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.

Trasvi wrote:
Basically, I feel justified telling minority groups of players that my tournaments don't support X rule/model because the aim of my tournaments is to raise money, and if the best way to attract more players unfortunately leaves a small set of players out, so be it.

Yes, and this is exactly the problem: there are a lot of people who have no interest at all in making legitimate balance changes and just want to ban the stuff they don't like, and TOs like you encourage them simply because there are lots of them. 40k is never going to be a serious competitive game until people get over this idea of banning whole categories of rules for questionable reasons and start fixing balance changes the right way.

Would you prefer that TO's say, ":Sure Peregrine, you can bring your baneblade, but its now 700pts instead.". Or, "You can bring your baneblade, but it is S8 AP4". Would you really accept that?

No, because the Baneblade is a mediocre unit that doesn't need nerfing. The only reason banning it is even being considered is that it wasn't in 5th edition.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes, and this is exactly the problem: there are a lot of people who have no interest at all in making legitimate balance changes and just want to ban the stuff they don't like, and TOs like you encourage them simply because there are lots of them. 40k is never going to be a serious competitive game until people get over this idea of banning whole categories of rules for questionable reasons and start fixing balance changes the right way.

Warhammer is never going to be a competitive balanced tournament game. Peregrinehammer might be. Trasvihammer might be. How many people can you get to play those games? If you're going to start altering rules specifically for your event at the granularity of points levels or weapon profiles, such that people need to learn Trasvihammer before they come to my events, why not just play a completely different game instead?

Would you prefer that TO's say, ":Sure Peregrine, you can bring your baneblade, but its now 700pts instead.". Or, "You can bring your baneblade, but it is S8 AP4". Would you really accept that?

No, because the Baneblade is a mediocre unit that doesn't need nerfing. The only reason banning it is even being considered is that it wasn't in 5th edition.

Trasvi wrote:
If you're going to start altering rules specifically for your event at the granularity of points levels or weapon profiles, such that people need to learn Trasvihammer before they come to my events, why not just play a completely different game instead?

Because 99% of the game is exactly the same, and because you want to use your 40k army and play a game against other 40k armies. It's certainly a lot closer to the normal game of 40k than the average tournament, where whole categories of rules are banned entirely so that the TO can pretend that they aren't targeting specific problem units/armies.

Substitute Baneblade for Waveserpent or Transcendent C'tan or Manta or whatever else you want. The point isn't what the unit is: it is would you accept individual TO's changing points levels and weapons profiles, or would you just rage at them for banning things they don't like if their solution isn't exactly the same as your desired solution?

Yes, that's exactly what they should be doing, if it is justified. The problem we have here is that things that don't have the magic "codex" label or weren't in the 5th edition FOC are assumed to be banned by default, while anything from a codex is assumed to be sacred and untouchable. Escalation is banned, FW is banned, multiple FOCs is banned, CTA allies are banned, etc. Meanwhile even blatant codex balance issues that virtually everyone agrees on are ignored. I mean, FFS, look how hard it was to convince people to accept even the smallest nerf to re-rollable 2++ saves, something that pretty much everyone agreed was overpowered and not fun to play against. It's just like the good old days of "I don't like your fluff" comp scoring, except with different comp rules.

And no, I'm not going to ragequit if someone makes Wave Serpents +10 points instead of +15 like I want. It isn't the specific solutions I hate, it's the attitude of banning whole categories of stuff that isn't even close to a balance problem while ignoring even the most obvious codex issues. As long as a TO is following my general principle of making the fewest changes necessary and making them based on how a unit functions, not which GW book it was published in, I'm not going to nitpick the fine details of it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
If you're going to start altering rules specifically for your event at the granularity of points levels or weapon profiles, such that people need to learn Trasvihammer before they come to my events, why not just play a completely different game instead?

Because 99% of the game is exactly the same, and because you want to use your 40k army and play a game against other 40k armies. It's certainly a lot closer to the normal game of 40k than the average tournament, where whole categories of rules are banned entirely so that the TO can pretend that they aren't targeting specific problem units/armies.

Substitute Baneblade for Waveserpent or Transcendent C'tan or Manta or whatever else you want. The point isn't what the unit is: it is would you accept individual TO's changing points levels and weapons profiles, or would you just rage at them for banning things they don't like if their solution isn't exactly the same as your desired solution?

Yes, that's exactly what they should be doing, if it is justified. The problem we have here is that things that don't have the magic "codex" label or weren't in the 5th edition FOC are assumed to be banned by default, while anything from a codex is assumed to be sacred and untouchable. Escalation is banned, FW is banned, multiple FOCs is banned, CTA allies are banned, etc. Meanwhile even blatant codex balance issues that virtually everyone agrees on are ignored. I mean, FFS, look how hard it was to convince people to accept even the smallest nerf to re-rollable 2++ saves, something that pretty much everyone agreed was overpowered and not fun to play against. It's just like the good old days of "I don't like your fluff" comp scoring, except with different comp rules.

As you say: look how hard it is to do a tiny nerf to 2++/+ saves. If it is that hard to make such a small change, it is going to be massively harder to do bigger changes. If a solution is unfeasible, it is not a valid solution. The 'if it is justified' words are a problem there too. I actually happen to think that baneblades are too powerful, yet you obviously don't. How does a TO resolve this and still maintain a good turnout of players?

So I agree with you that the meta-problem is the magic codex word; but we can't solve that problem, so we need to find a different way other than telling people to piss off and we don't need them in our tournaments.

And no, I'm not going to ragequit if someone makes Wave Serpents +10 points instead of +15 like I want. It isn't the specific solutions I hate, it's the attitude of banning whole categories of stuff that isn't even close to a balance problem while ignoring even the most obvious codex issues. As long as a TO is following my general principle of making the fewest changes necessary and making them based on how a unit functions, not which GW book it was published in, I'm not going to nitpick the fine details of it.

I think you're very much in the minority there then. I wouldn't play in tournaments that decide to increase the points cost or change the rules of my units - even though I recognise that as the problem. Why? Because most of my games are non-tournament games anyway, and I don't want to show up at the FLGS and discuss with my opponent about which upcoming tournament's set of rules and points costs he should use and why his army is suddenly illegal.

Trasvi wrote:
As you say: look how hard it is to do a tiny nerf to 2++/+ saves. If it is that hard to make such a small change, it is going to be massively harder to do bigger changes.

The problem isn't that it's hard, it's that too many TOs agree with the players. If every TO in the country decided (after careful consideration) to impose the new balance changes then the players would have a choice: either quit playing 40k in tournaments, or accept that this is just how the game works now. I can understand people with thousands of dollars in hotel fees not wanting to take that risk, but the solution can start with local TOs and smaller events. But that's not going to happen because way too many TOs genuinely think that banning FW/Escalation/etc is absolutely necessary, but everything in a codex is the sacred word of god and must never be changed.

I actually happen to think that baneblades are too powerful, yet you obviously don't.

I really don't see how. Compare what it can do to what an equivalent point value in conventional units can do. Sure, it has a big pie plate, but it dies in one turn against anti-superheavy threats like melta sternguard pods, and when it dies it can take out half your army. I'd only take a Baneblade for fluff reasons, if I just want to win I'd much rather have 500 points worth of Riptides and markerlight support for my pie plates. I've used superheavies in normal games since before Escalation, and most of the time the most useful thing it does is draw a bunch of fire away from more important units. Then once my opponents figured out how little damage a single pie plate can do when you have a good cover save they just started ignoring the superheavies, focusing on killing the rest of my army (especially scoring units), and winning games.

And, regardless of whether or not it's overpowered, the question is whether it is more overpowered than the codex units that are "indisputably" legal. I don't think there's a very convincing case for that once you've played against a Baneblade a few times.

I think you're very much in the minority there then. I wouldn't play in tournaments that decide to increase the points cost or change the rules of my units - even though I recognise that as the problem. Why? Because most of my games are non-tournament games anyway, and I don't want to show up at the FLGS and discuss with my opponent about which upcoming tournament's set of rules and points costs he should use and why his army is suddenly illegal.

But (I presume) you play in tournaments that decide to make much more significant changes to the game. How do you consider this a consistent set of standards?

I say go back to 5th ed and tweak to allow the newer codices from there. You will have the benifit of the INAT FAQ and It will be easier than trying to sort out the subjective rules mess that GW has created in 6th/7th eds

Take 5th ed, change wound allocation, take cover saves back to 4th ed and add greater variety of missions with a couple of missions having a random objective that shows up 2nd to 3rd turn.

Just my opinion

 Peregrine wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
As you say: look how hard it is to do a tiny nerf to 2++/+ saves. If it is that hard to make such a small change, it is going to be massively harder to do bigger changes.

The problem isn't that it's hard, it's that too many TOs agree with the players. If every TO in the country decided (after careful consideration) to impose the new balance changes then the players would have a choice: either quit playing 40k in tournaments, or accept that this is just how the game works now. I can understand people with thousands of dollars in hotel fees not wanting to take that risk, but the solution can start with local TOs and smaller events. But that's not going to happen because way too many TOs genuinely think that banning FW/Escalation/etc is absolutely necessary, but everything in a codex is the sacred word of god and must never be changed.

Frankly, driving players away from the hobby is not an option. I would rather continue running horribly unbalanced tournaments than have a single player have to 'suck it up and play by Trasvi's rules or quit 40k'. Or the other option is all the disgruntled players who don't like playing Trasvihammer and want to play 40k according to the rulebook start their own tournaments, o

Without a centralised authority on the rules (which is GW) no-one is going to accept changes to individual models. I agree that it is needed, but I completely disagree that it is possible.

And, regardless of whether or not it's overpowered, the question is whether it is more overpowered than the codex units that are "indisputably" legal. I don't think there's a very convincing case for that once you've played against a Baneblade a few times.

The point is that you and I disagree about whether the rules should be altered, and therefore the standard solution is to not alter the rules.
Repeat for transcendent c'tan, wave serpents, etc, etc.

But (I presume) you play in tournaments that decide to make much more significant changes to the game. How do you consider this a consistent set of standards?

Because even though it's not the right thing to do, it's a lot easier to get everyone to agree to consistent but sweeping bans (eg, no Forgeworld) or specific bans (no Transcendent C'tan/ no D Weapons) and all playing those rules by default within the local area, than to get lots of people to agree on a multitude of individual points adjustments. With 3 sentences I can describe the entirity of changes to the game that are necessary, rather than adding a 100-page tome to every player's pack of our particular rules adjustments.

And really, Escalation/Forgeworld etc are on the fringes of 40k. Not to say that they're any less officially legal, but they are less 'core' to the games. The core rules, the rulebook and the codex, should be expected to work as written out of the box it seems logical (and players accept that) the less-core rules (Allies->Supplements->Dataslates->Expansions->Forgeworld) are tweaked or require consent/agreement in some way.

Trasvi wrote:
Frankly, driving players away from the hobby is not an option.

Too bad, because it's the ONLY option. The only question here is whether you drive away the players who ragequit if you dare to adjust the points/rules for a codex unit, or the players who don't bother showing up because you banned their army just so you could pretend that you're not picking on Wave Serpents.

The point is that you and I disagree about whether the rules should be altered, and therefore the standard solution is to not alter the rules.
Repeat for transcendent c'tan, wave serpents, etc, etc.

Great, so FW rules, lords of war, fortifications, unbound lists, multiple FOCs, etc, are all legal now? Or when you say "not alter the rules" do you really mean "don't alter the rules, except in the way that I think they should be altered"?

And really, Escalation/Forgeworld etc are on the fringes of 40k. Not to say that they're any less officially legal, but they are less 'core' to the games. The core rules, the rulebook and the codex, should be expected to work as written out of the box it seems logical (and players accept that) the less-core rules (Allies->Supplements->Dataslates->Expansions->Forgeworld) are tweaked or require consent/agreement in some way.

Superheavies are in the core rules. And the "less-core rules" aren't "less-core" because those are the rules GW published, they're "less-core" because certain players have declared that this is how it's going to be.

@Peregrine, I think where you fall down on this is that most of those changes aren't big changes for most people in the hobby. Most players don't own super heavies, and all players were not accustomed to fielding them in tournaments. So a tournament saying NO Escalation, despite it now being allowed, did not effect a large portion of players. Most people don't own a ton of FW models/units, or a FW army, and for a long time no tournaments really allowed FW. SO remaining this way does not effect a majority of players. Most people own standard FOC armies, so saying no unbound does not hurt a majority of players.

I'm not saying all of this makes banning them "right", but it does make it much easier than changing core rules. It also makes the "less core" to a majority of players because they are not typical of the games they play.

Furthermore you act as if all TOs would be on the same page (they aren't/won't be) and that they hold immense ammounts of power (they don't). If some how all TOs decided on the ruleset and still said FW is banned you would not be happy. And if they set up this system, as was stated you could just start your own event and then the "system" falls apart. Futhermore, if all TOs agreed on this the first one ot have an event could end up the fall guy and out a bunch of money, when people don't show up for his/her event.

As a TO players hold all the power, regardless of what I may personally feel, if I get enough push back on something, I'm going to cave because without players I don't have an event.

Breng77 wrote:
@Peregrine, I think where you fall down on this is that most of those changes aren't big changes for most people in the hobby. Most players don't own super heavies, and all players were not accustomed to fielding them in tournaments. So a tournament saying NO Escalation, despite it now being allowed, did not effect a large portion of players. Most people don't own a ton of FW models/units, or a FW army, and for a long time no tournaments really allowed FW. SO remaining this way does not effect a majority of players. Most people own standard FOC armies, so saying no unbound does not hurt a majority of players.

I'm not saying all of this makes banning them "right", but it does make it much easier than changing core rules. It also makes the "less core" to a majority of players because they are not typical of the games they play.

Furthermore you act as if all TOs would be on the same page (they aren't/won't be) and that they hold immense ammounts of power (they don't). If some how all TOs decided on the ruleset and still said FW is banned you would not be happy. And if they set up this system, as was stated you could just start your own event and then the "system" falls apart. Futhermore, if all TOs agreed on this the first one ot have an event could end up the fall guy and out a bunch of money, when people don't show up for his/her event.

As a TO players hold all the power, regardless of what I may personally feel, if I get enough push back on something, I'm going to cave because without players I don't have an event.

Everyone I play with, even at my FLGS, does not want to play with LoW/Escalation/FW/Unbound. Anecdotal evidence, sure, but I have experienced the same thing as the Trasvi and Breng77. Most players aren't accustomed to a lot of the new changes and many aren't particularly interested in purchasing LoW, accessing the rules for FW, etc, etc.

FW also presents an issue because it supplies the armies that got the biggest buff in 7th (Imperials) with even more choices and flexibility. Xenos gain very little from FW, but Imperial Guard/Space Marines gain a TON. If you look at codices, each army gets about the same amount of choices. FW completely changes that. I agree that most of the choices aren't any more broken than those in the codices, but it is a case of the rich getting richer and by extension I think that hurts the armies who gain little to nothing from FW.

 LValx wrote:

Invis can lead to some ridiculously durable units, sure, but those existed all throughout 6th and nobody nerfed specific powers. I don't think Invisibility is good enough to warrant that treatment.

Well, that's your personal opinion. We have more than 100 players appreciating the change - so you are happy with the basic rules, we are happy with re-balancing them. Sounds like a win to me.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 LValx wrote:

Invis can lead to some ridiculously durable units, sure, but those existed all throughout 6th and nobody nerfed specific powers. I don't think Invisibility is good enough to warrant that treatment.

Well, that's your personal opinion. We have more than 100 players appreciating the change - so you are happy with the basic rules, we are happy with re-balancing them. Sounds like a win to me.

To each their own and if that is what your player base prefers, so be it. Majority rules is fine by me.

It's the old story, simply calling apocalypse 40k does not change how a majority of players envision 40k.

 Crablezworth wrote:
It's the old story, simply calling apocalypse 40k does not change how a majority of players envision 40k.

What exactly is the difference between vanilla 40k and Apocalypse now?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
It's the old story, simply calling apocalypse 40k does not change how a majority of players envision 40k.

What exactly is the difference between vanilla 40k and Apocalypse now?

Individuals who collectively want some boundaries and limits on what is acceptable and entitled wealthy toy collectors who think everyone should adopt their free market ideology.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Individuals who collectively want some boundaries and limits on what is acceptable and entitled wealthy toy collectors who think everyone should adopt their free market ideology.

So it's class warfare to like big models? Seriously?

I like big models. And, yet, I'll point out the obvious - even small models are expensive, and big FW models are largely inefficient use of points.

Consider a reaver titan. 425 + 3x 54 = 587 pounds, Roughly $1000. That's a lot, sure. But he's also 1500 points. Let's say I want to play a top eldar competitive build. Offhand, 2 wraithknights, 12 jetbikes, 10 warlocks, 2 farseers, 3 waveserpents, 15 dire avengers and 3 more jetbikes. (is that 1500?? I have no idea, no army builder at work). But, it's probably not too far off and not too extreme. That'll run you $850.

You might say, "but I can buy my guys at a 20% discount" and I'll say, "I can find a used armourcast titan for $500," and now I've spent less than your 20% off.

To try and make this about money is ridiculous. All the models are expensive, and there aren't a lot of poor people playing these games at all, let alone travelling to GTs. If I choose to spend my cash on a titan, it's not because I'm an entitled wealthy collector, it's that I'm an entitled wealthy collector who chose to spend my entitled wealth differently than how you chose to spend your entitled wealth.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
It's the old story, simply calling apocalypse 40k does not change how a majority of players envision 40k.

What exactly is the difference between vanilla 40k and Apocalypse now?

Individuals who collectively want some boundaries and limits on what is acceptable and entitled wealthy toy collectors who think everyone should adopt their free market ideology.

So if we're taking a cost/wealth related stance, when are we going to ban Sisters of Battle too at $80 per 10 man unit of basic infantry?

Besides, it's not hard to get superheavy models *very* cheap if one wants too (yoy-cheap...).

 Redbeard wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Individuals who collectively want some boundaries and limits on what is acceptable and entitled wealthy toy collectors who think everyone should adopt their free market ideology.

So it's class warfare to like big models? Seriously?

Deregulation helps some more than others. In the end it's terrible for everyone.

In my local group I have yet to see a LoW or Imperial Knight last longer than second turn with the exception to myself, and that is only because I run Iron hands bikes, techmarines, thunderfire canons, and vindicators. I end up having several serious threats that require dealing with forcing my opponent to split resources. Even then the knight isn't a big issue. Blast weapons have a degree of randomness that makes them unpredictable. I either win big or lose horribly and never because of the knight. The guy who runs 3 landraiders pretty much wins every time he plays in my group. I just don't see LoW and Imperial Knights as a problem. Every army has effective means of dismantling them in different ways. Space Marines Sternguard being the unit that comes to mind most often. And models like Imperial knights really aren't too pricey if you budget for them rather than impulse buy.

Forgeworld is never going to be accepted main stream unless they break down and print their rules in the actual armies rulebooks, which they have no intention of doing. Most tournaments are complicated enough without all these options, especially since GW themselves abandoned any pretense that their game was remotely balanced, or put any effort into balanced rules writing. I cant blame TO's one bit for wanting to keep them that much less confusing and banning things they can get away with that 98 precent of the players couldn't care less about.

If there was some way to get everyone to agree on how to internally balance the codices they would do that in a heartbeat. But since you cant nerf unit A without 100 complaints and at least a few players refusing to follow those guidelines, their hands are tied for all but the gamebreaking stuff.

The fact is GW is doing a piss poor job, and the game we all loved to play in tournaments and such just isn't there anymore, and the mess we are left with is so bad you cant do anything without upsetting one crowd or another. The day GW is forced to sell to someone else will probably be the beginning of the best era 40k has known in a lot of years.

 Orock wrote:
Forgeworld is never going to be accepted main stream unless they break down and print their rules in the actual armies rulebooks, which they have no intention of doing.

This isn't necessarily their decision, though many units have made the transition. Some have then moved back, back again, and back once more (the Griffon was a GW unit in 2E and 3E, then at the end of 3E was made and FW unit until 5E when it became a Codex unit again, and 6E has turned it back to an FW exclusive unit...)

Updated the OP with what the BAO and the Nova currently have for their particular event.

I'm hoping Nova goes with the you can take two detachments, either you are allowed allies or the double FOC.

Has anyone considered this idea:

Instead of limiting how many detachments there are, you outlaw duplicate detachment types.
A player may have only one CAD, only one Allied, only one Inquisition, etc. You may take as many Detachments as you like, so long as you don't duplicate.
Or perhaps, since the CAD is so fundamental, allow two CADs but no other duplicates.

Also, count Formations as a Detachment. You may bring one Skyblight, but not two, since that'd be a duplicate.

The issue with that line of thought is that it only benefits imperial armies more or less unless people run a lot of cat stuff.

Tau get 1 formation and allies
Daemons 1 formation and allies
Csm 1 formation and allies
Imperials- formation, ally, inquisition, knights, legion of the damned

Limits everyone is just much cleaner .

Ban everything until the only option left is an all nurgle daemon army that must deploy all of its models on the field and can't have FMCs.

Only then will I be happy.

Remember when 40k and apoc were different? Those were the days.

Did they ban the 2++ rr yet? As we have limited it to Max 3++ and.no re rolls, seems harsh I know but we got sick of the massive amounts of complaints and quite clear imbalance.

To summarise we ruled it like this

No invulnerable save can ever be better than 3+ and invulnerable saves cannot be re rolled for any reason.

This one may be controversial but we also have changed serpent shields

Range: 18"
Str7 ap-
Serpent shields count as weapons for weapon destroyed results and remove both the defensive and offensive components of the serpent shield.

And

Marker lights may never reduce snap shots to hit to less than a 4+, and cover to a 6+

So far this has addressed some of the imbalance of tau and eldar.

 Formosa wrote:
Did they ban the 2++ rr yet? As we have limited it to Max 3++ and.no re rolls, seems harsh I know but we got sick of the massive amounts of complaints and quite clear imbalance.

To summarise we ruled it like this

No invulnerable save can ever be better than 3+ and invulnerable saves cannot be re rolled for any reason.

This one may be controversial but we also have changed serpent shields

Range: 18"
Str7 ap-
Serpent shields count as weapons for weapon destroyed results and remove both the defensive and offensive components of the serpent shield.

And

Marker lights may never reduce snap shots to hit to less than a 4+, and cover to a 6+

So far this has addressed some of the imbalance of tau and eldar.

Did you ban daemonology yet?

About the events, any news on what missions they will use?