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.

Major tournament organisers never seriously pursued any kind of bans or restrictions (beyond 'no forge world') in those editions, yet you won't find a tournament today without some kind of additional limitations. That should be an obvious indicator that balance is in a worse place today than 3 years ago.

I think it was pursued very seriously. We had a number of events over the years that ran significant "comp" formats.... many of the familiar faces now calling for 40k modifications once decried them. It has always been part of the discussion and we have been having the same forum debate for well over a decade.

Change is hard, it is uncomfortable, but it is the one certainty. The game is changing at such a rapid pace and just like we are not going back to "my" 40k, this version of 40k is leaving the station. Some of us will be on it and some of us will be left shouting into the abyss ...

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
How do you get 75% of players are at the middle tables? At most 33.3% would be middle. Top, middle, lowest tables split evenly.

It depends what you count as top, right? Is 'top tables' literally only the finalists, or is it arbitrarily split in to exact thirds?
I would count for the largest tournaments which split in to 8 brackets, bracket 1 as top and bracket 8 as bottom, with 2-6 as the middle.
32 players in top bracket
32 players in bottom bracket
192 players in 'the middle tables'. (75%)


If you want to literally say 'top / middle / bottom = 33% splits' then you really start seeing the netlists like Adlance or Waveserpents appearing in the top 33%. I believe that NOVA, while it had no Adlance in the top 32, featured 5 in the second 32.

Guys, if you need to split hairs like this, maybe that reinforces the point that this isn't a big deal.

That's how I am feeling at this point.

muwhe wrote:

Major tournament organisers never seriously pursued any kind of bans or restrictions (beyond 'no forge world') in those editions, yet you won't find a tournament today without some kind of additional limitations. That should be an obvious indicator that balance is in a worse place today than 3 years ago.

I think it was pursued very seriously. We had a number of events over the years that ran significant "comp" formats.... many of the familiar faces now calling for 40k modifications once decried them. It has always been part of the discussion and we have been having the same forum debate for well over a decade.

Change is hard, it is uncomfortable, but it is the one certainty. The game is changing at such a rapid pace and just like we are not going back to "my" 40k, this version of 40k is leaving the station. Some of us will be on it and some of us will be left shouting into the abyss ...

That's where the idea behind Team Zero Comp came from. 3rd through mid 5th had major Comp in many events.

There's not a lot of splitting hairs to be done on Knight success. In a meta over the past year where ITC and NOVA basically restricted all SH/GC except Knights, Knights dominated. Domination is best evaluated by what they do in the average game, not who wins the GT. The same people more or less place highly in every GT they attend, and it's NEVER been a good metric of what a widely accepted or widely reviled type of list is.

The feedback has also broadly been, regardless of individually loud internet voices one way or another, players broadly do not want super big gobot hammer. They also don't want super nasty invincible deathstar hammer. Unfortunately, these are both part of the game in its unrestricted sense, and so the player base is far more divided (it's less about whether we like razorspam and leafblower, and more about whether we like any of 100 different ways to play the game as written, ipso facto, more divisive). I wish GW would undersatnd that by designing and framing the army construction rules in the way they have, they've created massive rifts in their player base. The types of hostility experienced between 40k players is, for instance, completely absent in the Malifaux community (Balanced game with a clearly printed way of playing the game in terms of list construction and points level).

Given every single tournament in the world heavily comps 7th edition today, and I do mean HEAVILY, it is a little silly to be opposed to restrictions on principle (as opposed to being opposed to a given restriction for a more specific or well-reasoned basis).

restricted all SH/GC except Knights

Imperial Knights do very well in events where the format restricts all other SH/GC…that should not come as a surprise. In formats that restricted SH/GC…the lists that had SH did better. However, in events that allowed other SH/GC, the Imperial Knights did not perform as well – this includes AdeptiCon and almost all other events where SH/GC are an available option to folks.

Given the relentless pace of changes to 40K of late, I question the value of looking at the meta results of events over the span of a year. In my opinion, analyzing event results have their place when looking at that particular event, at that exact moment in the game release cycle or for that certain weekend. The data correlation and relevancy really starts to breakdown when you attempt to compare events that are operating under different circumstances and available rules. For me it is about holding a long term view that fits with the direction of the game and not managing things release to release which I believe is untenable.

Without going back too far into the ancient history of the game…what was the initial community reaction to:

Area Terrain to True Line of Sight?
Inclusion of Allies?
Fortifications?
Flyers?
Forge World?

The vocal community acted negatively towards every single one of those game additions and options, with several people decrying the death of Warhammer 40K. At this point in time, you are seeing the same reactions when attempting to mainstream Strength D, Lords of War, Super Heavies, and Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures.

If we had we ran polls for previous events asking what people considered “unfun” in the above list, we’d be playing a very different game today. It is a very dangerous road, and while I have no doubt it is paved with good intentions and in the name of “saving” event 40k it carries with it significant risks. Sometimes when you try to save the things you love … you end up ruining it. You do not have to travel too far down the road of core rules changes before the game you are playing is a shadow of its former self.

Ten years ago, Games Workshop had the competitive advantage in almost every aspect of producing high end plastic models. They had a large cash infusion and they invested in the tooling to produce large-scale plastic kits. Almost everyone else at the time was either working in metal or resin. Those that did do plastic fell short in terms of the level of quality that Games Workshop was producing. Additionally, the idea of printing models on a 3D printer was still a relatively new concept, had poor results and was expensive.

Today, that has all changed. Companies such as Wyrd, Privateer Press, Warlord and others are producing high end plastic infantry models. Additionally, Kickstarter has made it possible for anyone, given the right project, to get access to the capital needed to do plastic production. 3D printing continues to make significant leaps forward and a future of being able to print high end 28mm infantry models on your desktop is right around the corner. This is something everyone in the industry is going to have to come to grips with.

Disagree with Games Workshop all you want, and heaven knows they have taken my fair share of criticism, but the one significant competitive advantage Games Workshop still has available to them, is the capacity to produce large plastic kits. This is an advantage they should maintain for several years going forward. It is also the sort of advantage that cannot be easily exploited by 3rd parties or by 3D printing any time in the immediate future. Ask yourself, if you have the competitive advantage of being able to produce large scale kits, what do you do? You make sure your main game properties make good use them. This is why 40K has seen the rampant increase of large-scale kits, (flyers, fortifications and now SH/GC ). It is not going away anytime soon, because it is the future. They have been and will continue to become a larger, more significant part of the game - especially given the sales associated with Imperial Knights, Wraithknights, and Riptide releases.

So 40K events will continue to vary and AdeptiCon will continue to support 18+ 40K events to cater to a wide range of how folks want 40K served up. Variety is a good thing. But as a community, we absolutely need to come to grips with larger kits playing a bigger role in our 40K. It will not be long before we see a return to a 4x8 board standard to make room for all of it on the table. ; )

I don't begrudge GW moving in any direction with their game that they want, but that doesn't mean I need to want to play that game.

I actually have no problem with large plastic kits, the issue is the rules surrounding them. They easily could have just made things larger using the existing rules, make monsterous creatures actually monsterous, make vehicles to scale with infantry etc.

As for all the changes above, I would argue the the inclusion of each of those rules (flyers, Allies, TLOS etc.) was bad for the state of the game as a competitive game.

Trasvi wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I am assuming that the next IG Codex will include the $125+ Baneblade (with all 7 variants), just as the next Ork Codex will include the $125+ Stompa. It's clearly in GW's best interest to force these kinds of units into the Codex precisely to remove the specialness of Knights.

On the flip side, it's also in GW's best interest to fold Knights and Ad Mech together, so that they can force Knight players to buy Ad Mech models, and vice versa.

... and until that point in time, Imperial Knights are a unique faction in Warhammer 40k that require unique rules to allow them to be playable.
If a formation/faction of solely baneblade chassis vehicles eventuates and becomes legal, we can revisit decisions; just like we're having to revisit decisions on ranged D now that it is available on non-LOW platforms.

Lets deal with what we actually have on the table to deal with, rather than some hypothetical future army that may or may not ever occur. GW recently passed over some very easy opportunities to add the Baneblade to the AM codex and Stompa to the Ork codex and Knights to the Skitaari Codex, if that is what they really wanted to do.

You know what's really great?

When GW reads my mind and does exactly what I asked of them:

You Combine the three formations fromt he existing codices (who each get their own bonuses), and this formation give them all:
– All models gain Canticles of the Omnissiah
– Techpriest may reroll his Warlord Trait if he is the general
– All weapons lose the “Gets Hot” special rule
– All unit equipment upgrades( including relics) from Cult Mechanicus and Skitarii are FREE

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/05/breaking-cult-mechanicus-skitarii-knight-combined-detachment-is-uber.html

So you just need specific formations from C:Imperial Knights, C:Skitari and C:AdMech, and you're good to go!

I love GW, so predictable.

That's from White Dwarf, not the Cult Mechanicus book.

And interestingly enough it does lend a kind of credence to the rumor floating around of another campaign book with Mechanicus in it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

You know what's really great?

When GW reads my mind and does exactly what I asked of them:

Spoiler:

You want them to write sideways in a foreign language? You're an odd gamer, Hwang.

What is thread even about now? Its so off topic its ridiculous.

Lets face it GW doesn't design 40K to be a tournament game.

So all the complaining is literally because you want to. I hate how this ice cream is cold... I want a warm ice cube... why is this damn fire hot...

Remember when 40k and apoc were separate? I do, it was a lot better. One could choose which game they wished to play.


This is 40k 7th edition in a nutshell:

Not quite. You'd have to photoshop Cobra, Alivn and the Chipmunks, and Voltron into the picture as BFFs to depict the wonderful world of 7th edition allies/detachments/formations/dataslates. I do remember those days though... back when you could ask your opponent "What army are you playing?" and they could almost always answer that with just two words.

I fail to see the issue of negotiating what you want to play during one's scheduled games. We have an Apoc game coming up, and we'll be bringing out the big boys, by design.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I fail to see the issue of negotiating what you want to play during one's scheduled games. We have an Apoc game coming up, and we'll be bringing out the big boys, by design.

There is effectively no such separate entity as apoc anymore. Everything other than high points that made apoc special (taking any model from any faction, fliers, superheavies, gargantuan creatures, huge blast templates and strength d, aysmetric card based mechanics, etc) are now part and parcel of "normal" 40k even at 750pts. You had to negotiate nothing as you're playing standard 40k. That is the issue. Previously, if you wanted one or more of those things, the onus was on you to convince the other player as the default was to NOT include them. The reverse is true now and you're the "bad guy" who wants to change the rules if you don't want to play it. Just look at the entitled responses to knight players having their superheavies treated just like other superheavies at tournies.

Um, no. You simply agree as to what sort of game you are playing. Just as you set a points level, you decide what you are going to include or exclude. That's not an issue. Nor is it bad to limit choices if you're agreeing to limit points.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Um, no. You simply agree as to what sort of game you are playing. Just as you set a points level, you decide what you are going to include or exclude. That's not an issue. Nor is it bad to limit choices if you're agreeing to limit points.

Choosing points limits is an explicit part of the rules and (should be) inherent to playing any semblance of a balanced game.
Arbitrarily attempting to restrict what your opponent is allowed to use in their army is beyond the scope of the rules.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Um, no. You simply agree as to what sort of game you are playing. Just as you set a points level, you decide what you are going to include or exclude. That's not an issue. Nor is it bad to limit choices if you're agreeing to limit points.

I guess the "What kind of game?" is better answered by the game designers, rather than be a stressful and political nightmare of entitled brats and stubborn vets. But make no mistakes, apoc crapped all over the vet's game (40k), their game didn't crap all over apoc, it was force fed crap until it was bloated and indistinguishable from apoc.

Rewind a few editions and knights wouldn't be a problem, they'd only be in apoc, the game would be better for it, and all the entitled knight players would be playing apoc and, well, making friends as usual lol.

Eh. I'm not really that bothered by merging Apocalypse into the base game. It keeps all of the rules together, and none of the Apoc stuff is particularly worrisome aside from the things shooting multiple large D blast templates. Pull the Blast off the Turbo-Laser Destructors so they're just giant Lascannons, and pretty much all of the balance issues disappear.

What bothered me was the rules shift from 5E smooth & tactical to 6E picky & random. The 6E/7E Psyker, LOS, Challenge and casualty rules, in particular. And then there's Maelstrom.

I would be much happier playing 7E Codices under 5E rules than 5E Codices under 7E rules.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Eh. I'm not really that bothered by merging Apocalypse into the base game. It keeps all of the rules together, and none of the Apoc stuff is particularly worrisome aside from the things shooting multiple large D blast templates. Pull the Blast off the Turbo-Laser Destructors so they're just giant Lascannons, and pretty much all of the balance issues disappear.

What bothered me was the rules shift from 5E smooth & tactical to 6E picky & random. The 6E/7E Psyker, LOS, Challenge and casualty rules, in particular. And then there's Maelstrom.

I would be much happier playing 7E Codices under 5E rules than 5E Codices under 7E rules.

From an individual perspective, this actually is similar to how I feel. Honestly even True Line of Sight is a poor game design rule, creating unrealistic play in a hamfisted attempt at realism (no, of course that guy wouldn't crouch behind that rock wall that's nearly as tall as him, of course he'd leave his head exposed to your gunfire! ... and of course that leman russ can fire a battle cannon through those two windows at the left chest nipple of that space marine! .... etc. ... abstract LOS is actually more believable from a wargaming perspective, as it allows the supposition that impossibly unrealistic shots aren't commonly taken and thinking combatants actually use cover instead of just freeze-posing near it) while simultaneously adding extensive argument and fuzzy determinations (25% of my model? are you sure it isn't 24%?).

Honestly, a lot of what's been added to the game in the past couple of editions, especially Maelstrom, are things that would have been laughed out of existence in a heartbeat if a random player, or even a respected organizer or player, had proposed them prior to their release by GW. If NOVA had said "our GT will use Apocalypse rules for all GT games" back when Apoc was separate, very few people would have signed up. If we'd said "your mission will be randomly determined by the turn, and scored the player turn you randomly determine it before your opponent can stop you, unless of course you randomly determine a mission that is impossible for you that player turn because your opponent just happens to be in position to prevent you doing it right away," people would have called our missions trash across the board.

I think most game rule changes are minor from edition to edition, even ones that have far reaching impacts, and you either like 'em or you don't, but 7th in particular has had some pretty big ones that are unique if you go back 3 or 4 editions. I've played since 2nd, like many people here, and the changes from 2 -->3 and 3-->4 and 4-->5 and 5-->6 even were not as dramatic, though it's an easy argument to make in either direction due to how complex and fuzzy it is. The obvious example here is the addition of Super Heavies and Gargantuans. In 2nd Edition, you played with infantry and vehicles and walkers and monsters. In 6th edition, you played with infantry and vehicles and walkers and monsters. In 7th edition, you play with COMMON (as opposed to Virus Bomb / Vortex Grenade rarity in 2nd) big giant D blasts, Super Heavy Vehicles, and Gargantuan Creatures, and stomps and such. It harkens back to 2nd edition, but then it turns up a game that back then was at 5 to 11 instead. Marines vs. Monsters was never a super fair fight in 2nd, and marines were infinitely more powerful / better relative to the game than they are now. Now, plain jane marines are basically obsec cannon fodder, and they're even more outclassed by the big stuff. The utter absence of meaningful parity in the game is at an all time high.

Regardless, the biggest elephant in the room is that GW's created a game that no longer has a clear set of rules for how an army is made and how the game is played. It's very "do whatever you want, and talk w/ your opponent about it before you play." While this is a FANTASTIC idea for beer and pretzels game groups/clubs, it's utter gak for pick-up gamers and tournament organizers, because every "answer" is wrong for a larger % of players than it's right for, especially with how antagonistic and picky this particular community *can* be.

I played at the tail end of 2nd, and 2-3 was a huge shift. But OMG, 3E was amazing: you could play something that looked like a battle within a couple hours. It was so smooth. That kind of thing was never possible in 2E. And playing a 2E-size game? An hour, tops.

7E has slowed things down, and not in a good way. Everything bogs. Movement bogs, because of micro-positioning for cover & casualty removal. Psyk bogs because of the opposed rolls. Shooting bogs because of the "closest first" rule. Fighting bogs with Challenges and so on. And so many special rules.

As a B&P player, I deliberately ignore the whole "closest first" rule, and expect the same of my opponent. Pull whatever models you like, and the game plays a lot better. *Everything* goes faster, for no loss of tactical play.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I played at the tail end of 2nd, and 2-3 was a huge shift. But OMG, 3E was amazing: you could play something that looked like a battle within a couple hours. It was so smooth. That kind of thing was never possible in 2E. And playing a 2E-size game? An hour, tops.

7E has slowed things down, and not in a good way. Everything bogs. Movement bogs, because of micro-positioning for cover & casualty removal. Psyk bogs because of the opposed rolls. Shooting bogs because of the "closest first" rule. Fighting bogs with Challenges and so on. And so many special rules.

As a B&P player, I deliberately ignore the whole "closest first" rule, and expect the same of my opponent. Pull whatever models you like, and the game plays a lot better. *Everything* goes faster, for no loss of tactical play.

Affirmative to basically all of this as well.

MVBrandt wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Eh. I'm not really that bothered by merging Apocalypse into the base game. It keeps all of the rules together, and none of the Apoc stuff is particularly worrisome aside from the things shooting multiple large D blast templates. Pull the Blast off the Turbo-Laser Destructors so they're just giant Lascannons, and pretty much all of the balance issues disappear.

What bothered me was the rules shift from 5E smooth & tactical to 6E picky & random. The 6E/7E Psyker, LOS, Challenge and casualty rules, in particular. And then there's Maelstrom.

I would be much happier playing 7E Codices under 5E rules than 5E Codices under 7E rules.

From an individual perspective, this actually is similar to how I feel. Honestly even True Line of Sight is a poor game design rule, creating unrealistic play in a hamfisted attempt at realism (no, of course that guy wouldn't crouch behind that rock wall that's nearly as tall as him, of course he'd leave his head exposed to your gunfire! ... and of course that leman russ can fire a battle cannon through those two windows at the left chest nipple of that space marine! .... etc. ... abstract LOS is actually more believable from a wargaming perspective, as it allows the supposition that impossibly unrealistic shots aren't commonly taken and thinking combatants actually use cover instead of just freeze-posing near it) while simultaneously adding extensive argument and fuzzy determinations (25% of my model? are you sure it isn't 24%?).

Honestly, a lot of what's been added to the game in the past couple of editions, especially Maelstrom, are things that would have been laughed out of existence in a heartbeat if a random player, or even a respected organizer or player, had proposed them prior to their release by GW. If NOVA had said "our GT will use Apocalypse rules for all GT games" back when Apoc was separate, very few people would have signed up. If we'd said "your mission will be randomly determined by the turn, and scored the player turn you randomly determine it before your opponent can stop you, unless of course you randomly determine a mission that is impossible for you that player turn because your opponent just happens to be in position to prevent you doing it right away," people would have called our missions trash across the board.

I think most game rule changes are minor from edition to edition, even ones that have far reaching impacts, and you either like 'em or you don't, but 7th in particular has had some pretty big ones that are unique if you go back 3 or 4 editions. I've played since 2nd, like many people here, and the changes from 2 -->3 and 3-->4 and 4-->5 and 5-->6 even were not as dramatic, though it's an easy argument to make in either direction due to how complex and fuzzy it is. The obvious example here is the addition of Super Heavies and Gargantuans. In 2nd Edition, you played with infantry and vehicles and walkers and monsters. In 6th edition, you played with infantry and vehicles and walkers and monsters. In 7th edition, you play with COMMON (as opposed to Virus Bomb / Vortex Grenade rarity in 2nd) big giant D blasts, Super Heavy Vehicles, and Gargantuan Creatures, and stomps and such. It harkens back to 2nd edition, but then it turns up a game that back then was at 5 to 11 instead. Marines vs. Monsters was never a super fair fight in 2nd, and marines were infinitely more powerful / better relative to the game than they are now. Now, plain jane marines are basically obsec cannon fodder, and they're even more outclassed by the big stuff. The utter absence of meaningful parity in the game is at an all time high.

Regardless, the biggest elephant in the room is that GW's created a game that no longer has a clear set of rules for how an army is made and how the game is played. It's very "do whatever you want, and talk w/ your opponent about it before you play." While this is a FANTASTIC idea for beer and pretzels game groups/clubs, it's utter gak for pick-up gamers and tournament organizers, because every "answer" is wrong for a larger % of players than it's right for, especially with how antagonistic and picky this particular community *can* be.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I played at the tail end of 2nd, and 2-3 was a huge shift. But OMG, 3E was amazing: you could play something that looked like a battle within a couple hours. It was so smooth. That kind of thing was never possible in 2E. And playing a 2E-size game? An hour, tops.

7E has slowed things down, and not in a good way. Everything bogs. Movement bogs, because of micro-positioning for cover & casualty removal. Psyk bogs because of the opposed rolls. Shooting bogs because of the "closest first" rule. Fighting bogs with Challenges and so on. And so many special rules.

As a B&P player, I deliberately ignore the whole "closest first" rule, and expect the same of my opponent. Pull whatever models you like, and the game plays a lot better. *Everything* goes faster, for no loss of tactical play.

Both of you hit the nail right on the head. I started in 4th, but most of this holds true because I remember learning 4th and being told about the horrible rules and problems that plagued the earlier editions. I got out in 4th because of the rules and after watching my first game of 5th I was back in with a vengeance. I drifted away after GK and Necron in 5th but saw appeal in 6th... and now with Apoc being forced into 40k and the rules disparity and scale problems I find myself liquidating almost all of my 40k debating to walk away for good. GW is driving me away from a game I've loved for well over a decade and it is saddening.

I love competitive play and if not in tournaments want good close games with a smooth ruleset. 5th was solid, some aspects of 6th were ok, but between the terrible rules interactions, the vague definiton of creating an army, the bogged down play, rapid fire low quality rules releases all are taking their toll.

I remember being perfectly fine using a single FOC for Ard Boyz in 5th. Now, people are griping at 3 sources, using any of the tidbits of overpriced rules GW is pumping out, want their entire army of SHWs, and using every breakable formation or unintended rules interaction possible.

End of 6th and into 7th was great for 40k most army books were competitive and relatively balanced. Necrons was a bit cheesy even if they still haven't had any luck with tournaments but eldar truly broke 40k competitively. Knights were kinda annoying for like a few weeks with ad lance but that fear gradually disappeared. I'm not worried with well costed superheavy units and str d melee at initiative 1. It's the undercosted range d spamming gak that ruins 40k

 Zagman wrote:
I love competitive play and if not in tournaments want good close games with a smooth ruleset. 5th was solid, some aspects of 6th were ok, but between the terrible rules interactions, the vague definiton of creating an army, the bogged down play, rapid fire low quality rules releases all are taking their toll.

I remember being perfectly fine using a single FOC for Ard Boyz in 5th. Now, people are griping at 3 sources, using any of the tidbits of overpriced rules GW is pumping out, want their entire army of SHWs, and using every breakable formation or unintended rules interaction possible.

"Normal" 40k right now as per RAW is much LESS restrictive than even the most cutthroat tourney format Adepticon used to have, the Gladiator. It's been a while but I think the really early Gladiator tourneys were pretty much unbound (although I could be wrong... I just remember lots of Reavers and fliers in those early years) and then a few years down the line they toned it "down" to a single CAD with one superheavy/gargantuan with a hull point limit. Think about that... the prototype WAAC "no whining" (that part was actually in the tourney rules!) tourney format was less of a free for all than the current STANDARD beer and pretzels 40k rules (both bound and unbound). That is fethed up.

 warboss wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
I love competitive play and if not in tournaments want good close games with a smooth ruleset. 5th was solid, some aspects of 6th were ok, but between the terrible rules interactions, the vague definiton of creating an army, the bogged down play, rapid fire low quality rules releases all are taking their toll.

I remember being perfectly fine using a single FOC for Ard Boyz in 5th. Now, people are griping at 3 sources, using any of the tidbits of overpriced rules GW is pumping out, want their entire army of SHWs, and using every breakable formation or unintended rules interaction possible.

"Normal" 40k right now as per RAW is much LESS restrictive than even the most cutthroat tourney format Adepticon used to have, the Gladiator. It's been a while but I think the really early Gladiator tourneys were pretty much unbound (although I could be wrong... I just remember lots of Reavers and fliers in those early years) and then a few years down the line they toned it "down" to a single CAD with one superheavy/gargantuan with a hull point limit. Think about that... the prototype WAAC "no whining" (that part was actually in the tourney rules!) tourney format was less of a free for all than the current STANDARD beer and pretzels 40k rules (both bound and unbound). That is fethed up.

Exactly! I remember looking at Gladiator and saying to myself, "Nothing about that is appealing to me." And now it would be a breath of fresh air compared to "Standard" 40k per BRB.