First bans in tournaments in place, implications for Chaos

[the jeske]

And lose the free promo work ?

 

I don't know how much you know about tournament play . changes always happen , new codex kill old builds or make other dexs non viable . May not be fun , but it happens . But stuff like shoting D weapons should not be in the game . That is like having two helldrakes that work on everything from turn 1. And while yes you could technicly beat an army with a raver by tailoring . the tailored list sucks against everything else . To make a sports example , you do not merge heavy and cruiser weight in boxing just to have more stars fight against each other.

 

 

And half the time, I'm left looking at a lot of the complaints on here -
with stuff like Titans with one foot on a Skyshield, etc. - and I don't
think the rules are broken, I think "Who in the Christing balls are you people playing with? How is that fun for you?"

Whole eastern europe plays like that. I see the source of this in how mucht he stuff costs. Few people have enough spare cash to buy an army which they may "like" , but which doesn't work at all . People buy what works , they try of course to make armies they want to play , but at least for chaos it doesn't work that well .They want to play strickt legion lists and not mix of different stuff from different legions . On the other hand marines are more lively then ever , havn't see so many different marine armies since 4ed .

[Sception]

Malisteen- i thought that the Grimoire allready did only function on Deamons..., i don't have the dex on hand(din't even play once with it, because of how disgusted i was with it, so i don't even remember where i did put that book), but in my memories the grimoire rule specificaly stated that only Friendly OR Ennemy models with the Deamon rule could be affected by it...

I meant if it only enhanced the save granted by being a daemon, not any old invulnerable save a daemon happened to have for other reasons (such as from forewarning, for instance).

 

That's a pretty round about and indirect way of saying I think it should cap at a 3++. I think it would still be good then, without being quite so ... obnoxious.

[Smurfalypse]

Wow...

So they ban a particular object of a book that is allready very subpar, that can only target Models with the Deamon rule( so you can't like say use it on termies to give them a 3++), while SM can play 2-3 units of Hammerantors with ALL a PERSISTENT with NO COUNTER BALANCE 3++...,really?

Was the perspectif of ONE DEAMON unit of the army to have a 3++ so Terryfiyng?...

Now about D-weapons its good to change it, but like some already said, just don't play the escalation book.

0-1 limitation, i personnaly thing that GW should have continued to use it, not with has many units has before( because looking back in the old 3rd-4th Dexes, there where a lot of units that was 0-1), but on some units that feel like they would be Spam-abused getting a 0-1 per 1000pts or something, wouldn't have been so bad.

You play 2000pts?, okey then your 0-1 units becomes 0-2 units etc.

But yeah its something we can't do anything about it now, its too late.

Oh and while you are here ADB i wanted to say that i finaly have the Betrayer book in my hands( only was released this week in Belgium), i'm not very far, really just the beginning, but i love it.

I really hope that when the World Eaters Supp comes out, you will be on the fluff like with Black Legion Supp, that i really did enjoy, the first bit of Chaos fluff outside Black Library novels, since 3Rd Ed that i actually liked.

Oh and if you can do something about the Skalathrax incident...its a really stupid bit of fluff, Marines getting scared to freeze at -100, when they can go into the Void of space with their Power armors..., silliest thing i've read, and thats not counting Draigo fluff...

The Grimoire is probably the best single item in the game for any given codex, do not downplay how good it really is

Though I strongly disagree with a ban list, especially one that encompasses a single item, it is good but it is hardly the only thing worthy of banning if we are talking a "scale" in power.

Then you really don't know about a lot of things in a fews codexes...

Giving a 3++ for one turn to a unit if you don't fail the testn in wich case your ++ save becomes worse..., for a 35pts item, while in another book you have a 35pts item that give a 3++, EW an AW on a model.

Or simply a piece of wargear that can gives 3++ to whole units of 2 saves dudes...

Yeah thats overpowered...

No need to get snippy about it.

This particular piece of wargear is indeed probably the best single item in the game. It leads up to a 2++ invuln that is fairly simple to get and that usually outright wins games on its own.

Take a few rolls on Divination and hope for the 4++

Take Fateweaver and use his reroll ability for the Grimoire roll as needed

Basically you get your 2++ in about 70sih% of your games, so it is very very much a powerful piece of gear

At NOVA I did not see a single Daemon player without one (uncluding me).

I din't intend to make my post snippy, sorry.

But what you are saying about Fateweaver, the grimoir and all that, it is a really costy combo, its the kind of thing that i really, really won't consider taking because of the cost, i like things to be under or just above the 200pts bar, thats my psychological limitation for a unit that can do good, but that i won't cry about it if lost.

When this famous Deathstar thing with 2++ rerollable, gets me 1's two time in a row, its death, just like any other models, and like the Law of Murphy says, it always happens when it shouldn't happen.

Malisteen- i thought that the Grimoire allready did only function on Deamons..., i don't have the dex on hand(din't even play once with it, because of how disgusted i was with it, so i don't even remember where i did put that book), but in my memories the grimoire rule specificaly stated that only Friendly OR Ennemy models with the Deamon rule could be affected by it...

Screamers = 2 wounds each, so when they fail their one in 36 chance they only lose one wound :P

It is a very expensive combo but Fateweaver does other things than just the reroll. You can reroll on your opponents turn as well and use that reroll on your turn if you get the Grimoire off on your first roll, he allows you to reroll the Warp Storm table (this is a really really big deal), he is a ML4 psycher, he flys, he has a good save. . . There is tons going on with him

The Heralds in the Screamer-star also do other things than just cast a 4++ power. They shoot with Flickering Fire, they buff, they debuff.

Screamer-star is very very rough to play against and even though the combo is fairly expensive it will usually carry a game.

You are right, the Grimoire only effects models with the Daemon USR.

[Wade Garrett]

To make a sports example, you do not merge heavy and cruiser weight in boxing just to have stars fight each other

This really isn't the best example considering how often "name" guys have been made to go up and down in weight to make big money fights.

[Grey Mage]

How would people feel about 25% troops minimum, and no more than 25% in any other slot?

Sure, it nerfs the crap out of screamerstar, but it does the same thing to seer councils...

Just a thought.

[daboarder]

eh not a fan, but I like deathstars. They are a valid method of play that is destroyed for no reason when you introduce percentages. to me Percentages are liimitations merely for the sake of limitations, the FOC both limits what you can take while also allowing you enough freedom to theme your list.

[daveNYC]

How would people feel about 25% troops minimum, and no more than 25% in any other slot?

 

Sure, it nerfs the crap out of screamerstar, but it does the same thing to seer councils...

 

Just a thought.

 

Iffy, as it depends on the quality of your troops (or the dedicated transports that just happen to come with them).  25% of your points being in cultists probably isn't going to be popular, but the same for Plagues or Noise Marines isn't nearly as bad.

[Iron_Within]

The other thing is it give clear advantage to those armies that can spam things in the troop section: Cron air and MechDar Serpent Spam I'm looking at you.

[Trevak Dal]

It all seems fair to me...then again I only have 1 riptide, and 1 heldrake (I love my raptors man-the new kit is sooo awesome)

[Spacefrisian]

I thought tourneys where invented to figure out who is the best at that, but it seems many share the oppinion that they want to be the best but only if the opponent is leaving the best of their stuff at home.

 

Doesnt that sound odd?

[Trevak Dal]

 

it should not be our responsibility to build lists that don't ruin the game for others

 Actually, it really should be.  I believe it mentions something like that in the main rule book about both players having fun.

[Slayer le Boucher]

 

it should not be our responsibility to build lists that don't ruin the game for others

 Actually, it really should be.  I believe it mentions something like that in the main rule book about both players having fun.

 

Something most of them seems to forget alas...

[Sception]

Some player accountability needs to be taken not to exploit the game when such exploits inevitably appear, and by event organizers to keep those exploits from ruining their events. But before it even gets to the players, the designers should be accountable for writing rules that result in enjoyable games to begin with, to make at least a minimum effort to identify and remove exploits before they appear in the rules. GW has succeeded more than they have failed at this over the years, at least imo. Again, I very much like Fantasy at the moment, and Mordheim is one of my favorite games ever. But Inquisitor, cool as it is for the lore, is nigh unplayable, and 40k, at least from my limited experience and perspective, has been trending too much in that direction of late.

 

I mean, I like giant models. I'd love to play an escalation game with my plague reaper, or maybe even pick up a lord of skulls. But if GW's rules for super heavies are so poorly balanced that I can't find anybody willing to play a game with them at all, then what good does it do me for those rules to have exist in the first place? It's not that I think anyone can force me to play against a revenent when I don't want to, that's ridiculous. But imagine I'm an eldar player, who spent all the money and effort buying a revenant and painting it up, and now it's finally available to play in a regular 40k game! But if the rules are so ridiculous that nobody is willing to play against it because it makes the game unfun for them, then what good do those rules do me?

 

Or, take APO, where these titans and D rules are 'supposed' to exist. APO is cool and all, some of my funnest games have been Apocalypse games (I remember one in late 4th/early 5th where abaddon smashed a stompa with Drachnyen), but big games shouldn't just be about giant models, they should also be the time to pop out those expensive, faction-leading special characters and their elite retinues. Yet when Abaddon and his BoDyguard or Gazkull and some meganobz die just as easily as a handful of cultists or grots, what's the point? How am I supposed to 'forge a narrative' that way?

 

I'm not a tournament player or Min Maxer. I'm really not. I play against such players sometimes (often), but it's not really my thing. I run my CSMs even though they're kind of meh. I run my army out of the Black Legion supplement even though doing so tends to be more of a handicap than anything else, particularly given that I like to run some power armored units. I've been diligently and effortfully converting my Chosen squad. I don't run possessed anymore - I've gotta draw the line somewhere - but I still try to run big fluffy deep striking terminator retinues now and then, at least until playing the game reminds me how frustrating it is to do so without any sort of scatter mitigation. I can't tell you how many times I've forged the narative "abaddon kills himself when he teleports into a rock".

 

Yes I know I harp on that particular pet peeve a lot, and it's not even a particularly major issue, and it doesn't really have anything to do with the recent freak outs over Escalation and dataslates and inquisitor codeces and so on. I'm just trying to point out that I want to play for fluff & narrative, and lately, in 40k, it feels like GW's loosey goosey rules haven't been 'empowering me to play the game how I want', they've been getting in the way of me playing the game at all, and getting in the way of the narrative aspects of the game in particular.

 

Again, from my own subjective perspective.

 

It's not to the point that I don't enjoy the game anymore. I still have fun when I get to the table. But it's less fun, especially as my better friends and more enjoyable opponents get to the point that they stop having fun and leave the hobby altogether, leaving me with pick up games against strangers instead of epic grudges and rivalries with long-built histories behind them.

[Grey Mage]

I thought tourneys where invented to figure out who is the best at that, but it seems many share the oppinion that they want to be the best but only if the opponent is leaving the best of their stuff at home.

 

Doesnt that sound odd?

See, and I know alot of people who are mostly there to get games in.....

 

But one has to ask, if you cant win on an even playing field are you really the best player? Thats the idea behind comp.

 

Does it work? As often as not no it doesnt, but its atleast trying to do good work.

[daveNYC]

 

it should not be our responsibility to build lists that don't ruin the game for others

 Actually, it really should be.  I believe it mentions something like that in the main rule book about both players having fun.

 

A lot of games have statements like that in the beginning of the book, but not many of them require that players modify their behavior because their rules are so borked that they can very easily lead to no-fun unless adjustments are made.

 

There's a difference between a request that people be good sports and not crush the new guy and whatnot, it's another to be saying "Hey, you know that mechdar list you've run for the past umpteen years?  Well it just got buffed, so stop playing it."  or saying to a CSM player that Heldrakes should be off the table because they want to run Ravenwing.

[Kol Saresk]

 

 

 

 

it should not be our responsibility to build lists that don't ruin the game for others

 Actually, it really should be.  I believe it mentions something like that in the main rule book about both players having fun.

 

 

 

A lot of games have statements like that in the beginning of the book, but not many of them require that players modify their behavior because their rules are so borked that they can very easily lead to no-fun unless adjustments are made.

 

There's a difference between a request that people be good sports and not crush the new guy and whatnot, it's another to be saying "Hey, you know that mechdar list you've run for the past umpteen years?  Well it just got buffed, so stop playing it."  or saying to a CSM player that Heldrakes should be off the table because they want to run Ravenwing.

 

 

My opinion on this is "if you find power lists fun, fine. Play someone else who likes power lists so y'all can both have fun because if you play me, your win will be too easy and I won't have fun."

 

But if the message is "Both players should have fun" then there is the social contract of trying to make sure the other player has fun as well. Granted, most human beings think "Do something for someone else? What hippie barbarism is this madness and heresy?!?!?!?!" so I understand why most people would be against that line of thinking. Deep down inside, its our nature to be selfish.

[Tenebris]

 

Deep down inside, its our nature to be selfish.

 

A perfectly valid argument, THE only valid argument in this topic. Point is that we speak of a game that pits a player against another player, a game that rewards Victory Points for the "elimination" of specific units, and a game that focuses on the utter obliteration of the enemy Troops. Personally I think those are the two main goals and the Superheavies with their D - weapons are a lure too big to avoid for a die hard competitive player. So long story short the Lords of War are here to stay and I presume that the 7th Edition will automatically include them in the FOC.

 

The trick is to hamstring those players who are unable to play if they do not powerplay. How you do that,... well the bans and limits are a poor choice, social sanction by the gameclub, a good talk with them and perhaps a simple ignore to play are much much more successful, but yes, this is all good and fine if you DO have the choice of players to play with.

 

I think a system like the one in my club seems solid enough, there are no limitations, no house rules (bar the ones for cinematic effect) and no problems if you bring the latest netlist to the tournament. Once is tolerated, twice is accepted, you do that a third time and you will find yourself with a declined invite (we have a period before the tournament to sign in) and you, the awesome powerplayer will notice that the novice boy with his first army is more easily accepted and helped by the club than the gamers like you.

 

That is why we also sometimes allow for painting scores, fluff points, balls of steel award (for something very stupid like a forlorn charge to actually succeed) and still all is kept fairly competitive.

 

In short you bring yourself to the tournament, not your army, you fail in that aspect and than you get a polite decline next time you sign up. All fair and square. And yes netlists still appear but those usually get paired with other netlists or you find yourself somehow limited in the choice of players to play with.  

[Spacefrisian]

In it to win it?

[Trevak Dal]

In it to win it?

 

I play to show all those fine Female Magic Players* how much swag I got at rolling dice, playing with toy soldiers.

 

 

*That don't exist in my area.

[Kol Saresk]

 

 

Deep down inside, its our nature to be selfish.

 

A perfectly valid argument, THE only valid argument in this topic. Point is that we speak of a game that pits a player against another player, a game that rewards Victory Points for the "elimination" of specific units, and a game that focuses on the utter obliteration of the enemy Troops. Personally I think those are the two main goals and the Superheavies with their D - weapons are a lure too big to avoid for a die hard competitive player. So long story short the Lords of War are here to stay and I presume that the 7th Edition will automatically include them in the FOC.

 

The trick is to hamstring those players who are unable to play if they do not powerplay. How you do that,... well the bans and limits are a poor choice, social sanction by the gameclub, a good talk with them and perhaps a simple ignore to play are much much more successful, but yes, this is all good and fine if you DO have the choice of players to play with.

 

I think a system like the one in my club seems solid enough, there are no limitations, no house rules (bar the ones for cinematic effect) and no problems if you bring the latest netlist to the tournament. Once is tolerated, twice is accepted, you do that a third time and you will find yourself with a declined invite (we have a period before the tournament to sign in) and you, the awesome powerplayer will notice that the novice boy with his first army is more easily accepted and helped by the club than the gamers like you.

 

That is why we also sometimes allow for painting scores, fluff points, balls of steel award (for something very stupid like a forlorn charge to actually succeed) and still all is kept fairly competitive.

 

In short you bring yourself to the tournament, not your army, you fail in that aspect and than you get a polite decline next time you sign up. All fair and square. And yes netlists still appear but those usually get paired with other netlists or you find yourself somehow limited in the choice of players to play with.

 

 

That does sound reasonable. I'm not sure how Feast of Blades works exactly(never been to a tournament, just not my cup of tea personally) but if I had to go by the fact they are thinking of all these restrictions as well as some of what was said in the article, they don't do things like "Painting points" because they expect armies to be painted. Sort of like how the Warrior's Code said "Your army must be painted to a certain standard". Kind of the mentality "We do not reward what you are already supposed to be doing."

[Sception]

 

 

 

it should not be our responsibility to build lists that don't ruin the game for others

 Actually, it really should be.  I believe it mentions something like that in the main rule book about both players having fun.

 A lot of games have statements like that in the beginning of the book, but not many of them require that players modify their behavior because their rules are so borked that they can very easily lead to no-fun unless adjustments are made. There's a difference between a request that people be good sports and not crush the new guy and whatnot, it's another to be saying "Hey, you know that mechdar list you've run for the past umpteen years?  Well it just got buffed, so stop playing it."  or saying to a CSM player that Heldrakes should be off the table because they want to run Ravenwing.

My opinion on this is "if you find power lists fun, fine. Play someone else who likes power lists so y'all can both have fun because if you play me, your win will be too easy and I won't have fun."But if the message is "Both players should have fun" then there is the social contract of trying to make sure the other player has fun as well. Granted, most human beings think "Do something for someone else? What hippie barbarism is this madness and heresy?!?!?!?!" so I understand why most people would be against that line of thinking. Deep down inside, its our nature to be selfish.

My problem is that too often lately it feels like the rules themselves are the greatest barrier to having fun with 40k, not the attitudes of the people i play against.

[Wade Garrett]

I don't understand this whole "How much fun your opponent has at the tournament is important" line of reasoning.

 

Casual games, certainly, but that's an entirely different beast than a tournament, like a touch football game with your brother compared to the LSU/Alabama game.

 

I'm sure the Tigers would have a lot more fun if Bama left its first string defensive line in the locker room, but you don't see the athletic commission limiting the Crimson Tide to 0-1 starters so the Louisiana crew can enjoy themselves more.

[Kol Saresk]

I don't understand this whole "How much fun your opponent has at the tournament is important" line of reasoning.

 

Casual games, certainly, but that's an entirely different beast than a tournament, like a touch football game with your brother compared to the LSU/Alabama game.

 

I'm sure the Tigers would have a lot more fun if Bama left its first string defensive line in the locker room, but you don't see the athletic commission limiting the Crimson Tide to 0-1 starters so the Louisiana crew can enjoy themselves more.

Its not so much "your opponent has fun" as "you and your opponent have fun". Feast of Blades seems to feel that's important to the tournament scene. Wager its the same with Tenebris' tournament scene as well and probably some of the more "minor" metas.

[Excessus]

I live in Sweden so I'm used to a comp system, though we have it regulated on an army basis and not carpet bombing like this...

[the jeske]

 

To make a sports example, you do not merge heavy and cruiser weight in boxing just to have stars fight each other

This really isn't the best example considering how often "name" guys have been made to go up and down in weight to make big money fights.

And Klichko whoops them every time . The taudareldar do not need the raver to win . And to make people attened tournaments more offten , people shouldn't be thinking "what if play someone with a raver and get rolled [wasting cash/time put in to tournament/painting army/getting to the tournament].

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand this whole "How much fun your opponent has at the tournament is important" line of reasoning.

 

1 or 2 typ of army totaly dominates the other to a point , where playing something else is means you much smaller chance to win the event . Fewer people attened the tournaments[why bother] , tournament community gets smaller , smaller tournaments die , bigger tournaments get more boring[fewer people means fewer opponents , more mirror matchs . ends up with either the luckiest wining or someone being lucky while playing a skew list] . I have seen this happen in WFB when the question was "how do you deal with demons [armies that couldn't were automaticly non viable and there were a few , and I mean armies , not builds]" and the other one was 'why aren't you playing them yourself. 

 

Many powerful armies from different codex are ok [4th ed with its good chaos builds , ok sm gunlines , good eldar and tyranids] for tournaments , one or two build enviroments are not .