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.

So several people have expressed some interest in my proposed Comp system. So I wanted to throw it in a poll. See how many people would be interested in playing under this type of system, while at the same time looking for feedback about possible areas where it falls short. By no means do I think it "Balances" the game...I just think it might (without rules changes, or specific army restrictions) bring the game back to a bearable level of imbalance.

So that said here is the system

Using the Standard FOC with all the added on pieces (allies, Lords of war, formations, fortifications)

- HQs may be no more than 25% of your total points

- Troops must be at least 25% of your total points

- Elites may be no more than 25% of your total points

- Fast Attack may be no more than 25% of your total points

- Heavy Support may be no more than 25% of your total points

- Dedicated Transports may be no more than 25% of your total points

- Lords of War may be no more than 25% of your total points

- Fortifications may be no more than 10% of your total points

- Players are allowed 5-10%(undecided on exactly which, and might vary depending on point limit in an event) of additional points to split between Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support. (So if we went with 10% you could spend 35% in one slot, or Say 30% in one slot, and 27.5% in the other two etc.).

-Units taken as part of a formation still count against their FOC percentage (so A storm talon taken as part of the Space Marine formation still counts against your allowable Fast attack percentage.)

So would you attend an event using this system?

If yes, is there any way you see that it could be improved?

If No, why and could any improvement change your mind? If so what?

Broadban non-precision comp systems are just a bar-mover; I wouldn't attend unless there was a reason beyond the comp itself (as fun as it is to break games, which is what this invites IMO).

I would be more likely to attend an event that takes a very precise scalpel to extreme problem units; making EVERYONE'S armies illegal and non-functioning w/out financial investments is not better than making a couple of egregious / offending armies illegal and non-functioning w/out financial investments.

$.02

My question to you would be how many armies do you really think this would make illegal? As in the past also people generally do not agree in what needs fixing exactly. I also don't see how this invites breaking games any more than regular 40k. You are right it is simply moving the bar. My question is does it place the bar in a better place than something like simply rule chaning 2+ re-roll and outright banning everything from the last month...which seems to be the alternative.

Essentially the scalpel approach is on some level personal bias.

Now I'm certainly not expecting everyone to agree with it. But again I don't see it making everyone's armies illegal or non-functioning w/out financial investment. IT like anything else will make some peoples armies (much like the scalpel method) non-functional/illegal without financial investment. It might just be more armies.

I know we disagree on where the bar should be set on rules changes by past discussion. Part of that may be as a TO I lack the time (and or man power) to ramp up terrain to the level where it might balance the game properly with some of the more powerful shooting armies. I think that is probably more common than people having the ability to solve the issue via terrain (which would be the best solution from a game play standpoint). At which point the scalpel fixes to the game get quite large.

I am also not fully sold on the system either...I think it has some merrit but possibly some issues as well.

Breng77 wrote:
My question to you would be how many armies do you really think this would make illegal? As in the past also people generally do not agree in what needs fixing exactly. I also don't see how this invites breaking games any more than regular 40k. You are right it is simply moving the bar. My question is does it place the bar in a better place than something like simply rule chaning 2+ re-roll and outright banning everything from the last month...which seems to be the alternative.

Essentially the scalpel approach is on some level personal bias.

Now I'm certainly not expecting everyone to agree with it. But again I don't see it making everyone's armies illegal or non-functioning w/out financial investment. IT like anything else will make some peoples armies (much like the scalpel method) non-functional/illegal without financial investment. It might just be more armies.

I know we disagree on where the bar should be set on rules changes by past discussion. Part of that may be as a TO I lack the time (and or man power) to ramp up terrain to the level where it might balance the game properly with some of the more powerful shooting armies. I think that is probably more common than people having the ability to solve the issue via terrain (which would be the best solution from a game play standpoint). At which point the scalpel fixes to the game get quite large.

I am also not fully sold on the system either...I think it has some merrit but possibly some issues as well.

IT's all personal bias. The % approach or any broadban comp approach has a tacit intent of - at the least - changing what the currently popular/spammed armies are. It often has an even more specific-bias intent of rendering a couple of armies illegal. That's no different here. The problem is you're trying to guess at what it makes illegal or not, or what people will take or not that will be powerful, and you're making broad broad changes to the way the core rulebook defines army composition, in order to address personal bias-oriented opinion about what is or isn't OK or desirable on the tournament scene.

This isn't really a bad or good thing, but it's what it is. Since my opinion is it's an application of personal or group personal bias to the game either way, be precise ... unless you just feel like changing everything up so your event(s) have a different spammy netlist than other event(s), which is fine.

Breng77 wrote:
My question to you would be how many armies do you really think this would make illegal?

Lots of IG armies just to name an obvious example. IG get pretty much nothing from elites and HQ but spend a lot of points in troops and heavy support. Your percentile system is based on an assumption that every army has good choices in every section of the FOC and there's no reason to over-spend in one section unless you're spamming something overpowered. And that's just not true.

You are right it is simply moving the bar.

So then why do it? In a game where customizing your own army is so important restrictions on what you can bring should be kept to an absolute minimum. Moving the bar and introducing new rules for army construction has no place in this game.

My question is does it place the bar in a better place than something like simply rule chaning 2+ re-roll and outright banning everything from the last month...which seems to be the alternative.

Of course it doesn't. A solution that only takes away the specific problem armies will always be better than one that takes away the problem armies along with a lot of other armies in an effort to pretend that the solution is "fair" and not really targeted at those problem armies.

I don't think % systems ever really helped anything. Some armies do marvelously with huge amounts of troops, others very poorly, some don't need to put squad in HQ, some very much need to, etc. the only place I see a % restriction making sense is for Lord of War slots.

So then you would prefer something like

Changing rules to eliminate 2++ re-rolls

and from my perspective changing rules to tone down the extremely powerful shooting armies in the game

amongst other changes.

The issue I see with that is unless you ban/restrict units you force players to need to remember rules changes while playing vs simply doing so when creating a list.
Sure there will still be spammy netlists I'm sure, and yes they will be different. The end question is whether those lists are more "fun" to face, than the ones we currently have or not.

Really as you said there is no right answer and the only fully unbiased way to play is allow everything...my actual intent is to reduce the power of some of the current popular lists while still more or less making them playable..

This system may or may not achieve that or it might simply make other things horribly unfun to face.

I'm glad at least that you have taken some time to address the system though. Because while votes are nice...feedback is more helpful overall.

No bueno. If I want to run a Space Wolf Hero army, i should be able to. Or if I take Calgar and Lysander with Honor Guard, then I am WAAAYY over % but in no way would people consider it broken.

This doesnt fix anything, it just restricts regular non WAAC players to be restricted further.

Breng77 wrote:
my actual intent is to reduce the power of some of the current popular lists while still more or less making them playable..

But why should a list's power be reduced just because it's popular? The deciding factor should be whether a list is so dominant that it damages the metagame or is overpowered and not fun to play against. So really that means a very small number of lists, and all of them have simple solutions:

Re-rollable 2++: make the invulnerable save bonus ONLY apply to the invulnerable save granted by the demon rule, not to invulnerable saves granted by other stuff. Now you have a 3++ that re-rolls 1s, still powerful but no longer effectively immune to shooting. To deal with the Eldar ones just make all allies AoC so the 2++ character can no longer join the death star.

Riptide spam: remove the ability to ally an army with slight variants of itself, and remove the outside-the-FOC formations. Neither of these things are very popular outside of "I want to win" lists, so getting rid of them doesn't change very much.

D-weapons: just don't include Escalation. Again, not many people really want it, so you're not changing much.


Besides those lists what exactly is so powerful that you need blanket army construction limits to deal with it?

I don't know
Broadside spam (need to restrict formations/data slates)
Serpent Spam.
IG FW artilery
etc...1111111111120536

You say IG armies are hurt by this I don't really see it. With no flex in heavy support you can field things like 3 mantacores etc.... with flex you are looking at easily fitting plenty (up to 700 points) in that slot. Sure you cannot field 9 Leman Russes.


As for restricting other armies that is true...but couldn't I argue that if I want to run 2++ re-rolls I should be able to, or Revanent Titans?

That is kind of my point. On some level it is more fair to hold everyone to the same standard than to say well this unit is too powerful...or x army is too powerful.

Sure, we can try to decide what is not fun to play against, or damages the meta game the problem is tournament are far to varied and infrequent (large ones anyway) to show that. For example there is little evidence right now that 2+ re-roll horribly imbalances the meta...so we are going on un-fun to play against. But that is subjective. I could say Death Core of Krieg is unfun and ban it just because....which is dumb.

I feel like rules changes would be great if they were wide spread, if every event goes with different in game rules it will make the game unfeasible to keep track of.

i.e. if every major tourney goes 2+ re-roll becomes 2+/4+ great.

But if one tournament does that, another bans the grimoir, another allows if full on, another, says only works on Daemon 5++....we need to remember different rules for each event.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I'm not saying we curb a list simply because it is popular, but many of the popular builds right now

Serpent Spam
2+ re-roll builds
Riptide Spam
FMC spam

are not fun to play against.

I'd attend. Wouldn't prefer it, but I'd take the challenge. I can already see some lists that would bust this wide open, but whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

i.e. if every major tourney goes 2+ re-roll becomes 2+/4+ great.

But if one tournament does that, another bans the grimoir, another allows if full on, another, says only works on Daemon 5++....we need to remember different rules for each event.

I disagree. It will make tourneys more diverse and lets us try different ways to keep the system competitive. If one method is way better than another, then TOs will naturally gravitate to that system.

I would go to this, but without it being the intention limits what armies can be played. I know I am a minority here since I play SoB, but itll be hard for a sisters list to be competitive at a 1850 pt limit tourney with these restrictions.

Please post them if you can think of some. As I don't know every army. Also do they bust this more than the current power armies bust the current meta. Which is what we are really looking at.

Like I said...I am trying to get a feel for whether this helps things at all or is just making other armies uber strong.

I'm ok with rules changes if that is the final answer I just don't see them being agreed upon right now and other than flat out bans they don't address formations, fortifications, or escalation.

Now maybe the best system ends up being something like

Rules changes + percentile Lords of war and fortifications and formations being changed to 0-1.

Which is all part of the discussion. As I said I proposed this on a different thread and got some positive feedback. So hearing ways to improve/change it are good. As well as looking at the negative pieces of it,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

toocool61 wrote:
I would go to this, but without it being the intention limits what armies can be played. I know I am a minority here since I play SoB, but itll be hard for a sisters list to be competitive at a 1850 pt limit tourney with these restrictions.

Why do you say that exactly?

What in this system particularly hurts Sisters of battle at 1850?

I don't know all their costs.

IS it that they need more HQ points?

Too limited by spending points on troops?

These are the things that I want to know.

Breng77 wrote:
Sure you cannot field 9 Leman Russes.

I can't even take three, if I take the "wrong" variant or buy upgrades for them.

As for restricting other armies that is true...but couldn't I argue that if I want to run 2++ re-rolls I should be able to, or Revanent Titans?

The point is that you don't have unnecessary restrictions. Screamerstar and titans are exceptionally bad lists, and there's a compelling argument that banning them is necessary for the good of the game as a whole. But that ban should be done as precisely as possible, so that only the specific problem lists are excluded.

On some level it is more fair to hold everyone to the same standard than to say well this unit is too powerful...or x army is too powerful.

Except that's exactly what you're doing. You're saying that armies with more than X% of their points in FOC slot Y are too powerful. You're just presenting it in a way that has a pretense of "fairness".

For example there is little evidence right now that 2+ re-roll horribly imbalances the meta...so we are going on un-fun to play against. But that is subjective. I could say Death Core of Krieg is unfun and ban it just because....which is dumb.

Except we do know that screamerstar lists unbalance the meta. They might not win the final game for first place, but they dominate lower-tier lists that aren't designed to fight them. And we know that if a screamerstar list faces a "normal" list with a player that isn't in the top tier of skill the other player isn't going to be having much fun. We can't say the same for DKoK because it's overall a pretty weak list that would struggle to compete at all in a tournament.

But if one tournament does that, another bans the grimoir, another allows if full on, another, says only works on Daemon 5++....we need to remember different rules for each event.

Sure, but how is that any different than remembering which FOC percentage limit is in effect? And I think you overstate the problem. Yes, you need to know which change was made, but you only need to know that for a very small number of rules (the 2++ is probably the only change outside of list construction). You're already able to remember things like new mission rules, so why is remembering a single new army rule so much harder?

Any of the lists that can take their nasties and make them troops (especially those that don't need DT to be scary), or whose strong points are their nasty nasty troops (inquisition, GK, Necrons) will see their stock rise in this format. It does matter what point cost you are thinking. Did I miss that? As a 25% restriction on 1500 point lists will be very different compared to a 1850 or higher list. Also the smaller the points the less likely Lords of War will appear at all.

What I do like is that different lists will do better here and there than the current meta kings. That would make this event fun/different.

I think for now a more potentially agreeable way to go would be to;
1. Run a specific type of tournament. Such as one event being a 'gloves off/'Ard Boyz' style where absolutely everything is allowed, then next time run a more moderated format of perhaps just, "codices, allies, fortification, e-codices (ie: Sisters) only' which would thus exclude Escalation and other suppliments.
Find out which type is more popular, then make it the mainstay event and run the other one a couple times a year to keep that minority involved as well.

2. Run a limited type of 'evolving comp' similar to ETC by placing restrictions on each army.
So for Daemons for example, you place a restriction such as "Kairos Fateweaver, Grimoire of True Names are 0-1 in total." Bye-bye abusive/boring Screamerstar as you can only take the 1 major component of it, and bringing The Good Book now has a 33% chance to fail each turn instead of being a near auto-pass. You don't 100% eliminate it, but it's a helluva lot less assured that you're going to have your nearly invulnerable unit each turn as you'll lack Fatey's re-roll.
If the likes of Wave Serpent spam or Flying Bakery or Hellturkey/Flying Circus is problematic, again, just place light restrictions such as "Helldrakes, Winged Daemon Prince are 0-2 in total" in the case of CSM's. 2 'Drakes or Winged Prince + 'Drake is still mean and challenging, but you eliminate the most obnoxious version of it being 2-3 Drakes plus a Mace Prince plus an added winged Prince as a Daemonic ally.

It's nowhere near a perfect comp, but the one thing it tries to encourage is a bit more diversity while removing the outright most abusive combo's by simply making the specific combo illegal.



Another suggestion to combat psyker spam which is also apparently viewed as a problem would be to borrow from Fantasy how Power selection works...

Basically, you can only have a single copy of each power, except the default Primaris Power which can be chosen as many times as you want.
Using Screamerstar as the example again, while you do 100% guarantee that the Daemon player will have Forewarning, you also ensure they only ever get it just once instead of a possible 5 times and thus make it easier to counter.

Otherwise, perhaps allow nearby enemy psykers to counter Blessings through DtW rolls.

I don't like this idea. It seems too arbitrary, and really rewards armies with the ability to take good troops and transports.

As I've said before:

-No escalation
-No stronghold assault
-Limit of two codices/supplements/datasheets per player list

Is all that really needs to be done right now. Maybe mess with the 2+ re-rollable save.

I like the idea of addressing the game's issues in a macro way, as you have suggested. However, I don't think a percentile system is inherently fair.

Yeah.. I like playing "fun," lists with lots of HQ's. Ex., Zahndrekh, Obyron, Destroyer Lord, Volt-Tek, Teleporty-Tek, Reroll-Tek.. and maybe an allied HQ as well. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's got some tricks, but it won't be tabling top players.

It's a good idea, but hurts/rewards far too many armies unintentionally. Tau has good units in every slot. Whereas I couldn't even name a Space Wolf Fast Attack choice. Daemon Elites are likewise horrible, etc.

Take a look at how this system changes the game at 1850:

Daemons--kiss FMCs goodbye, cause you can take one in HQ, one in HS. Too bad, because not only is FMC easily countered by Eldar and Tau, but it is an army that takes alot of skill to use. Screamerstar isn't really affected.

Eldar--players can easily still take 3x6 Hawks in Elites. And a ton of Serpents as troops. Basically, it limits Eldar players to one Wraithknight. Otherwise, same dominating and problematic army. You kill the Council though.

Tau--no three Riptides, just two. At least it limits them to three Broadsides and two Skyrays in Heavy Support...oh wait...that is pretty much what we already see anyway. I guess Tau players will just make up the lost Riptide with a Serpent or two...


These are the three most commonly seen armies in the game. Aside from killing Seer Council (which is cool), you completely invalidate other legitimate Daemon builds. Standard Tau/Eldar are relatively untouched, so the game just loses variety.

Sorry for the no quote but I'm an iPad newb. But sisters of battle have essentially 3 core units that you will see in their armies. They are : exorcist, dominions, immolators. After that, the sisters of battle become more of an msu army with your restriction. I'm assuming that allies count towards these percents, andSoB really do need some allies to be truly competitive in my opinion, especially. If lords of war are being used. The percentile kills the ability for them to take effective heavy/troop/dedicated transports allies they need to really fill in their weaknesses. Some SoB would argue that the blob squad is the way to go, but the percentiles seems to kill some of the creativity in making a list.itmakes it feel we all will eventually be running the same lists. What I mean by that is there will only be one build of marines, with very little variations in between. Allies gives many variations, but to me it will kill some of the deep thinking intakes to come up with a unique listwhetherit is spammy or not. But we won't know till the system is tested and tried. So feelings can be shifted easily! I support you guys trying it out and seeing how it turns out before more comments against it should be made. Because at first everyone hated the wraith knight and now it is too good for people.maybe people will hate this system now but in a year love it. Everything requires some testing it just depends on who goes out on a limb to do it.

@jgrand.

Ummm.... I'm not sure it works exactly like you seem to think.

At 1850 how does screamer star function. You have ~460 points per 25%. So no fateweaver + multiple high level heralds (fateweaver + 1 LDL 3 grim herald is 450)

If you use flex at on you heavies you have ~ 600 points so while you cannot go max levels on princes you can field 2 so you max out at 3 FMCS

And a ton of serpents is 4? Because that is all you can get with no upgrades.

Again flex could allow 2 wraithknights

Tau- no ovesa star...limits use of buff commander Lin tons of allied armies..

So not exactly the same.

But I can see your point to a certain extent.

@ too cool I'm missing where it hurts too much unless you tanked expensive transports. But I feel like sisters are not super limited. It does not limit troop allies at all, heavies might be some but you only get one allied heavy anyway,.

I think it is absolutely worth a shot and would attend. I think the flex is unnecessary though. At best it just complicates list checking (and creation). I understand wanting to smooth things out though, so 5% seems like more than enough at 1850.

Just one opinion... but looking at what you can get for 460ish points compared to 600ish points really feels like the difference between addressing the problem or just making things more complicated for little (if any) gain.

@jgrand.

Ummm.... I'm not sure it works exactly like you seem to think.

At 1850 how does screamer star function. You have ~460 points per 25%. So no fateweaver + multiple high level heralds (fateweaver + 1 LDL 3 grim herald is 450)

If you use flex at on you heavies you have ~ 600 points so while you cannot go max levels on princes you can field 2 so you max out at 3 FMCS

And a ton of serpents is 4? Because that is all you can get with no upgrades.

Again flex could allow 2 wraithknights

Tau- no ovesa star...limits use of buff commander Lin tons of allied armies..

So not exactly the same.

But I can see your point to a certain extent.

Ah, I missed the part about the "flex" points. I actually think that would make things even more convoluted. It seems really slanted that the extra 10% can't be used on HQ as well.

I do agree that losing Fateweaver would hurt the Screamers, a person could still run them and take their chances with the Grimiore or roll for the 4++ with only one Herald. Not even close to as good, but the unit still exists. Also, killing 4-5 FMC armies is just lame. Again, the army has multiple common counters. You also never see bad players win with it. It is a perfect example of unintended consequences.

The dedicated transport restriction is confusing and arbitrary as well. Does that mean for troops only, or the whole army? It seems like a bad attempt to nerf Serpent spam.

The way I see it, you would actually homogenize the game even further. A player can still get:

Buffmander
Bikeseer

3x5 DA in Serpent w Scatter/Shriuken Cannon
2x3 GJB
10 Kroot w Hound

Riptide w Ion, Interceptor

3 Broadsides
Wraithknight

2x6 Swooping Hawks

at 1850. Is that really all that different from what we see now? Tau/Eldar remain pretty unchanged. No...I should say that Tau/Eldar have a slightly more limited list building structure.

Good attempt, but the idea doesn't work.

Yeah I think that was what's was getting at. This system seems to homogenize lists, and takes away from the creativity of making lists.

My question to the homogenize thing is how varied are lists we see now? For me they are not all that varied.

5 FMC
Screamers
Jet seer
Taudar with little variation

As for the dedicated transport thing it is intended to be for the entire army and my question would be how does it compare to the current attempts to nerf serpent spam which don't exist.

Here is my thing right now people seem only to want to address one of the many extremely powerful combos out there. Now this may not get it done either

But the no escalation
No strong hold
2 factions (or whatever ) is far worse and has just as many unintended or possibly intended

Be'lakor will never be in a daemon army at least
In theory as you wrote it if you allow FW a player may only use 1 FW book and at that point no allies etc.

As for why no flex on hq...at that point don't impact either 2+ re-roll army. Year they still exist but they are much riskier.

Also the above Taudar is different from what I have seen with broadsides, 2 wraithknights etc.

I suppose it might homogenize lists some.

You also seem anti killing the FMC army...which is fine but plenty of people do not enjoy playing against that army either..li would also not rank it as something less skilled players never win with. If that is the metric screamer star is largely the same (I see it on bottom tables all the time) I'm not saying it needs to be fixed...but many top players using this build "don't play the game" hide most of the time then win on objectives....

But I can see your point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder if perhaps calling the flex 10% allowing it for hq and then just rule changing 2+ re-roll to 2+/4+ Would work better..thinking more on it. This still allows for things like limited formations...limits some spam...but still allows up to 600ish points in hq at 1850) Essentially 10% is 185 points so for FMC you could

Fateweaver

Loc 2 treaters (270) so that is 570 points)

Leaving you with 535 points for daemon princes...which means they are limited on gifts and levels but still can be taken.

It is certainly a nerf...but you can do it if you want.

My question to the homogenize thing is how varied are lists we see now? For me they are not all that varied.

5 FMC
Screamers
Jet seer
Taudar with little variation

As for the dedicated transport thing it is intended to be for the entire army and my question would be how does it compare to the current attempts to nerf serpent spam which don't exist.

I agree that there isn't a ton of variation due to Tau/Eldar dominance, but removing FMC, Screamers, and Seers makes the Taudar and Eldau that much better.

Here is my thing right now people seem only to want to address one of the many extremely powerful combos out there. Now this may not get it done either

But the no escalation
No strong hold
2 factions (or whatever ) is far worse and has just as many unintended or possibly intended

Be'lakor will never be in a daemon army at least
In theory as you wrote it if you allow FW a player may only use 1 FW book and at that point no allies etc.

I don't see why Be'lakor would never be in an army. He is part of either CSM or Daemons and could be allied in to Daemon armies in a CSM detachment. As for Forgeworld, I don't normally see it allowed in events anyway. I'd be open to trying a 0-1 slot for it though.

As for why no flex on hq...at that point don't impact either 2+ re-roll army. Year they still exist but they are much riskier.

Also the above Taudar is different from what I have seen with broadsides, 2 wraithknights etc.

I suppose it might homogenize lists some.

I think it would definitely have these consequences. You make 2+ re-rolls riskier, but they can still exist.

You also seem anti killing the FMC army...which is fine but plenty of people do not enjoy playing against that army either..li would also not rank it as something less skilled players never win with. If that is the metric screamer star is largely the same (I see it on bottom tables all the time) I'm not saying it needs to be fixed...but many top players using this build "don't play the game" hide most of the time then win on objectives....

No army is without counter. No army is an auto win. The problem with Seer Council in particular, is that the counters to the list aren't all that common. Sure, one can design a list with SW, GK, and Inq to beat it down, but a player risks that list being crappy otherwise. On the other hand, Screamers are easily tarpitted. FMC is beaten by Tau and Eldar routinely.

I think some issues come into play in general with changing the game in extreme ways. Where do we stop once we start saying "X isn't fun to play against." The re-rollable 2+ save seems like a consensus "this is bad for the game" issue. Again, it isn't unbeatable, but there is something particularly slimy about it. A 2+/4+ is still playable, but doesn't change invalidate other armies (nor does it invalidate Screamers/Seers). Furthermore, I am not in favor of banning/nerfing armies in general. Why do FMCs have to go? I'd argue that Eldar Tau are worse offenders.