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- I don't really care if TOs implement a source limit or a Battle Brothers tweak. I think a source limit might be more palatable to more people, though. But as long as it is acknowledged that something is needed, that's all I'm looking for... each event can implement things differently.

But as Breng77 says, Marines + Tau + Inquisition + Knights + LOD all in one list is just getting silly, which is where we're at with no tweaks applied whatsoever. I can't see many events going that route, to be honest.

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.

Anything you choose to do requires some kind of "comp" or arbitrary tweaks. However, I know of almost no game that can be played in a competitive sense right out of the box. I've played video games competitively, and they always required some kind of alterations in format. Very few games are created with strict competition in mind. Furthermore, there are always going to be units/weapons/characters etc. that are better than others--no matter how much developers try.

This is where TOs step in. Organizing an event is a thankless job, and there is no way to please 100% of the crowd. Nevertheless, TOs should endeavor to create a fun and relatively balanced gaming experience for the people who do come out to events and not worry about the people who are never going to show up regardless. There are overly dogmatic individuals who want to open the floodgates and play 40k with Escalation and full Forgeworld while playing only book missions. This isn't "wrong", but it isn't what most people who spend money and time to go to events want.

I think we need to move past the idea of there being a "correct" way to play. GW doesn't care about the tourney scene, and even if they did, the game is as much "ours" as it is "theirs." As I've mentioned, the people who go to events don't want to play "everything goes" 40k. Things like Escalation make the game a dice roll of who goes first with their Reverent. It is good for the game that TOs do set these "arbitrary" restrictions.

I'm in favor of two-sourcing, if only for the sake of easiness and balance. The ability for certain (read: mostly Imperial) armies to tack on extra allies via Formations, Inquisition, Knights, and LoTD is a bit of a mess. While these elements aren't problematic in and of themselves, it becomes a bit convoluted and unbalanced quickly--especially for the players who aren't aiming for the top tables. Even at the top tables, there is a desire for some kind of balance. I want to go against tough as nails competition, but there are some combinations that are a bit over the top. Yes, this is arbitrary and subjective, but it will always be this way.

I like the Imperial combos for the flavor .

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.

The Tau formation is very powerful when spammed, or allows other primary armies to take multiple riptides and broadsides. You can make some powerful armies with that slate.

A battle brother change matters very little with the skull inquisitor people aready run him alone as a non-battle brother just for the skulls. Removing them also strengthens certain armies like Daemons, while eldar and Tau still remain strong. Are Formations then Convienience (despite rules in some to the contrary?)

Also restricting sources is not saying that you cannot use a book, if you eliminate battle brothers you essentially negate the inquisition book other than skull caddy for most builds.

Also consider that allies has been an accepted part of the game now for multiple years, this multiple detachment thing is new. It also narrows the ammout of books people are bringing to the table. You don't end up with Eldar + Marines + Knights + Inquisition etc. Which may or may not be a good army, but just a bunch of stuff for an opponent to keep straight.

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.

This is not "comp" as we have come to know comp, this is keeping the game from getting out of control. (I understand some people think the game is already out of control, but there is potential for much more abuse in the zero source restriction format.

Well it is Comp insofar as Comp is any change to base rules (i.e. mission changes are "comp" to some people, No FW is Comp to some people.). Also since it is a restriction on Army Composition, it is a form of comp. Just not as hard a restriciton as say swedish comp or other targeted comp systems.

Breng77 wrote:
Well it is Comp insofar as Comp is any change to base rules (i.e. mission changes are "comp" to some people, No FW is Comp to some people.). Also since it is a restriction on Army Composition, it is a form of comp. Just not as hard a restriciton as say swedish comp or other targeted comp systems.

I hear you, I feel like the word comp is the wrong word to use here, and there is a better word for what the competitive community is trying to do.

meh....lables are lables. I think people fear the C word because of past negative stigma, but there is no reason it is a bad thing. Call it Comp, call it house rule, call it errata, whatever you call it if it makes the game more enjoyable then why not.

I'm already running 2 detachment Max at my GT at Connecticon, so it will be interesting to see the feed back I get after the event.

I also don't think this is what was traditionally considered "comp", and that the word doesn't really add to the discussion... similar to how "WAAC" tends to never really help advance a discussion.

Glad to hear you're trying running a 2 detachment max event, Breng77. Let us know how it goes and how people react to it!

 RiTides wrote:

But as Breng77 says, Marines + Tau + Inquisition + Knights + LOD all in one list is just getting silly, which is where we're at with no tweaks applied whatsoever. I can't see many events going that route, to be honest.

Would you even have enough points to do anything effective with your list if you tried that though?

You can restrict the opening acts but you cant restrict the closing act. Skate boarding will never be as popular as soccer no matter how much you love skate boarding.

Alpharius, well, adding Inquisition to armies is adding very little points for quite a large benefit (at least, according to folks with more 40k experience than I, regarding the servo skulls). If GW continues to release things that can be added on to any army without using up the allies slot, then you could conceivably have a lot of one-off units in an army to keep track of... unless you implement something like a source limit.

Look at it this way - SW Rune Priest can take Chooser of the Slain which is just as good if not better plus it is wargear for pretty much an auto take HQ in the army... This way more armies have the same type of defense. Which armies does it really hurt the most ?

Eliminating Battle Brothers makes to much sense to ever be implemented. Battle Brothers eliminates Beaststar and Seerstar which are the favorite two armies of the East Coast players. They won't allow that.

The argument that eliminating BB makes Daemons stronger is false. The counter to Daemons is MSU, which Beaststar and Seerstar prevent from being played. Eliminating BB brings MSU back and counters Daemons.

Inquisitors can be taken with the GK codex as an ally. The inquisitor army is not hurt. Saying so is puzzling to me. That's like saying we can't do the best possible solution because it will hurt codex Black Legion. What?

But not every army should have the same ability and the cost of including a rune priest in your army is much greater (takes ally slot, then costs 185 minimum including required troop, and the chooser covers a smaller area. So you pay 151 more points, give up any other allies for worse scout/ infiltrate defense. Hardly equal.

As for who it hurts, whites scars, khorne dog rush, raven guard, scout armies. Essentially there are plenty of possible scout /infiltrate builds and you can negate them with a 34 point upgrade available to most armies (all but 5 armies). Essentially 2 sources forces choices on people, instead of letting everyone have everything especially the good guys (for which there is a huge imbalance for already in terms of choices.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarthDiggler wrote:
Eliminating Battle Brothers makes to much sense to ever be implemented. Battle Brothers eliminates Beaststar and Seerstar which are the favorite two armies of the East Coast players. They won't allow that.

The argument that eliminating BB makes Daemons stronger is false. The counter to Daemons is MSU, which Beaststar and Seerstar prevent from being played. Eliminating BB brings MSU back and counters Daemons.

Inquisitors can be taken with the GK codex as an ally. The inquisitor army is not hurt. Saying so is puzzling to me. That's like saying we can't do the best possible solution because it will hurt codex Black Legion. What?

Ummm....so who is playing codex inquisition as more than a way to add an inquisitor to one of their squads and maybe a couple cheap troops, or as a skull caddy?

Msu doesn't counter daemons Ime, so eliminating some top builds helps daemons.

Also yeah seer council and beast star are all east coast player play obviously cause no one plays those armies elsewhere....oh wait they do. I know of like 1 top tier beast star east coast player, and 2-3 seer council players. Many more daemon players or ovesastars or serpent spam. So yeah the east coast totally wants to keep all of us running our beast and seer stars....right.

That type of regional bias helps nothing especially when it is wildly inaccurate.

Eliminating battle brothers is a big change, that takes a bunch of armies out of play. I'm not saying it is better or worse, but it is a big change none the less.

MSU is just as much a gimmick as anything else people are whining about... MSU can actually still work for certain armies quite well. Personally I'm glad not to have to play versus MSU parking lot armies anymore .

MSU is a great way to counter deathstars...I have no idea where you are getting the idea that seer and beast are auto-win. Also, as a Daemon player, I would not mind to terribly to play against MSU, KP missions are almost an instant win, and with an obj mission it is difficult to hold obj with small units when you can blow them off fairly easily.

That being said, I agree with most of what JGrand said. Competitive players, in my experience, want a balanced environment as much as the next person. Will anything be truly balanced? I think not, however I do think there are good ideas, many have been mentioned, that can bring the scale closer to balanced and then player skill can be taken more into account.

The truth is that there will be whiners on the internet 40k forums no matter what form the game takes, until we return to 2nd edition format.

These whiners in general aren't winning the tournaments. Haters will hate, players will play.

Actually, quite a few top players are asking for a source limit. MVBrandt and Reecius are the first two that come to mind, since they're also tracking it from the perspective of TOs.

But it doesn't make such a sensationalist statement when put like that

I consider myself a fairly competitive player, and enjoy the internet discussion. Everyone has an opinion and it is good to hear what the minority or majority has to say. We may be able to draw others out to events to create a larger tournament player base. The Adepticon Friendly and Doubles were great for this. To simply boil it down to tournament winners etc is extreamly limiting as there are very few people who actually win a GT, let alone 16 out of 250 who play 2nd day.

I think of Reecius and MVB more as TOs than players which directly influence how they view the game should be played. Fair enough.

If there is evidence (anecdotal or huge ground-swelling) that X% more people want source limits versus not, then the TOs should decide what's best for their tournaments, whether small local events or Big Ass Tournaments (BATs).

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I think of Reecius and MVB more as TOs than players which directly influence how they view the game should be played. Fair enough.

True, although MVBrandt's team did win best generals in the AdeptiCon team tourney! But obviously, as noted, not only top player's opinions matter, I was just refuting the claim above that top players aren't in favor of some kind of limit.

I have noticed many of the top players are taking advantage of the things people are complaining about in this thread .

I have too, but some of them (krootman, for instance) have posted in this thread as well that while they will use it if it's allowed, they'd still prefer some kind of limit.

I'm sorry but that is hypocritical. If you don't like it then don't use it.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I'm sorry but that is hypocritical. If you don't like it then don't use it.

I see it as an example of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

If you use it then you either have a better chance of winning, or at least countering your opponent's usage of it.

If you don't use it you may be on an even keel due to the other player also not using it, but you also run the risk of having a disadvantage due to your opponent having it.

The more rounds the tournament has, the more likely you are going to run into somebody else who decided that they were going to use that advantage. If you want to win and you can use it, you are better off using it, so I can't really blame them for doing so.

If you want people to not use it, get the TO to ban it. Don't hope your opponents won't use it.

Quick flow chart of what people have said in the thread so far:

1 - If you're not a top tournament player and want restrictions, you're just a whiner who can't win, and your opinion should be disregarded. If you are a top player, go to 2.

2 - If you are a top player and still want restrictions, but use any of the combos you want resticted to become a top player, you're a hypocrit and your opinion should be disregarded. If you use a fluffy list and still win, go to 3.

3 - If you use a fluffy non-power combo list and win with it but still want restrictions on certain things, well you've shown people can win with fluffy lists at top levels, thus proving restrictions are unnecessary, and so your opinion can be disregarded.

... Seems fair. :-/

Excellent, Maddermax . I can imagine that being an actual flowchart and being even better. It really is a catch-22... eventually someone just has to make the call on it, and that's what we're seeing now, I think (with Nova's recent anouncement about going to 2-source, and Reecius' article indicating Frontline will likely be doing similarly for their events).

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I'm sorry but that is hypocritical. If you don't like it then don't use it.

I prefer to not take a side honestly, there are some events I will use every allowed advantage to try to win (adepticon singles) and there are some events I'd rather take something fun, and see how I do! (Adepticon team, which was an absolute blast. I even almost won a game without killing a single model!!!)


I am not going to stand here and say the game is perfect, because it is not, however i do enjoy the game as is for the most part and will not stop doing something I enjoy because I don't agree with some aspects about it. Nobody has to play this game at the highest level, it's a choice.

As people have said before the most important thing when you make a decision going to one of these events is to know exactly what you are getting into and to have fun!

Remember there is no right or wrong way to play this game.