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.

Sorry, but what sort of tournament costs 10 grand to run? Seems like a vast exaggeration to me.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Sorry, but what sort of tournament costs 10 grand to run? Seems like a vast exaggeration to me.

Probably large ones like LVO or similar. Where you have tons of people in a nice hotel or convention center. Those spaces are not cheap. Smaller tournaments run in local stores are cheap to run, big events at hotels? Not so much.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Sorry, but what sort of tournament costs 10 grand to run? Seems like a vast exaggeration to me.

any tournament hosting in a Hotel or something similar. Most US tournament cost more than 10k. That not account for fix cost.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Sorry, but what sort of tournament costs 10 grand to run? Seems like a vast exaggeration to me.

For the larger tournaments that are hosted in a hotel, they have to promise a certain number of rooms will be booked in addition to the amount it costs to rent. The more booked rooms, the less the rental will be.

However if they dont match the promised rooms the difference comes out of their pocket.

So yea, pretty big financial risk for the bigger tournaments. Not to mention the cost of terrain, tables, peoples time, prep, promotion, prize support.

It could go on.

 LValx wrote:
Do you play in tournaments?

Yes, when I'm not excluded from them by TFG policies on what is allowed.

We get it, you think the game ought to be played as is out of the book, great.

No, I think the standard for making changes to the game should be "this is a game-breaking balance problem that needs to be fixed to have an enjoyable tournament", not "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING BAN EVERYTHING THAT WASN'T IN 5TH EDITION" or "I don't like your army, you're not allowed here". So far all we've seen is lots of ranting about how unbound/superheavies/etc are completely broken and need to be banned, but no real justification beyond a personal dislike of unbound lists that don't have an "acceptable" theme.

This thread is clearly about "comping" 40k, why even bother to post in the thread if you aren't going to be constructive at all?

Because "comp is stupid" is a constructive response. Unlike you, I don't just assume that each new edition requires things to be banned and then start looking for what things I can ban.

I think Peregrine has several good points, but I think the most important bears repeating: TOs should fix something only if it's broken. He's right, most of the suggested changes equate to playing 5th ed 40K, not the game that a new player sees when they pick up the BRB for the first time. Alot of people played 5th, so it's what we/they are used to, but it's not really 7th edition. I agree that for some tournaments and games there should be various comp limits imposed, but I think that we need to be wary of changing the game too much from what is in the book because it's the baseline. That's why there's a whole forum devoted to discussing "RAW", because regardless of the interpretations there needs to be a SINGLE source for the game that Player A and Player B can both have access to. Alot of players don't follow every Dakka thread, or keep up with "Internet 40K" at all. Thus, the BRB is the common denominator.

This edition changed alot of things, and understandably alot of people are trying to figure out how to have fun with it (and win). However, as was said earlier I think we should give the edition a little more time to breathe before rushing to alter things to suit a particular paradigm.

 greyknight12 wrote:
This edition changed alot of things, and understandably alot of people are trying to figure out how to have fun with it (and win). However, as was said earlier I think we should give the edition a little more time to breathe before rushing to alter things to suit a particular paradigm.

This is the most critical part; balancing the win and the fun.

Some people play tournaments for fun, some to win, and all in between. I agree with Peregrine to find out what makes 7th edition broken, then we can have a discussion about the game. I do hate the summoning and think it should be fixed, but for tournaments, let the TOs hash out what is broken after finding the broken things.

Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
And more of those issues improves the sand box?

Of course not, but that's not the point. The relevant question is whether or not those things are so much worse under the standard 7th edition rules that we have to house rule everything back to 5th edition to fix the problem. So far there doesn't seem to be much evidence that unbound lists/superheavies/etc are really that bad.

Trasvi wrote:
But if you're worried about people buying an entire second army of daemons with an additional 200 horrors and 10 bloodthirsters... those people are going to buy the biggest power list no matter what. If not daemons, then GK henchmen/razorback spam...

Well yeah, that's exactly my point: 40k is still "pay to win" regardless of whether or not unbound lists/superheavies/etc are included. Banning them doesn't remove the cost factor, it just changes which models are included in the best list.

What makes 7th broken is what makes apocalypse a terrible starting point for tournaments.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Sorry, but what sort of tournament costs 10 grand to run? Seems like a vast exaggeration to me.

The total risk for the LVO 2014 was about $50,000 when we calculated everything. 2015 Is significantly more than that. The first BAO, with no hotel rooms, borrowed terrain, etc. was about $10K. We had quotes for venues in the Bay Area that cost over $10K a DAY to rent. That doesn't even include the other commitments you have, that is just the room rental. It costs a lot more than most people think.

As for some of the ideas here, I agree with a lot of them.

GW isn't allowing unbound in their tournament which I think says a lot.

I think a baseline that everyone can agree to for tournaments as below would be pretty easy:

No unbound
1 Primary detachment
1 Other detachment (ally or formation)
Tournament missions (as we have always done)

That resolves a lot of the craziness of 7th ed. From there you can stick to the book if you want. I think some further limitations will make events more fun for everyone, though. For us we are 99% likely to do the following:

Limit the 2+ reroll save to 2+/4+ as we have been doing
Limit the psychic phase in some way. We're looking at a lot of options.
Limit invisibility in some way. It's flat out too good.
Limit summoning in some way. The psychic phase changes may fix it, but it as is is both too powerful and takes too dang long to play.
Limit certain Lords of War if we decide to allow them. I like LoW personally and enjoy having them. The changes to D weapons were positive, IMO, but some models that can remove multiple units form play at a time are a bit much like the Sonic Lance Rev, Tranny C'Tan, Hellhammer, etc. I think those could very easily kill the fun for other players.

That is as we see it here, the main issues to address.

Good to see people discussing it!

I like almost all those ideas. But how hard are we nerfing invisibility? And then why not nerf the grimoire as well. Invincible fateweaver is horrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can you ally with yourself?

 LValx wrote:
I like almost all those ideas. But how hard are we nerfing invisibility? And then why not nerf the grimoire as well. Invincible fateweaver is horrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can you ally with yourself?

The Grimoire isn't a problem. It's already nerfed....to 2++/4++. And then there is Banishment which GK's will easily spam without even trying.

As for Invisibility, here is my solution, up for review: opponents shoots at the Invisible unit at BS1 and fights against them in combat at WS1. Simple, achieves sort of the same effect, but not nearly as powerful.

Allying with yourself is a No from the BRB, unless your codex explicitly says that you can (like the Space Marines dex does).

Yea, If you change Invis to Bs/WS1 I think that takes care of all the problems with it IMO, it is still powerful but not bs.

I think limiting unbound isn't actually going to be super important. I think a lot of people will want it, but unbound armies won't win tournaments.

The loss of objective secured is HUGE. An unbound army essentially needs to table their opponent to win. I haven't seen an unbound army yet that does that significantly better than a battle forged army using multiple CAD's.

Limit the psychic phase in some way. We're looking at a lot of options.

What in particular about the new psychic phase needs limiting? Only a handful of individual powers are more powerful than last edition, but all are significantly more difficult to cast, easier to dispel, more dangerous to the caster, and less powers can be cast per phase.

Limit summoning in some way. The psychic phase changes may fix it, but it as is is both too powerful and takes too dang long to play.

Is it too powerful? I keep hearing this but I haven't heard about it winning any games yet - even the ridiculous Frontline battle report they didn't win, though that was a lot to do with objective cards.
Taking too long to play seems like something that the slow player should be punished for, rather than banning the army altogether even for fast players. A summoning daemon player would be bringing on less models per turn than a tervigon spawning army of 6th edition. With proper preparation (checklists, tokens, priority sheets, etc) the daemon player could be relatively quick - their psychic phase may take a while but they have short other phases.

The bs1 is so blast/template can target the unit?

Invis becomes far less powerful at that point. I like the change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyverns are going to destroy blobs or beasts with invisibility.

 Crablezworth wrote:
The bs1 is so blast/template can target the unit?

Exactly. It should be a reduction in firepower aimed at the unit, not total immunity to a whole class of weapons (especially one that is often necessary to deal with death stars).

Reecius wrote:...
That resolves a lot of the craziness of 7th ed. From there you can stick to the book if you want. I think some further limitations will make events more fun for everyone, though. For us we are 99% likely to do the following:
...
Limit the psychic phase in some way. We're looking at a lot of options.
...

I'm not sure why this is necessary, without limiting other codexes supremacy in other phases. If you limit the psychic phase, you primarily nerf daemons, with secondary impacts on IG, Eldar and Grey Knights (off the top of my head). Does this significantly help the game?

Why not nerf the shooting phase? There are far more units made obsolete by the uber shooty armies than anything the psychic phase is likely to cause. Cutting out some of the guns might see units like berserkers, banshees, slugga boyz and wyches show up in games again.

What about the movement phase? Only a couple of armies can move 48" to contest things, that seems highly unfair to the others. Maybe you could cap how many inches any model may move.

 Reecius wrote:


I think a baseline that everyone can agree to for tournaments as below would be pretty easy:

No unbound
1 Primary detachment
1 Other detachment (ally or formation)
Tournament missions (as we have always done)

What about limiting it to two Detachments, which allows for two Combined Arms Detachments which doesn't hurt Tau/Farsight or Eldar/Iyanden, etc.

For instance my Farsight with Tau allies is impossible if left as written here, but is perfectly legal by BRB. Why are Farsight/Tau penalized while Space Marines are not? In fact, being able to take an allied Detatchment is better than being forced to fill a true Combined Arms Detatchment.



Limiting the 2+ Retollable to 2+/4+ is great! I made the same suggestion when the Screamerstar hit in 6th.

BS/WS1 for Invisibility is great and fixes everything.

I think at the end of the day the final changes will be this

Invisibility changed to remove snap shot ability and become a flat value
Deny the witch mechanic tweaked to work with blessing and conjurations (deny on a 5+)
FOC org changes to a limited source

from there you will see mission changes from TO's

@Jy2

Yeah, a lot of folks are discussing that option, too. However, a Seer Council that you can only hit on 6's (or a LoW, or Paladins, or whatever) may still be too crazy. We'll have to try it out.

I was also thinking just use the 6th ed rules for it as that was quite good, but we'll see.

@Trasvi

One creative solution I heard was to allow Unbound but to screen the lists for a more laid back style event. So, if it is a thematic unbound list, cool, if not, no. That could work although you will almost certainly run into issues when you reject a list someone else thinks is fluffy and you do not.

For us, it is easier to simply say no. An army of all named Characters or something could be a lot of fun but not in the context of flying to an event to have fair games. I think unbound is great in a club where players come to the table expecting the same thing.

When I said limit the psychic phase, I meant limiting the extremes of it. I think the psychic phase works great on it's own, but when you abuse the mechanics of it to max out warp charge it gets stupid. Fantasy caps magic does for just that reason and I am actually surprised that GW didn't do it with 40K.

Try a game against a 40 WP list, it is nutty. You have to keep track of so much stuff each turn it gets confusing as hell and it takes ages.

As for keeping track of who is playing slow, that is REALLY difficult to do in 40K. On paper it sounds easy, but in effect it is super hard to do as there is no objective way to measure it without using chess clocks or something like that. People are often not aware that they play slowly, and when it happens there's no way to turn back the clock.

@RedBeard

A lot of folks are making that counter-argument. However, I don't think it holds water.

For one, if I have more shooting than you, that doesn't mean almost all of my shots hit and none of yours do. However, if I have 40+ WC and you have 2, I will get almost all of the powers I want off, and you will get none. See the difference? It really isn't the same comparison. It negates the phase for one player. It is the same thing that sucks about 2+ reroll saves, or Tau blast weapons that can't miss, and ignore armor and cover. It causes one player to not participate in what is happening.

That is not fun.

We're talking about a lot of creative ways to try to tone down the extremes while still letting players have fun with their army and not feel limited. It is not easy to do.

 Leth wrote:
Yea, If you change Invis to Bs/WS1 I think that takes care of all the problems with it IMO, it is still powerful but not bs.

Or pass a ld test on 3d6 to mitigate invisibility down to ws1 bs1, and units with i4 or higher only need to pass their ld test on 2d6.

@Zagman

Because in that instance you end up with 6 Riptides and 6 Wraithknight lists. I don't think most players want to see that on the table.

That does stink big time that your army got invalidated though, that sucks.

@Darkwynn

Yeah, after talking to other TOs that definitely feels like the general consensus at this time.

I think a limit on Conjurations is likely, too, as well as a limit to psyker spam armies that can totally shut down the psychic phase of other armies.

 Reecius wrote:

@RedBeard

A lot of folks are making that counter-argument. However, I don't think it holds water.

For one, if I have more shooting than you, that doesn't mean almost all of my shots hit and none of yours do. However, if I have 40+ WC and you have 2, I will get almost all of the powers I want off, and you will get none. See the difference?

No. Let me rephrase what you just wrote...

If I have 40+ 24"+ range guns, and you have 2, I will get to shoot all your stuff and kill everything important, and you will get none (as yours will die). At that point, you're not "participating" in the shooting phase, unless your idea of participation is rolling saves and removing models.

To further go into this, if I take an army with only 2 guns, I don't expect to win the shooting phase. If you take an army with only 2 WC, you shouldn't expect to win the psychic phase. These are choices that players can make. I could take a stealer-shock army. Do I have a right to complain that I don't get to participate in the shooting phase if I do this?

You're looking at this through the lens of past editions. The psychic phase is now a thing. Some armies may not be able to win the psychic phase and that's alright. Daemons cannot win the shooting phase, with only a handful of models that traditionally shoot. Tau may never win the assault phase.

There's no reason to believe that one of these phases should be treated differently and nerfed, simply because some codexes don't do it well. The entire game is now designed to limit assault armies, and if anything needs help, it is them. If your goal is to increase the number of viable builds in the game, then limiting the shooting phase is the place to start, because that would open the game up to assault armies again, and we'd instantly see a much larger variety in what people bring. The psychic phase is new, so you're targeting it, but it's really not the source of the imbalances in the game.

The problem is that for many of those armies they are still investing points into everything and statistically only half of those points are going to have returns assuming no denies.

You always get to shoot, and it is almost always fixed, either BS 1 for snap shots, or your bs.

For casting, there is warp charge generation, there is spells you actually get, there is deny the witch. There are many more barriers to casting. How is it any different from having 10 powers last edition where your opponent could do next to nothing. Its just now it takes place all at once instead of being spread out. There are less powers going off now for the same points investment and there was little to no desire to nerf them last edition.

I think give them some time, give people a chance to adapt their lists to 7th edition before me put restrictions on things. I would rather have a few growing pains and identify the true problem rather than guess at what part is the problem and nerf the wrong part.

Is having 40 warp charges the problem, or is it conjuration? If we have conjouration with fewer charges does that solve it? Or is it the lore itself and not the number of dice that are the problem?

Is it that people are still needing to adjust to an edition or is it actually something wrong with the core rules? Is it something we can resolve through mission design or do we have to make changes to the core rules?

I think it is too soon to answer any of these questions and we need more play testing, learning the edition, development of lists that work toward the edition, identification of missions and mission design. If none of these steps seem to work than I think at that point you start banning things, but I feel it is too soon to ban things out the gate, especially when we are consistently getting conflicting reports and results of the effectiveness of things.

If you are a TO with significant investment of resources into an event I understand the desire to curb things, but I think a lot of people want to play 7th edition, not 5th edition with a psyker phase(which is limited). Even with the 2+ re-rolled. I think if you learn to play, have a decent list, and have dynamic progressive missions it solves a lot of the problems.

 Reecius wrote:
@Zagman

Because in that instance you end up with 6 Riptides and 6 Wraithknight lists. I don't think most players want to see that on the table.

That does stink big time that your army got invalidated though, that sucks.

6 Riptides? Who cares? We already could field five in 6th and it was a mediocre list at 1850 at best, four was the sweet spot and now what made that work, the O'VesaStar is gone. Definitely not a concern, any halfway decent Objective Secured army will neuter it. Easy win for many armies, the Meta will learn that quickly and it won't last. No one is going to bring it, if they do, they'll lose anyway,

6 Wraithknights, 78% of an 1850 Army that gives 12 shots per turn. 1440pts not spent on Objective Secured Wave Serpents. I'm not seeing the problem.


My point is, there are tons of possibilities of spamming crazy units, but how many are actually going to be effective armies? How many are going to beat Objective Secured Wave Serpents?


If not allowing two full Detachments, allowing self Allying for Supplements is not a bad compromise.

@Red Beard

Well, that is an odd argument, don't you think? You simultaneously say that the overpowered shooting phase is a problem, but then use it as an example of why we should not limit the psychic phase. Doesn't that seem like an at least slightly hypocritical argument?

But, we do limit the shooting phase. We use a LOT of LoS blocking terrain at our events to force the game to be about maneuver. It just isn't as obvious of a change. Every choice we make for policy is meant to make the game more fair fore more people. That may not be obvious or you may disagree, but that is our motivation.

@Leth

Last edition, we found the 2+ reroll save within 3 days of the edition dropping. We decided to wait and see how it would pan out and ended up seeing it become entrenched. It became MUCH more difficult to change that rule after players got used to using it and didn't want to change. I wish we would have trusted our instincts and took action immediately, then.

Now, we see another similar situation and don't want to sit on our hands until we're neck deep in another problem that kills the fun for a lot of players, watching more and more players quit 40K, because that is what is happening. Every month, we lost players to other games with more balanced rules.

I would rather make a mistake being overly conservative now, and then change it back later than let something in now and then see it become normal when we could have easily changed it and made the game more fun for more people in the early stages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@zagman

You may not care, which is fine, but most players do. Most people do not want to play against those lists. You are free to disagree. However, not a single TO I have talked to has said they were ever considering 2 primary detachments.

And if you think OS Wave Serpents are bad (which I agree) imagine having access to twice as many. It's silly.

It appears Nova has dropped there initial rules adjustments: http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/June-1-Newsletter-re-7th-Edition.pdf?utm_source=June+1%2C+2014%3A+NOVA+Open+Newsletter&utm_campaign=April+1+NOVA+Open+Newsletter+2014&utm_medium=email

Its a little on the conservative side but the unbound seems to be a shoe in. They appear to be on the fence about LoW as well. They mentioned invisibility on a guard blob. That would be disgusting.

what? seems pretty clear they're not using unbound to me:

"Thus, we are
unlikely to use Unbound (aka, basically the
same as Apocalypse) in our GT, Invitational, or
Narrative Events."

said they were pretty sold on a 2 source army, allowing double CAD, CAD/ally, CAD/formation

 gigasnail wrote:
what? seems pretty clear they're not using unbound to me:

"Thus, we are
unlikely to use Unbound (aka, basically the
same as Apocalypse) in our GT, Invitational, or
Narrative Events."

said they were pretty sold on a 2 source army, allowing double CAD, CAD/ally, CAD/formation

I needed a comma in there. As a whole they seem to be threading lightly but obviously acknowledge that there are problems with the edition. I think a general acceptance with that fact is what is needed. We can start making changes... Once we accept that there is a problem.

 Crablezworth wrote:
The bs1 is so blast/template can target the unit?

I would imagine so. This would in fact be the traditional way to deal with something you can't see. Can't see it? just blast the whole area. That's exactly how I'd imagine most battlefield commanders would deal with something like that.