. How can you say you can agree with Matt Ward fluff AND say you hope GW fixes "anything"!?

You're misunderstanding my post. I don't agree with the Matt Ward style armies we're seeing coming out of events like Adepticon in general but I'm fine with them in one off fluff narrative type battles where two people who know each other agree to them ahead of time (like people did in 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions with opponent's permission). That is a different story from having them as a mandatory core part of the rules being used across the table in a pickup game with strangers built solely for mathhammer purposes.

This was my first Adepticon, and 40k tournaments of any kind.

The great part about Adepticon was the variety. You could play in the hard-as-nails championship, the 40k friendly, the 2-player Doubles Front, one of the 4 or 5 400 point skirmish tournaments, the 4-player team events, or the Titan events.

Pick your poison. I really enjoyed it, and will try my bestest best to get into the friendly and the 4-player team events next year. I liked that they modified their missions from the rule book mission. I found the new primary and secondary objectives to be challenging and fun, and I don't think I'm alone in that regard.

As for local tournaments, I like the rules posted earlier from Reecius'. In fact, as I'm new to Chicago and just joined the Adeptus Windy City forums, I notice that those exact rules are being implemented in their next tournament. I hope to attend one, soon.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Eldar seercouncil is also fluffy.

Considering it was a couple Eldar Codexes ago that said 'Seer council's are too old and proud to be racing around on jetbikes' and it was not something they were legally allowed to take.....the current incarnation of them is hard to call 'fluffy'. Maybe I'm looking too deep into it, but it became an option and suddenly used for the next two editions not because it was written in fluff sections or novels as being done by the councils, but solely because of the power level.

I will say that certain armies of Eldar using multiple Serpents is fluffy however. Eldar troop mobility is their forte.

After adepticon there is alot of talk about how unbalance the tourney scene is but, there is always talk about how unbalance the tourney scene is after large tournaments as alot of big fish in small ponds are humbled and some lash out . My thing is everytime I want to build a list I have what I call the Coteaz problem. I play Marines so when I get to the point where I want to add troop choices I think I can get 5 marines in a rhino for 105 double that I am looking at 210 but I run into the Coteaz problem which says I can get Coteaz (access to divination) and 2 cheap scoring units for 214. Its sad that 3 acolytes have the same durability as 5 space marines but with the current meta its true, so what do you guys think about the Coteaz problem?

I think there is a lot of belly aching going on these days. If you bring back comp it will be a lot worse as each TO can nerf whatever they personally don't like. I find it funny how we have finally gone full circle... it wasn't that long ago some people were all up in arms constantly proclaiming that the major tournaments were nothing more than hobby events and not really competitive. It just goes to show people never really appreciate what they have.

Who said anything about comp?

A source limit is just that, a limit applied evenly across the board. Comp used to imply a lot of subjectivity... this would have none of that.

CKO- The "Coteaz problem" is a good way of putting it. A source limit addresses that because if you want him you'll have to use up your one extra "source" slot, making it a little dearer even if it is a points-efficient option, as you're giving up taking something else to take it.

 RiTides wrote:
Who said anything about comp?

A source limit is just that, a limit applied evenly across the board. Comp used to imply a lot of subjectivity... this would have none of that.

CKO- The "Coteaz problem" is a good way of putting it. A source limit addresses that because if you want him you'll have to use up your one extra "source" slot, making it a little dearer even if it is a points-efficient option, as you're giving up taking something else to take it.

Um... correct a source limit IS a form of comp. And comp didn't strive for subjectivity, that just ended up being the result no matter how hard you try to keep it fair when there are so may army books. The same thing applies to a 2 source system, its a broad stroke to tame one major issue, battle bros. It's beyond me why BB isn't just comped instead. It solves the problems even 2 source leaves open.


Like I said, your already changing the way 40k is meant to be played, at least do it right if your going to bother.

Yes the source limit is definitely a form of comp because it inherently restricts what you can take.

Call it what you like, it or another fix is sorely needed for tournies. GW just doesn't care about them anymore (to the point of not even having FAQs on their site atm). Someone has to pick up the slack, and it's TOs.

There is the possibility they will release some new FAQs. I wouldn't bet on it but on the other hand GW can't ever catch a break on the Internet. I'm not necessarily against two sources but on the other hand it does impose some limitations. For instance I really like the data slates for both Be'lakor and Cypher - I think they are balanced and should be included along with another formation so that could be up to four sources. I like what TexasCon is doing and it's total comp. It's just one of those things you'll probably either be for or against depending upon the specific format. For example the few tournies I've seen that allow Escalation have bombed hard... There's not much market for it so far. There is also Forge World which is potentially another source. My point was to illustrate how things are coming full circle. You are right on the money - it's up to the TOs which has worked rather well overall so far. I'm not a naysayer by any means but the pendulum is starting to swing back in the other direction now and this is just the start. I try to keep an open mind.

 RiTides wrote:
Call it what you like, it or another fix is sorely needed for tournies. GW just doesn't care about them anymore (to the point of not even having FAQs on their site atm). Someone has to pick up the slack, and it's TOs.

It depends on your view point. Most events have more then one track now much like MTG. Competitive, casual and then smaller and larger scale and themed. I personally don't understand why the competitive track needs any comping to be honest. If you want bragging rights as being the best of the best at tough as nails 40k you don't do it by removing threats from the system. If it gets old try the casual.

I honestly think all events should have one track that's not even comped in the missions, just RAW 40k with FAQ tweaks where rules have issues. Its becoming more and more grey what 40k even is anymore at some of these events. They all look so different I mean. In the end each event will listen to it's exit polling though so its nothing to be too concerned with.

How did your bugs fair BTW, I keep forgetting to ask? They turned out stellar!

Thanks for asking, Red Corsair . We ended up in the top half (just barely) of the team tournament, which I was very happy with! Our soft scores helped, though

Dozer, glad you have an open mind about it, and I agree, the pendulum is swinging back a bit. Red, I'd say only large events have multiple tracks, and there you could certainly have one absolute no restrictions event (like the Adepticon Gladiator?). But for most events I think some sanity check is needed with all the rules sources GW is throwing into the mix now... again, even just for the sake of sanity lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I'm not necessarily against two sources but on the other hand it does impose some limitations. For instance I really like the data slates for both Be'lakor and Cypher - I think they are balanced and should be included along with another formation so that could be up to four sources.

I think most suggestions I have seen allow character/unit data slates without counting them as a source, so that would be good to go.

What is the problem? I thought there was enough deviation between the list that there would be less complaining. In Magic the Gathering there are 3-6 types of decks that dominate each format and I would like to know why it should be any different in a competitive 40k tournament scene? Are there crazy good combinations in 40k yes, are there crazy good cards in card games that everyone uses yes, what is the difference?

The problem is simple alot of people are really good at this game because they dominate their local area but, when the big events come around they are humbled by the Nick Nanavati and Tony Kopachs of the world. Your losing to the best of the best, your good they are great, they are the elite of 40k and no rule change is going to change that. I have never played these guys before but boy do I want to because not only do they win, they win so bad that their opponents wants to change the rules because they know their is no way in hell they can win if they had to face that again. Notice how I said face "that again", because players that are good will never admit they loss to a superior player or better tactics they will always blame whatever "that again" is at that time ("that again" is constantly changing), while the elite loses and blame themselves.

Any tournament with severe restrictions turns 40k into a sport that has judges, and I can care less about those type of sports. Give me football, soccer, or basketball I do not want to play ice skating. Who cares who wins those type of tournaments with restrictions, its like saying that skate board rider is more athletic than Lebron James.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There is the possibility they will release some new FAQs. I wouldn't bet on it but on the other hand GW can't ever catch a break on the Internet. I'm not necessarily against two sources but on the other hand it does impose some limitations. For instance I really like the data slates for both Be'lakor and Cypher - I think they are balanced and should be included along with another formation so that could be up to four sources. I like what TexasCon is doing and it's total comp. It's just one of those things you'll probably either be for or against depending upon the specific format. For example the few tournies I've seen that allow Escalation have bombed hard... There's not much market for it so far. There is also Forge World which is potentially another source. My point was to illustrate how things are coming full circle. You are right on the money - it's up to the TOs which has worked rather well overall so far. I'm not a naysayer by any means but the pendulum is starting to swing back in the other direction now and this is just the start. I try to keep an open mind.

Source or detachment limit comp pretty much all counts character data slates as a non "source" which is why I prefer the detachment language. For the most part it is there to limit things like:

Servo skull inquisitors being thrown into armies for 34 points as they would take up a detachment so unless you go no allies, you cannot do this.
Unlimited Formations, because taking multiples of some formations is bad for the game, but banning them entirely hurts armies like nids who don't get allies.
Knights, they can still get used but now they count as allies (or primary) and so you cannot do Knights + marines + Tau or something of the like.
Armies from tons of Sources - NO Marines + Tau + inquisition + Knights +LOD etc. In fact not allowing say Tau + inquisition avoids the need to FAQ their ability to all join the same marine squad.

 CKO wrote:
What is the problem? I thought there was enough deviation between the list that there would be less complaining. In Magic the Gathering there are 3-6 types of decks that dominate each format and I would like to know why it should be any different in a competitive 40k tournament scene? Are there crazy good combinations in 40k yes, are there crazy good cards in card games that everyone uses yes, what is the difference?

The problem is simple alot of people are really good at this game because they dominate their local area but, when the big events come around they are humbled by the Nick Nanavati and Tony Kopachs of the world. Your losing to the best of the best, your good they are great, they are the elite of 40k and no rule change is going to change that. I have never played these guys before but boy do I want to because not only do they win, they win so bad that their opponents wants to change the rules because they know their is no way in hell they can win if they had to face that again. Notice how I said face "that again", because players that are good will never admit they loss to a superior player or better tactics they will always blame whatever "that again" is at that time ("that again" is constantly changing), while the elite loses and blame themselves.

Any tournament with severe restrictions turns 40k into a sport that has judges, and I can care less about those type of sports. Give me football, soccer, or basketball I do not want to play ice skating. Who cares who wins those type of tournaments with restrictions, its like saying that skate board rider is more athletic than Lebron James.

I'd agree with parts of this if those elite players weren't already playing comped 40k. They are good, maybe even best of the best, but they are finding holes in an abortion of a system. People give GW grief, yet many of these events play games designer and build franken40k themselves. That's fine and all but don't kid yourself, your not even paying 40k anymore anyway, your just picking and choosing units and rules. The adepticon missions basically handicapped the best response to hero hammer, msu, with kill points. As if 6th didn't do a well enough job kneecapping vehicle spam, they decided to keep 5th era missions. Had they run book missions only 1/6 games would have hurt msu.

Personally i don't mind if they make minor tweaks to bring more variety however, I just don't agree with the current approach. It WAY too much comping. Change the missions, restrict some books but not others. It's way too biased no matter what the chatter tries to say. For example 90% of the current headache about hero-hammer vanishes overnight if you eliminate battle brothers. It doesn't make any armies illegal, and allows for those great modelling opportunities people love. Yet this isn't even considered. No lets set an arbitrary limit on sources despite 85+% of the problems only need two books to function. Seer council without the barons HtR becomes very counter-able, yet in the right hands of these great players, just as deadly, it just doesn't become dummy proof. Centurion stars lose that toolbox commander, suddenly just efficient and deadly, and not an auto win unit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There is the possibility they will release some new FAQs. I wouldn't bet on it but on the other hand GW can't ever catch a break on the Internet. I'm not necessarily against two sources but on the other hand it does impose some limitations. For instance I really like the data slates for both Be'lakor and Cypher - I think they are balanced and should be included along with another formation so that could be up to four sources. I like what TexasCon is doing and it's total comp. It's just one of those things you'll probably either be for or against depending upon the specific format. For example the few tournies I've seen that allow Escalation have bombed hard... There's not much market for it so far. There is also Forge World which is potentially another source. My point was to illustrate how things are coming full circle. You are right on the money - it's up to the TOs which has worked rather well overall so far. I'm not a naysayer by any means but the pendulum is starting to swing back in the other direction now and this is just the start. I try to keep an open mind.

Source or detachment limit comp pretty much all counts character data slates as a non "source" which is why I prefer the detachment language. For the most part it is there to limit things like:

Servo skull inquisitors being thrown into armies for 34 points as they would take up a detachment so unless you go no allies, you cannot do this.
Unlimited Formations, because taking multiples of some formations is bad for the game, but banning them entirely hurts armies like nids who don't get allies.
Knights, they can still get used but now they count as allies (or primary) and so you cannot do Knights + marines + Tau or something of the like.
Armies from tons of Sources - NO Marines + Tau + inquisition + Knights +LOD etc. In fact not allowing say Tau + inquisition avoids the need to FAQ their ability to all join the same marine squad.

What formation is spammable in a good sense anyway? I hear this stance all the time like there is some great formation that you'd want to spam. The Tau one is the best one by a long mile and you'd hurt your army more then you'd help it if you took 2 because they aren't that cheap. its also completely redundant as you can just run tau primary and get those units at that point level anyway.

Restricting some sources but not others is way too clunky btw, not to mention unnecessary. As I said just restrict BB. Servo skull/grenade caddie Inq, are suddenly less great when they cant join a deathstar or use their PP on them.

'I'd agree with parts of this if those elite players weren't already playing comped 40k. They are good, maybe even best of the best, but they are finding holes in an abortion of a system. People give GW grief, yet many of these events play games designer and build franken40k themselves. That's fine and all but don't kid yourself, your not even paying 40k anymore anyway, your just picking and choosing units and rules. The adepticon missions basically handicapped the best response to hero hammer, msu, with kill points.'

Seriously how is this any worse than the last edition that had IG, GK, SW and Necrons at the top ? Now you have more tools to mitigate the top builds... JSC and SS are beatable... incessant whining.

Comp will just move the goal posts and there will be other uber meta net lists that emerge. :O