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.

Two sources, what like Malifaux on Saturday and Infinity on Sunday? Good plan!



The laxer the core rules for 40k get, the more micromanagement the game requires. This then leaves TOs the hard job of saying "Yea" or "Nay" based upon what fills seats for their event. If two source does, then two source it is. But you're now bound, more than ever, to alienate players and their lists. The final straw for me was two source in that I couldn't run my modern take on Codex: Witchhunters even though it was fluffy at my local area events. The folks who run the events will always have the power to shape their local, and potentially national, meta, and from what I've heard listening to them on podcasts, it's not always a desired outcome. I do not favor their position in the least.

Just make sure you offer different games than GW stuff, that's the best way to appease everyone!

Personally, I think the conservative approach that Mike is taking is the way to go. For those that don't like it, Trios or Narrative offer a more open play environment. It'll be interesting to see what type of list combo prevails at Trios given the total lack of restrictions.

As for GTs going forward, I'm fine with single CAD, unlimited formations...but why not drop down to 1500? Feast is trying it, though their missions are a bit KP heavy to draw conclusions for NOVA-style events.

1500 doesn't just help with time management, it also limits the craziness a bit because if you do try and take multiple formations that are very strong, you'll completely lack support. If you try to take Adamantine Lance at 1500, you open yourself to RPS much more than at 1850. Not that AL is unbeatable or anything, but it gets real nasty when you have 4 Wave Serpents backing it up or 4 Night Scythes etc.

Thoughts?

A local tournament here in the Seattle area is coming up to cap off an escalation league we have been playing and we are trying out the 0-1 on all detachments. The local players liked the sound of it and it really dose not ham-string armies as much as you think.

 The Shrike wrote:
Personally, I think the conservative approach that Mike is taking is the way to go. For those that don't like it, Trios or Narrative offer a more open play environment. It'll be interesting to see what type of list combo prevails at Trios given the total lack of restrictions.

As for GTs going forward, I'm fine with single CAD, unlimited formations...but why not drop down to 1500? Feast is trying it, though their missions are a bit KP heavy to draw conclusions for NOVA-style events.

1500 doesn't just help with time management, it also limits the craziness a bit because if you do try and take multiple formations that are very strong, you'll completely lack support. If you try to take Adamantine Lance at 1500, you open yourself to RPS much more than at 1850. Not that AL is unbeatable or anything, but it gets real nasty when you have 4 Wave Serpents backing it up or 4 Night Scythes etc.

Thoughts?

This isn't just in regards to Nova. This is a general discussion. And the more I've discussed it with local's and others I do feel like something close to this really is the best way forward:

All Detachments are Unique (Remember Formations are detachments as well.)
0-2 On all FoC Detachments (Meaning Combine Arms, Allie, Wolves Unleashed, Inquisition, Imperial Knights, etc)
0+ Formations (Remember each is 0-1)
Limited Lords of War - Ban List (i.e. Transcendant C'tan or any unit that carries a weapon that fires a helstorm or blast over 5" that is AP2 and Ignores cover)
Limited Fortifications - Ban List (Networks and AV15 Fortifications)

Simple but fairly open. Shouldn't be any easier to abuse than the current system and has the advantage of being designed for what seems like 7th edition releases.

@Happygrunt

Are they limiting the number of FOC Detachments at all or is it just 0-1 so currently Orks could run 4 (CAD, Ally, Ghaz, Ork Horde), Wolves could do 4, and GK could do 3 while everyone else is restricted to CAD & Ally? Just curious.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 The Shrike wrote:
Personally, I think the conservative approach that Mike is taking is the way to go. For those that don't like it, Trios or Narrative offer a more open play environment. It'll be interesting to see what type of list combo prevails at Trios given the total lack of restrictions.

As for GTs going forward, I'm fine with single CAD, unlimited formations...but why not drop down to 1500? Feast is trying it, though their missions are a bit KP heavy to draw conclusions for NOVA-style events.

1500 doesn't just help with time management, it also limits the craziness a bit because if you do try and take multiple formations that are very strong, you'll completely lack support. If you try to take Adamantine Lance at 1500, you open yourself to RPS much more than at 1850. Not that AL is unbeatable or anything, but it gets real nasty when you have 4 Wave Serpents backing it up or 4 Night Scythes etc.

Thoughts?

This isn't just in regards to Nova. This is a general discussion. And the more I've discussed it with local's and others I do feel like something close to this really is the best way forward:

All Detachments are Unique (Remember Formations are detachments as well.)
0-2 On all FoC Detachments (Meaning Combine Arms, Allie, Wolves Unleashed, Inquisition, Imperial Knights, etc)
0+ Formations (Remember each is 0-1)
Limited Lords of War - Ban List (i.e. Transcendant C'tan or any unit that carries a weapon that fires a helstorm or blast over 5" that is AP2 and Ignores cover)
Limited Fortifications - Ban List (Networks and AV15 Fortifications)

Simple but fairly open. Shouldn't be any easier to abuse than the current system and has the advantage of being designed for what seems like 7th edition releases.

@Happygrunt

Are they limiting the number of FOC Detachments at all or is it just 0-1 so currently Orks could run 4 (CAD, Ally, Ghaz, Ork Horde), Wolves could do 4, and GK could do 3 while everyone else is restricted to CAD & Ally? Just curious.

I could ride with that; but what do you think about 1500?

I think point values are open for events to determine. I think if you have the ability to do 245-3 hours I prefer 1850. I like my toys

That said if you don't have the time then 1500 is fine.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think point values are open for events to determine. I think if you have the ability to do 245-3 hours I prefer 1850. I like my toys

That said if you don't have the time then 1500 is fine.

Except with codex point inflation 1500 today is closer to 1750/1850 back in 5th.

[rant] I still don't understand why people would rather play 4 turn games then have enough time for EVERY game to finish comfortably on time. Time management has more to do with winning most large formats then almost anything else.[/rant]

Otherwise I think the suggested restrictions are much truer to 7th then the arbitrary 2 source limit.

@RedCorsair

I would rather every game finish on time. That's why I threw out 2.75 or 3 hours requirements to play anything over 1500. That said, there need to be rules in place by the TO's regarding finishing your games. There should be a punishment, especially at the top tables, for not ending naturally.

But that's a personal pet peeve of mine.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@RedCorsair

I would rather every game finish on time. That's why I threw out 2.75 or 3 hours requirements to play anything over 1500. That said, there need to be rules in place by the TO's regarding finishing your games. There should be a punishment, especially at the top tables, for not ending naturally.

But that's a personal pet peeve of mine.

You and me both, gaming the clock is WAY to common a thing currently. If players fail to reach a natural conclusion heavy penalties should follow.

I just thing 3 hours isn't enough for the average gamer so lowering points is an easier fix.

It didn't really hit me until reading this thread just how complicated it all can be. I would say that us older generation players have it worse than someone learning the game because before, there wasn't always a language to learn about the RESOURCES we used to build lists. Two sources used to mean two codex'? Now the big dirty word is DETATCHMENTS. Count up those pesky detatchments but don't go over two. The basic force org of 6th ed is now named a Combined Arms Detatchment in 7th (for all intents and purposes). Allies? yup, they are called Allied Detatchments. Formations? Yup, they too are detatchments. Sounds kinda easy once it's just spelled out for you. I guess the best way to understand it is by describing the exceptions to detatchments other than what IS a detatchment.

Some dataslates are detatchments, some aren't. That's about as far as I think I can remember after the brain freeze I get thinking about it.

So, IMO, to rethink changing things up, you pretty much have to start at the dirty word and to me, that's Detatchments. If we assume that TO's are going to start here to tweak their allowances on list building then we have to first ask if we want to allow more Detatchments. If yes, then a blanket +1 would be a good start to see how crazy it's going to get. If you want to add +1 Detatchment but limit it to one paticular type then that would further hemn in the potential for abusive lists. If you want to add another Detatchment (up to 3 total) but limit the number of sources you can field together, then that too would curb a bit of the craziness. Or...you could do all add another Detatchment and lower the point values. This is tricky as you could still see some craziness ensue and the abuse would really fall in favor of who could do it the cheapest.

To a more recent proposal of this thread, yeah, dropping the points to 1750 or even 1500 could do you some good as far as getting games in. I do feel that this just punishes Codex' like GK that have a pretty high CAD tax as it is. I think one of the reasons certain codex' have such a high winning percentage is the afordability of useful units. Spamming quality won't stop low cost codex's from stealing from other sources to further enhance weakness' within their parent codex. Big Tax codex's can't afford the 350pts cut since they already require those points to fulfill roles like AT or AA that their "taxed units" don't provide on their own.

An aside to this, I keep seeing 2k point lists popping up in the list's section of this website and I almost always roll my eyes. I assume people post lists to help judge their Competitiveness. Since 2k will hardly ever be a standard in tournaments (even you here are proposing 1500ish point levels) I don't know why people feel like they should even post the lists? My thinking is that you aren't going to use it in a competitive setting, nor are you using it to practise for a competitive event, so why care what you play at 2k? It's a funzy. Rock that double CAD T'Ctan x2 list, plop down those 9 void shields and Warhound, or field those x9 annibarges...the game is out of balance at that level already. Most TO's feel it's unbalanced at 1850 or they wouldn't hash out banned lists or detatchment caps on here. sorry if that read ranting, it kinda was but I just thought maybe you level headed people could assist me in seeing the light behind the goofy nature of 2k lists trying to emulate 1500pt. restrictions.

The game is horribly out of balance no matter what point level you play at. Some tournaments still play 2k. People always seem to say 1500 will be the answer to players not finishing games. Most likely it really won't be. Players are not likely to drop the things in their list that take a long time to play. The lower the points the more potent summoning style lists become, People put in detachment caps to limit stuff like 9 farseers and 18x 3 Jetbikes being an army. At 1500 is this really going to be hurt by instead being say 7 farseers and 14 Jebike squads? Now Hulk is still calling for limits, just different ones. What it comes down to is the game is broken, no matter what you choose to do it will favor some armies over others.

I don't think balance is the only issue, Breng77- as you say, no matter what you do, there will be something broken. But simplicity and having a structure for people to build armies towards is helpful, even if it doesn't achieve perfect balance. This is why people like the current 2-source, but as things continue to be released, I think making sources 0-1 (unique) with a limit of 2 FOC type sources is similarly helpful.

My response was more a response to the thinking that we don't need restrictions if we lower points, and that lowering the points somehow "fixes" things.

At the moment I really am not liking any of the formats. No matter what someone ends up annoyed with the choice. I agree that having a baseline helps, but in general 7th army construction has sucked alot of fun out of the game for me. Which is one reason I am currently on a break from playing (I haven't played since Connecticon) too much info coming out too fast, with too many options to sift through.

The game should allow multiple sources not limited to only two. Tournaments are really start to lag behind now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Painnen wrote:
It didn't really hit me until reading this thread just how complicated it all can be. I would say that us older generation players have it worse than someone learning the game because before, there wasn't always a language to learn about the RESOURCES we used to build lists. Two sources used to mean two codex'? Now the big dirty word is DETATCHMENTS. Count up those pesky detatchments but don't go over two. The basic force org of 6th ed is now named a Combined Arms Detatchment in 7th (for all intents and purposes). Allies? yup, they are called Allied Detatchments. Formations? Yup, they too are detatchments. Sounds kinda easy once it's just spelled out for you. I guess the best way to understand it is by describing the exceptions to detatchments other than what IS a detatchment.

Some dataslates are detatchments, some aren't. That's about as far as I think I can remember after the brain freeze I get thinking about it.

So, IMO, to rethink changing things up, you pretty much have to start at the dirty word and to me, that's Detatchments. If we assume that TO's are going to start here to tweak their allowances on list building then we have to first ask if we want to allow more Detatchments. If yes, then a blanket +1 would be a good start to see how crazy it's going to get. If you want to add +1 Detatchment but limit it to one paticular type then that would further hemn in the potential for abusive lists. If you want to add another Detatchment (up to 3 total) but limit the number of sources you can field together, then that too would curb a bit of the craziness. Or...you could do all add another Detatchment and lower the point values. This is tricky as you could still see some craziness ensue and the abuse would really fall in favor of who could do it the cheapest.

To a more recent proposal of this thread, yeah, dropping the points to 1750 or even 1500 could do you some good as far as getting games in. I do feel that this just punishes Codex' like GK that have a pretty high CAD tax as it is. I think one of the reasons certain codex' have such a high winning percentage is the afordability of useful units. Spamming quality won't stop low cost codex's from stealing from other sources to further enhance weakness' within their parent codex. Big Tax codex's can't afford the 350pts cut since they already require those points to fulfill roles like AT or AA that their "taxed units" don't provide on their own.

An aside to this, I keep seeing 2k point lists popping up in the list's section of this website and I almost always roll my eyes. I assume people post lists to help judge their Competitiveness. Since 2k will hardly ever be a standard in tournaments (even you here are proposing 1500ish point levels) I don't know why people feel like they should even post the lists? My thinking is that you aren't going to use it in a competitive setting, nor are you using it to practise for a competitive event, so why care what you play at 2k? It's a funzy. Rock that double CAD T'Ctan x2 list, plop down those 9 void shields and Warhound, or field those x9 annibarges...the game is out of balance at that level already. Most TO's feel it's unbalanced at 1850 or they wouldn't hash out banned lists or detatchment caps on here. sorry if that read ranting, it kinda was but I just thought maybe you level headed people could assist me in seeing the light behind the goofy nature of 2k lists trying to emulate 1500pt. restrictions.

Sad to say it is the vets holding back the game because they don't like any change. Really sucks.

I think people were panicking over the intitial idea. I think some structure is probably needed just to cater to the largest crowd. That said I think an expansion like I've mentioned is the right thing for it. And it could likely last the edition reasonably well and keep people from feeling to limited.

I have friends who quit because they said the older players are holding us back.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have friends who quit because they said the older players are holding us back.

Quit playing all together or quit playing in tournaments? Because if you have friends why aren't you guys playing how you want to play amongst yourselves? If you are talking about tournaments I don't think you can just say older players. I'd say attendees of events and worries about TO's costing themselves thousands of dollars has slowed the expansion. That said people are starting to calm down and as shown by this thread alone people are not as opposed to a wider structure. It just needs to be clearly outlined. I don't see events doing well with no-holds-barred unlimited detachments. But a more open system should work just fine.

We'll just have to see. Remember the biggest kid on the block (Adepticon) hasn't said how it's going to handle their big event. And another is on record in this thread thinking things will eventually go to a free for all (which I don't think it has to go that far ). I see a shift happening in the not to near future. But it's only been 3 months since the edition dropped. How fast did your buddies quit?

Tournaments in general. Casual play and campaigns are very popular here now. We can do as we please.

More than two sources is extra work for list checkers. Which, with current Formations and data slates is a nightmare already.

Also, more than two sources unfairly benefits Imperial players vastly more than others. Let me quickly build my Ultramarines list with Combat Squadding tacs in pods, an Invisible Tigurius Cent Star backed up by Draigo plus min Strike Squad, with Coteaz as well for first turn, a Knight for mid table and a Culexus assassin because f you Beast pack! Meanwhile Nids can just.... Take loads of Flyrants?

AlexRae, your examples almost all are FOC detachments, which Hulk was suggesting still be limited to 2, with each one being unique.

@Alexrae

Keeping track of formations and dataslates is actually pretty easy. They just need to check in at the top of this forum

As for your examples RiTides covered that. And if anything multiple formations (all still being unique) are more beneficial to non-Imperial Factions.

AlexRae wrote:
More than two sources is extra work for list checkers. Which, with current Formations and data slates is a nightmare already.

Also, more than two sources unfairly benefits Imperial players vastly more than others. Let me quickly build my Ultramarines list with Combat Squadding tacs in pods, an Invisible Tigurius Cent Star backed up by Draigo plus min Strike Squad, with Coteaz as well for first turn, a Knight for mid table and a Culexus assassin because f you Beast pack! Meanwhile Nids can just.... Take loads of Flyrants?

Oddly enough, that power armored bro fist you proposed is actually completely plausible @1850. Even more odd is that I wouldn't really care to face that or a swarm of flyrants. It's lists like that one that promotes lower point limits as they will have to cut something from it that none of the other parts can effectively perform.

Yeah, the "swarm of flyrants" idea was what put me off the idea of multiple CADs. Self-allying gets you one more, which is fine, but it feels like that fourth HQ just is too much! I've come round on the idea of making every formation unique, though- keeps people from spamming CADs, but lets them use the tools that 7th edition has made available.

Inquisition as a primary force org was squatted under the 1 CAD + 1 ally tournament restrictions. Nobody cared because they could just run Henchmen as GK in 7th.

With the removal of henchmen from the GK codex they just got squatted as a primary force org under the current 1 CAD + 1 ally tournament restrictions.

Henchmen as a primary army are now unplayable under the 1 CAD + ally restriction.

We are not even 3 months into the new edition and still the majority of vocal opponents I personally know have not even played a game without restrictions, instead they have had their impressions from forums and blogs. The amount of fear-mongering that goes on by TO's and players alike about broken units, ban lists, or other restrictions far outnumber the posts about what is good in the new edition.

Let's start with the Combined Arms Detachment (CAD). Even before the Ork codex, I never read that to be "this is the basic way to play Battle Forged". Instead, I read the whole section on Choosing Your Army and saw the info about Command Benefits and how they would be added in future releases. Objective Secured is not an essential part of an army - it is a buff to armies that do not have 7th edition releases! Sure Ob-Sec is great but it will die out as other publications come along.

7th edition releases... Let's play 7th edition now, not "wait until all armies have new rules then allow them to play". If we go that route, we will not play 7th until 8th comes out. We have NEVER seen a point in the history of the game where there was a push to not allow basic elements of the rulebook and codex like we do today. Sure there was always a big push against Forge World but not Citadel Journal, White Dwarf, Chapter Approved or other sources of new ways to play with your collection. There is a ton of great stuff out there to enjoy.

Multiple Detachments - Take a look at the points of some of the detachments you can take now. Inquisition can be less than 100, an Officio Assassinorum detachment is under 150, Formations from Sanctus Reach can be under 250. To limit players to only 2 detachments is just silly. What needs to be done is for players to get info about what is available and not just scare tactics by frequent posters. Show players how to build a list in 7th (showing which detachment a unit belongs in and who is the warlord). Get players to bookmark their rules sources and have them readily available to their opponent. Finally, make sure you have more time to play a round now as the game is a little more complex.

Formations - Look at the Sanctus Reach campaign books! You can take very small forces and legally add them to any army now. No longer do you have to buy, build, and paint a Force Org chart's worth of models to be able to add them into your games. Sure the books have a price but you only need the books for the forces you want to use.

Information overload - I feel the biggest problem with how we all interpret the game right now is that there is too much info and very few people have a handle on it all. I have been trying to create some really cool tools for players to use to get a better grasp on what is available now. 19 Factions, 36 Army Lists, 63 Publications, 11 non-CAD Detachments, 60 Formations, 13 Datasheets, and 70 Lords of War (these numbers are up to date except for IA4:2e which is on its way here). This is overwhelming to say the least. Let's get more discussions like Hulksmash's Formation & Dataslate Unit List stickied at the top of this sub-forum.

Changing the rules - it is far easier to just change the rules based on incorrect interpretations than to really get to know what the new edition means. This is an entirely new game and everything you knew before is out of date. We have warbands of all shapes and sizes (detachments and formations) teaming up to form an army (battle-forged). This kind of list building has not been present since the Realm of Chaos hardback books and I love that is has returned.

Getting your teeth kicked in - matchups are not going to be balanced and you will lose games. Your "elitecombo_04" army probably cannot win 70% of the time anymore. Get over it. The game is not a sport, we are not athletes, and there is no way to provide a truly even playing field with your HouseHammer rulings unless everyone brings the exact same army.

Modeling, Painting and Playing Games - This is fun stuff and we need to spend more time enjoying it.

I agree that there is a fundamental confusion about army composition in 7th transitioning from 6th.

I have seen rulings where a CAD is obligatory (can be replaced by a large formation in any of the new books), but second Formations are banned. Yet Inquisition and LotD books are allowed. That doesn't actually work!

Things will continue to evolve as the game itself does. Games Workshop has given a set of very broad guidelines about what's what, and unfortunately that's caused a lot of angst within the hobby.

It was perhaps not intended, but many of the posts on this very page highlight the fact that still many players - when given the freedom to stake a claim - are of the opinion that their way is the ONLY way to play this game, and that's the sort of position that can only be come about when rules and restrictions are too vague to be clearly understood and acted upon.

I like to compare to Malifaux 2nd Edition, as I play both, where players who are fundamentally "competitive" and "casual" and "hobbyist" and all the rest by self-definition and the definition of others in 40k all come together and play without any issue or conflict in games of Malifaux.

The more wide open and rules-free / barely contained you make a game, the easier it is for the harsher sides of our nature as people to come out and start taking partisan positions.

To the point of what Tironum said but a little bit twisted, "Modeling, Painting, and Playing Games" is absolutely what the hobby is about ... but if a large number of people want to play with even just 1 CAD as the only thing allowed, that's completely OK. It's OK by the very rules of the game, and it's OK because it *is* a game.

Also, for better or worse, there's a lot of very reasonable fear to unbridled army construction (i.e., the 60 warp charge daemon summoning eldar farseer council of doom coupled w/ bajillions of jetbikes) anyway ... a lot of people like to say they haven't playtested anything, or that if you just did you'd realize it's all fine, but it's not. Not everyone LIKES a game that is so unbalanced that "70% of your games you'll lose" on things like matchup. I can't imagine wanting to play that very often.

It's really not about winning and losing specifically, either, or rather about only wanting to win. I can't remember a time where a player brought a knife to a gunfight and went "wow I'm just so excited to spend the next couple hours getting tabled while doing nothing to you!" Balance can be helped by TO consideration when it is not provided by game design, and balance does to a degree help reduce the quantity of games that feel like that.

I can't imagine ANYONE who advocates fun having a problem with trying to make sure it's easy for a bunch of strangers meeting for the first time to more readily have fun. The easy or callous thing to do is respond that the REAL problem are just those WAAC jerks who don't know what fun really is! But that's about as emotionally WAAC a comment as it gets, and it's far too common in our hobby. Branding the "other guys" as being obviously just in the wrong and not doing it right is about as valid as Liberals idiotically decrying Fascist Republicans or Conservatives idiotically decrying Commie Democrats.

MVBrandt wrote:

Epic Speach.

Hear hear

Breng77 wrote:
My response was more a response to the thinking that we don't need restrictions if we lower points, and that lowering the points somehow "fixes" things.

Which of course no one said.

What was suggested was limits AND lower of points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:
Things will continue to evolve as the game itself does. Games Workshop has given a set of very broad guidelines about what's what, and unfortunately that's caused a lot of angst within the hobby.

It was perhaps not intended, but many of the posts on this very page highlight the fact that still many players - when given the freedom to stake a claim - are of the opinion that their way is the ONLY way to play this game, and that's the sort of position that can only be come about when rules and restrictions are too vague to be clearly understood and acted upon.

I like to compare to Malifaux 2nd Edition, as I play both, where players who are fundamentally "competitive" and "casual" and "hobbyist" and all the rest by self-definition and the definition of others in 40k all come together and play without any issue or conflict in games of Malifaux.

The more wide open and rules-free / barely contained you make a game, the easier it is for the harsher sides of our nature as people to come out and start taking partisan positions.

To the point of what Tironum said but a little bit twisted, "Modeling, Painting, and Playing Games" is absolutely what the hobby is about ... but if a large number of people want to play with even just 1 CAD as the only thing allowed, that's completely OK. It's OK by the very rules of the game, and it's OK because it *is* a game.

Also, for better or worse, there's a lot of very reasonable fear to unbridled army construction (i.e., the 60 warp charge daemon summoning eldar farseer council of doom coupled w/ bajillions of jetbikes) anyway ... a lot of people like to say they haven't playtested anything, or that if you just did you'd realize it's all fine, but it's not. Not everyone LIKES a game that is so unbalanced that "70% of your games you'll lose" on things like matchup. I can't imagine wanting to play that very often.

It's really not about winning and losing specifically, either, or rather about only wanting to win. I can't remember a time where a player brought a knife to a gunfight and went "wow I'm just so excited to spend the next couple hours getting tabled while doing nothing to you!" Balance can be helped by TO consideration when it is not provided by game design, and balance does to a degree help reduce the quantity of games that feel like that.

I can't imagine ANYONE who advocates fun having a problem with trying to make sure it's easy for a bunch of strangers meeting for the first time to more readily have fun. The easy or callous thing to do is respond that the REAL problem are just those WAAC jerks who don't know what fun really is! But that's about as emotionally WAAC a comment as it gets, and it's far too common in our hobby. Branding the "other guys" as being obviously just in the wrong and not doing it right is about as valid as Liberals idiotically decrying Fascist Republicans or Conservatives idiotically decrying Commie Democrats.

Which IMHO is why it would be nice for tournaments to continue to grow games like infinity and malifaux since they are much better (more balanced) tournament games.

I love 40k but it is in a very strange state as of late. I am not sure we will ever hear the end of all the noise regarding sources until something dire happens with the game by it's designers.

 Tironum wrote:
We are not even 3 months into the new edition and still the majority of vocal opponents I personally know have not even played a game without restrictions, instead they have had their impressions from forums and blogs. The amount of fear-mongering that goes on by TO's and players alike about broken units, ban lists, or other restrictions far outnumber the posts about what is good in the new edition.

So, you have a problem with people cramping your style? You know what will help? Ignore their arguments entirely, and call them fear-mongerers and whiners! Nothing like a good ad hominem argument to make everyone else see how right you are. Plus, it has the added benefit of uniting the community.

7th edition releases... Let's play 7th edition now, not "wait until all armies have new rules then allow them to play". If we go that route, we will not play 7th until 8th comes out. We have NEVER seen a point in the history of the game where there was a push to not allow basic elements of the rulebook and codex like we do today. Sure there was always a big push against Forge World but not Citadel Journal, White Dwarf, Chapter Approved or other sources of new ways to play with your collection. There is a ton of great stuff out there to enjoy.

Let's play 7th edition? OK. But why? If I, in November 2013, had said "hey, let's just take an unlimited number of detachments, with super-heavies, everyone can ally with anyone and still score, Farseers can create Daemonettes, you can have more than one ally, actually, you know what, screw it, you can take whatever you want from any army and mash it together, and it will all be scoring! Two Flyrants, some Centurions, a Revenant, and four Heralds to create an army! That should totally be allowed!"

How many people would have replied "yeah, Thud, that sounds awesome!"? Would you have? I'm not a betting man, but my money would be on "no."

So now GW has gone ahead and done it. What's the difference? Do you have any other arguments beyond "get with the times, whiners"?

You say there is a ton of stuff out there to enjoy, and you're right. But there's also a ton of stuff that's flat out unenjoyable. Subjective opinions are subjective, but unrestricted 7th edition is not the game I want to play (even though I'm probably on the liberal side of the spectrum of what should be allowed) so I won't play unrestricted 7th.

Multiple Detachments - Take a look at the points of some of the detachments you can take now. Inquisition can be less than 100, an Officio Assassinorum detachment is under 150, Formations from Sanctus Reach can be under 250. To limit players to only 2 detachments is just silly. What needs to be done is for players to get info about what is available and not just scare tactics by frequent posters. Show players how to build a list in 7th (showing which detachment a unit belongs in and who is the warlord). Get players to bookmark their rules sources and have them readily available to their opponent. Finally, make sure you have more time to play a round now as the game is a little more complex.

Formations - Look at the Sanctus Reach campaign books! You can take very small forces and legally add them to any army now. No longer do you have to buy, build, and paint a Force Org chart's worth of models to be able to add them into your games. Sure the books have a price but you only need the books for the forces you want to use.

But the problem isn't lack of ability to build a good army. It's not the case that all these fear-mongerers and whiners are just thick imbeciles who need their hands held so they can compete with the big boys. It's the people who throughout 6th had been balancing on a knife's edge with a combination of the army they wanted to play and something that was actually good. You want to play an actual Dark Angels army? You know, a real one without Inquisitors and Space Wolves and Daemon summoners? Congrats, you just went from probably losing a lot to definitely getting tabled most of the time.

You talk as if the new regime is a liberal utopia with newfound freedoms. If all you care about is listbuilding and combo-breaking (which is fine, btw) it is, but if you want a pure army, you're just screwed.

Information overload - I feel the biggest problem with how we all interpret the game right now is that there is too much info and very few people have a handle on it all. I have been trying to create some really cool tools for players to use to get a better grasp on what is available now. 19 Factions, 36 Army Lists, 63 Publications, 11 non-CAD Detachments, 60 Formations, 13 Datasheets, and 70 Lords of War (these numbers are up to date except for IA4:2e which is on its way here). This is overwhelming to say the least. Let's get more discussions like Hulksmash's Formation & Dataslate Unit List stickied at the top of this sub-forum.

Changing the rules - it is far easier to just change the rules based on incorrect interpretations than to really get to know what the new edition means. This is an entirely new game and everything you knew before is out of date. We have warbands of all shapes and sizes (detachments and formations) teaming up to form an army (battle-forged). This kind of list building has not been present since the Realm of Chaos hardback books and I love that is has returned.

And that's good for you. Me too, by the way. At least to begin with. I like list-building. I like finding new combos, trying new things, and making changes to play my armies very differently.

Most people don't, though. At least in my experience (having lived and played 40k in four countries across the world) most people pick an army they like, try to make it fairly good, and then know very little about anything else in the game (except their mate's army that they play against every weekend).

Good thing our hobby isn't a niche thing as it is, though. If that were the case, making tournaments alien to most 40k players might be unsustainable.

Getting your teeth kicked in - matchups are not going to be balanced and you will lose games. Your "elitecombo_04" army probably cannot win 70% of the time anymore. Get over it. The game is not a sport, we are not athletes, and there is no way to provide a truly even playing field with your HouseHammer rulings unless everyone brings the exact same army.

And we've come full circle. I don't really know what you're hoping to achieve with your logical fallacies. Surely you can't expect to post it on a fairly big internet forum without *anyone* wisening up to what you're doing?

Modeling, Painting and Playing Games - This is fun stuff and we need to spend more time enjoying it.