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.

They're part of the official rules, so shouldn't be banned.

Might as well ban allies.

 scarletsquig wrote:
They're part of the official rules, so shouldn't be banned.

Might as well ban allies.

And this would be a HUGE step in the positive direction. In fact the only thing I am praying for at this point is that 9th WHFB doesn't go down the same ill-thought, cash grab, money pit, rabbit hole that 40K did (see allies). How about just playing your army like we used to, you know if you play Eldar, play Eldar, if you play IG (yeah I said it...IG! feth AM) then play IG.

slaede wrote:
ATC has banned them as well. They all pretty much all just followed LVO's lead, though Reece and crew have recanted. Perhaps they will do so again.

We banned them for the LVO because they came out so close to our event that we didn't have time to play test them and get used to them. And, we asked our community what they wanted and they said no.

However, after playing them for several months, they seem fine. I am sure other events will take another look at them once they have had some time to adjust.

Reece

I think the only problem with dataslates is that the tau one exists and was first, coloring the impression of dataslates

For the purposes of tournaments I am all for dataslates however I would agree on the limit of two codex/sources per army rule.

I was not in agreement with it until I saw how prevalent the 34 points screw your army was at adepticon.

 Reecius wrote:

slaede wrote:
ATC has banned them as well. They all pretty much all just followed LVO's lead, though Reece and crew have recanted. Perhaps they will do so again.

We banned them for the LVO because they came out so close to our event that we didn't have time to play test them and get used to them. And, we asked our community what they wanted and they said no.

However, after playing them for several months, they seem fine. I am sure other events will take another look at them once they have had some time to adjust.

Reece

I know why you banned them, and it's understandable. However the others like Broadside Bash, ATC, et al pretty much just took your ball and ran with it even though at this point it's no big deal so long as the two source restriction is enforced. I am hopeful they follow your lead once again.

Orks still can't take Inquisition, Knights, Ork Formations, or Battle Brothers. Any comp that doesn't attempt to balance this is gak comp.

Especially since the definition of comp changed with the addition of Tyranid formations to help them stay relevant. Orks deserve the same treatment.

@Slaede

Yeah, we'll see. We were the first on the calendar so we had to make a choice and others did the same as it made things easier. From there it is up to them to choose their path for their events.

I hope they allow them too, as we have tried them all quite a bit and found that so long as you count Formations as an ally they are quite fair (even the Tau formation as you give up valuable HQ allies to get it).

Why hasn't any event humored the idea of doing away with battle brothers? To me it does the most to correct the problems with 6th in one motion. What are the counter claims to doing this? It's so much easier then setting arbitrary limits and such. You guys can't expect the meta to remain unchanged before any event. The 2 source fix is unwieldy IMO, it just seems easier at the table to only have to sort through 4 sources total but the event will still have a deluge of sources for players to expect making it just as daunting a prospect. I have already heard so many people trying to figure out what a source means in that context as apparently Belakor doesn't count but other things do. So do you mean 2 DETACHMENTS?

Again I'd like to know the reasoning behind not simply restricting all allies to AoC instead of BB.

My reasoning would be that limiting to 2 detachements (which is the language I use), is that it only hinders a few armies from being abused. The Battle brother change is a much larger change to the meta, and does not solve all the issues (adding multiple books in one army, spamming formations etc.)

There is nothing wrong with such a ruling per say, but most people play in a meta with allies and so they are used to it.

A lot of the annoying deathstars can be made in their own books without allies: screamerstar, seerstar, centstar, etc. Flying Circus Daemons, Wraith wing/Cron Air, Drake Spam, and on the list goes, don't need battle bros to be put on the table.

I question if it would solve anything.

@scarletsquig

Using the arguemennt that something is a part off the official rules and should therefore be allowed is predicated on the belief that GWs rules are actually balanced. As they aren't, not even remotely, that argument really doesn't hold water. If you want to play mini apoc all the time with your friends, then go for it. In a tournament, no thanks.

Has anyone tried it though? If death stars are ruining the meta, and several books can run them standing alone then I don't understand why the system is being so heavily comped. Is it even necessary?

I have to deviate slightly with your initial stance, yes 40k has always had certain armies with death-stars. Seer councils, draigo-wing and wraith-wing were all things in 5th and we dealt with it. The bigger issue currently isn't that death-stars exist in a meta, its which components are the most prevalent in each army. The "auto includes" if you will, the units that reach a level of efficiency that you would be stupid not to add when and where you can. Toolbox commanders and barons are literally being handed out more then searchlights in the imperial guard. So to me you need to limit what units can field these, since they were written in the context of their parent codexes they are most balanced in their own units.

The goal shouldn't be elimination of death-stars, the goal should be cutting down on the ubiquity of these "auto includes."
A 2 detachment limit handles inquisitors, but no battle bros cuts down on toolbox buffmanders and farseers and the soon to be seen primaris psycher add prescience to taste seasoning I predict we'll see in the coming months.

2 Detachments cuts down on

Inquisitors
Knights
Formations
LOD

Lack of battle bros does nothing to some armies and lots to others.

Taking out battle Brothers
Daemons Don't care
Eldar mildly care
Tau mildly care
IG/AM care but not as much as they used to
Space Marines of all types Care.
Dark eldar care

That is about all I can think of.

Breng77 wrote:
2 Detachments cuts down on

Inquisitors
Knights
Formations
LOD

Lack of battle bros does nothing to some armies and lots to others.

Taking out battle Brothers
Daemons Don't care
Eldar mildly care
Tau mildly care
IG/AM care but not as much as they used to
Space Marines of all types Care.
Dark eldar care

That is about all I can think of.

Yes assuming the current meta doesn't shift though. All a 2 limit restriction does is increase the number of tau and or eldar you see. Which is already high. Making it more limited just means certain builds aren't even viable anymore. LOD help marines sweep objectives, but if I have to choose between a toolbox commander or LOD you can guess which one gets picked every time. All you did was ensure LOD will never see another tournament.

I see your point now though, I guess I would like to see more then one approach. Thus far I have seen plenty of ways to comp an event by restricting sources but none by changing mechanics. USR and psychics are the current issues with 40k, by issues I mean elements that are creating a stale meta.

 quickfuze wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
They're part of the official rules, so shouldn't be banned.

Might as well ban allies.

And this would be a HUGE step in the positive direction. In fact the only thing I am praying for at this point is that 9th WHFB doesn't go down the same ill-thought, cash grab, money pit, rabbit hole that 40K did (see allies). How about just playing your army like we used to, you know if you play Eldar, play Eldar, if you play IG (yeah I said it...IG! feth AM) then play IG.

I'm with ya man, feth allies, this game is stupid now, we all basically pull from some terrible and convuleted mega codex of crap.

Why not look to go the other way, I don't mean half measures like changing battle brothers, I mean axing allies all together.

One book vs another.

I understand that will not fix imbalance between books, and you can still run stupidly permissive abortion style events but they can be the exception not the rule.

That is because limiting sources is easier/more palatable. While changing rules is hard.

I disagree that 2 sources will make any more Tau/Eldar than we already see (it can't really). Its just that now they won't always have servo skulls, or that SM don't have inquistion LOD and a Tau commander. LOD can be taken in the regular SM book, so all really that gets changes is you don't get 2 SM factions + a LOD faction etc. You also don't get Taudar + Knight, Seer Council + knight etc.

2 sources also avoid the conflicts in rules when you have allies of different status trying to joing the same squad (removing BB would also solve this)


If we remove BB essentially you reverse The LOD Tau commander example you put above. So it is just a different meta.

I'd love for USRs etc to be changed, but that is something for GW to do not necessarily individuals.

@Red Corsair

We've tried in practice at our shop and it has been universally thumbs down from everyone that tried it. I would say we tried about 10 unrestricted games of 40K, and it ranged from a response of meh to really strongly no depending on what was used in the games.

The issue was the Lords of War are actually worse than the Deathstars.

@Breng77

You said it. 3 sources+ or deatchments, or what have you, results in what we saw at Adepticon where 9/16 armies have Inquisition allies just to bring Coteaz and some Servo Skulls, etc. It makes already obnoxious lists even more obnoxious.

I think the debate needs to be framed in a different way. Drop the slates and make it two issues: formations and characters.

I really don't want to play formations outside of apoc, especially with them now having no additional cost for additonal benefits or abilities, that's horsegak and we all know it, (it all kinda falls into the camp of keep apoc in apoc).

Belakor or cypher don't seem to be the end of the world. I don't like allies, but I'm not opposed to a chaos army or daemons army with belakor. I don't mind cypher either, again provided the context of his use isn't silly.





A blanket yes or no to slates is a slippery slope paved with a lot of upset nid players.

A blanket "yet" on slates doesn't make for upset nid players at all . Just make it count as our allies. Seriously... otherwise you're screwing with us for no good reason

The no would result in a lot of upset nid players.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I think the debate needs to be framed in a different way. Drop the slates and make it two issues: formations and characters.

I really don't want to play formations outside of apoc, especially with them now having no additional cost for additonal benefits or abilities, that's horsegak and we all know it, (it all kinda falls into the camp of keep apoc in apoc).

Belakor or cypher don't seem to be the end of the world. I don't like allies, but I'm not opposed to a chaos army or daemons army with belakor. I don't mind cypher either, again provided the context of his use isn't silly.

These are my feelings exactly, new characters/units are one (usually good) thing, formations that give special rules for free are another (bad) thing.

I feel for Nid players (my own Nid army has remained half on-sprue for years because Nids have been consistently borked), but I really cannot state enough how opposed I am to the idea of Formations being used essentially as "patches".

First, it says to GW that they can bork a release and sell the fixes later and that we'll accept that, which I don't think is where anyone wants to take things.

Second, the perception that such slates can make an army more functional makes banning others (where such assistance is certainly not needed) more difficult, it's inconsistent.

And, third, ultimately it's still "free special abilities for taking X combination of units", and besides being bad on its own that's just an extremely lazy way to try and hamfist a fix to an army.

Honestly, the Formations really aren't that bad when they count as your ally. It makes Nids tournament worthy, and the others Formations come at the cost of a lot of combos tournament armies rely on. For example, if you want that Tau Formation, no Farseer or no O'Vessa or no Buffmander depending on your build. For most Tau players, they will probably opt NOT to take the Formation as they perceive the other options to be better.

A lot of the Formations really add a lot, like the flyer formation which helps Space Wolves a lot.

After having tried them, honestly, the only formations we will see a lot of is Nids which is good, IMO, as it shakes the meta up a lot.

 Reecius wrote:
Honestly, the Formations really aren't that bad when they count as your ally. It makes Nids tournament worthy, and the others Formations come at the cost of a lot of combos tournament armies rely on. For example, if you want that Tau Formation, no Farseer or no O'Vessa or no Buffmander depending on your build. For most Tau players, they will probably opt NOT to take the Formation as they perceive the other options to be better.

A lot of the Formations really add a lot, like the flyer formation which helps Space Wolves a lot.

After having tried them, honestly, the only formations we will see a lot of is Nids which is good, IMO, as it shakes the meta up a lot.

I guess the thing is reece, I don't play with allies and very very rarely against allies, so when a nid player complains I can give them my condolences on a less than optimal book but I'm right there with them, not taking allies. Hell I don't even play with fortificaitons because of all the sillyness.

My greatest fear is coming true, the game is so bloated that everyone, myself included, is deciding where to draw a line and we're all drawing lines in different places it seems. I'm happy to see the line is mostly being drawn at escalation, but then I'm left scratching my head with stuff like codex knights and formations being "all good".

Valkathi made the great point that allowing formations just seems like "patching". And I mean god knows what insane formations are yet to come, the nid formation (skyblight) is beyond insane IMO. Granted at least it's a nid thing, but to me it's no different than a nid player lobbying to be able to use knights because it will "allow them to compete".

If it's a choice between making a really toned down format and "shaking up the meta" I'd rather say no, a lot, to everyone than yes to the few loudest.







Apoc was super permissive and insane, I never really took to it. I would always prefer to play 40k. Now 40k is basically apoc and we're all left scrambling, trying to fix it.

It appears we have different crowds here:


1. Players who don't like all the changes 6th Ed. brings, including allies. Don't even talk to them about all the other wackiness out there. Sorry guys, but the tournament scene probably isn't for you unless you're willing to embrace the changes that 6E brings (on a fundamental level).

2. Players who enjoy the flavor of 6th, but who is somewhat discouraged by the imbalance brought about by the rapid-release of GW supplements/rules. This is probably where the majority of the tournament players lie, including the veteran players. They want some semblance of balance to the game, but with minimal change to the core rules. That means minimal banning (don't ban battlebros!), some nerfing of the most ridiculous combos out there (re-rollable 2+'s nerfed to 2+/4+) and the restriction of all the new stuff coming out (they are mainly for 2-detachment limit proposal with dataslate characters allowed).

3. Players who want more drastic changes in order to make the game more balanced. They're the type who would go, "coke isn't good for you so instead of banning coke, let's just ban all soda." These players are more for the idea of out-right bans and major changes to the game in order to have a more level playing field (i.e. let's ban all battle brothers so the Baron and Toolbox Commander can never join any army other than their own).

4. Idealistic folks who aren't realy thinking practically. These people are for unrestricted 40K because....hey, they are legal rules released by GW and thus everyone should be able to use them any and every time.


So which crowd are you?

 jy2 wrote:
It appears we have different crowds here:

1. Players who don't like all the changes 6th Ed. brings, including allies. Don't even talk to them about all the other wackiness out there. Sorry guys, but the tournament scene probably isn't for you unless you're willing to embrace the changes that 6E brings (on a fundamental level).

I would say I'm in the first catagory but the tournament scene is what you make of it in your area. The last tournament around here, no one took allies, one before, same story. I'm at the point now where if you just tacked on allies and fortifications past 1750-2000 I don't think it would be too bad, because you can just set the appropriate points limit and be done with it. Hell I'd be fine if past 2000-2500 is when escalation and all the other stuff kicks in. The average points for most of my games are 1500. You guys in the states it seems more common to see 1750-2000.


The main problem of 40k in 6th edition is primarily format, balance would be the other problem. Sticking with format, we can see the problem with putting essentially different things under the banner of dataslates. Break it down to non-book characters and formations, I'm a lot more receptive to the first one. Just like I get the people who don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater with books like stronghold assault.



I just don't remember having to lobby this much in 5th to play a game. I am le sad.

I am not in any of those camps. It's not that I am opposed or lobbying for any certain change, I just want to make sure that all alterations are considered and vetted properly. Sorry but 10 games at frontline gaming aren't going to give you a realistic data pool. It's actually going to be heavily tainted by their culture in the shop and to group think. It is a good start, and reece I should have specified I don't consider escalation or strong hold part of normal 40k.

I mean no offense to you guys either reece, this is just how people work in small shop groups.

Really you need to apply small tweaks one at a time at some of these larger events. No, I don't mean the BAO or Adepticon, but at 30-50 player events.

I see some great counter points to BB, and I largely agree, I am just playing devils advocate as I think the limited source idea is going to have the similar issues just in a more convoluted way. It also leaves WAY more in the hands of GW, who at any time can spring another digital release that messes with everything.

I love the potential allies bring for awesome themed armies, but lets be realistic, the allies chart is stupid. Imperial armies and Tau can gain benefits from everyone and armies like Orks are all but forgotten about.

When 6th hit, fliers were the major issue, now that most books are updated they are tame but it is becoming more evident that allies need some form of tweaking if anything does.

Perhaps limited 2 detachments and no BB? Or even subtly changing the BB mechanics, characters can still join allied units but they don't share USR's? Currently I just see more bandaids being applied to a hemorrhaging wound.

I still think the easiest comp that doesn't ban anything is just to limit the number of independent characters in a unit to 1 at any given time. Boom, deathstars solved.

I think the rule of 2 detachments total is a good general rule as well. Limits much of the abuse out there.

I like the dataslates.

But... I want a physical book!

 jy2 wrote:
It appears we have different crowds here:

Biased group descriptions don't help....

I like banning battle brothers as a starting point. I don't like dataslates or any other pure digital release, largely because of the complexity it adds to the system, where rules are uniquely available in one format, while different rules remain uniquely available in other formats.

I like the two source rule because it cuts down on allied in inquisitors.

For a lot of the death stars that is their hard counter is scouting units getting in their grill, maybe rune priests cutting down psychic powers even if they go first, etc.

By having that extra inquisitor slot it prevents them from having to adapt.

Same for other things. I think the two source limit would work pretty well, but we shall see.

 Leth wrote:
I like the two source rule because it cuts down on allied in inquisitors.

For a lot of the death stars that is their hard counter is scouting units getting in their grill, maybe rune priests cutting down psychic powers even if they go first, etc.

By having that extra inquisitor slot it prevents them from having to adapt.

Same for other things. I think the two source limit would work pretty well, but we shall see.

See this annoys me a bit though. Its just so biased. Everyone is crying over the ubiquity of inquisitors in armies that can take them yet nobody is addressing the WHOLE ALLIES MATRIX. Some armies like tau and SM can ally with half or more of the chart, yet other armies like orks, necrons and tyranids are up shat creek. So why apply a bandaid to a sucking chest wound. All two source does is narrow the current diversity to the 2-3 best codices that use battle brothers the most efficiently. Kill BB AND use a limited source format and suddenly you will see much more diversity.