The implications of tournaments

[StrummersGhost]

Hey everyone, allow me to explain the somewhat ambiguous topic title.

 

I'm a casual player of 40k, I play with a small group of my best friends typically matched play games of 1500 points. We do this for fun and usually over a few beers. I don't have much of a disposable income for the hobby so the purchase of big models is few and far between for me.

 

I'm aware of the big tournaments and some of the antics that go on there in terms of power players and those WAAC players. I was told recently that at the moment Stormraven spam lists are pretty popular in 8th and they're seeing some heavy use. I own 1 stormraven and used it on Saturday in a couple of games and I really enjoyed it.

 

Now, to the point of the topic. Today whilst perusing the Warhammer 40k Facebook page I saw a guy post a comment stating that the cost of flyers is broken citing the stormraven laden lists. He went on to suggest that GW should review the rosters of major tournaments and use these to rebalanced the points cost or rules of units in the game. This struck me as completely unfair. I assumed I'd be in the majority who think that, but was surprised to see a number of folk agreeing. Which has prompted me to post here, should the lists seen at tournaments dictate the game in general? I'd be interested to hear some opinions on this!

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Should tournament results dictate errata?  Absolutely not.  Should they influence errata?  Absolutely yes.

 

The thing about tournaments is that they are the most grueling, most intensive field tests for armies.  They are the natural setting for WAAC players and all sorts of gamers who focus on point efficiency, min-maxing, and all other forms of chicanery (what my friends and I refer to as "breaking the game").  As a result, tournaments provide empirical data on what is being played, what is being abused, and what is broken as all Hell.  This information can be used to inform GW's design team about unexpected interactions in the rules and the need to adjust abilities and point costs that make models either too strong or too weak.  This information then is a useful starting point for GW's design team, but they do need to take care to avoid extremes and to take some of the data with a grain of salt because there are variables which cannot be accounted for embedded in the data (such as the randomness of dice and the existence of metas that differ geographically).

[the jeske]

If something unit combo/weapon pops up in every list for the same faction, it is probablly a good thing to change something about it. Same with unit/model/weapon that never gets used. And the only way to check for those things is to check it where people play the game for the game, and not something else.

 

Also if you think that the SR is too good [and it is very good] you must take a look at some IG flyers. they cost less, have ungodlly fire power and are more resilient then main battline tanks. They do happen to be FW, but it is hardly an excusssse .

Plus the interaction between twin linking and re-rolls made some unit combos very powerful, and it may be a problem if on top of that synergy we get chapter tactics. A razor spam list is already powerful, but what happens if it also infiltrates 2-3 units of reavers within 9" of an army turn 1? Best place to check if it is too good [or realy bad], is the tournament sceen.

[Cryptix]

A razor spam list is already powerful, but what happens if it also infiltrates 2-3 units of reavers within 9" of an army turn 1? 

Execept it can't because Razorbacks don't have chapter tactics...

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

 

A razor spam list is already powerful, but what happens if it also infiltrates 2-3 units of reavers within 9" of an army turn 1?

Execept it can't because Razorbacks don't have chapter tactics...

Except the infiltration is a Stratagem not a Chapter Tactic

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

I would only agree with that concept if the top tournament lists were truly broken, like they were in 7E. As it is, I'm not convinced the very limited amounts of data we have right now for 8E tournaments is enough. I would not nerf Stormravens just yet.

[the jeske]

Have you playtested a razorspam list in a casual setting or flyer list, or even a mid tier knight+G-man one? Because we did and it is not fun [when fun is actualy doing something durning the game other then removing models] most of the time. Right now 8th polarizes just as bad 7th, the moment you build a proper list and the few incoming months when some armies are going to have a codex and some won't are going to be a real endurace check for some people.

[Captain Idaho]

I'm with the Iron Father... tournaments shouldn't be dictating rules for 40K. There are times when taking a single Storm Raven is actually not worth the points yet artificially increasing the points for Storm Ravens because someone takes 6 of them will kill off its use in games outside of massed selection for many players.

 

GW likely won't provide a "spam-tax" as it's arbitrary what is spamming. Is taking 6 Tactical squads really spamming, for example? Likewise, it is fiddily and definitely would bog the game down if each unit increased in cost after a certain amount being added to the game and I doubt the developers would have time to work that out and provide us new stuff.

 

So an even hand needs to be applied.

 

Or just wait until players start fielding 2 Stalkers and a couple Devastator squads and shoot down the flyers in 2 turns. :)

[StrummersGhost]

Should tournament results dictate errata? Absolutely not. Should they influence errata? Absolutely yes.

 

The thing about tournaments is that they are the most grueling, most intensive field tests for armies. They are the natural setting for WAAC players and all sorts of gamers who focus on point efficiency, min-maxing, and all other forms of chicanery (what my friends and I refer to as "breaking the game"). As a result, tournaments provide empirical data on what is being played, what is being abused, and what is broken as all Hell. This information can be used to inform GW's design team about unexpected interactions in the rules and the need to adjust abilities and point costs that make models either too strong or too weak. This information then is a useful starting point for GW's design team, but they do need to take care to avoid extremes and to take some of the data with a grain of salt because there are variables which cannot be accounted for embedded in the data (such as the randomness of dice and the existence of metas that differ geographically).

Good points, well made!

 

I can see why tournaments can reveal combos etc which are overpowered. But given that the primary aim of the majority of competitors is to win rather than have a fun balanced game, I'd certainly hope that GW takes it with a grain of salt when deciding on recosting units etc. Using the stormraven as a continued example, I would never consider buying 6 or 7 stormravens to spam them in a list just to win. At the moment the stormraven is costed nicely for me to include in my 1500 point list without having to sacrifice too much in regards to other units. Say Gw puts the points cost up mainly due to WAAC players spamming them, it would be ruined for me (potentially).

 

Would it be feasible to alter points/rules for some units only in tournament settings?

[StrummersGhost]

I'm with the Iron Father... tournaments shouldn't be dictating rules for 40K. There are times when taking a single Storm Raven is actually not worth the points yet artificially increasing the points for Storm Ravens because someone takes 6 of them will kill off its use in games outside of massed selection for many players.

This precisely summarises my opinion.

 

I have always been quite uninterested as to what goes on in tournaments. I'll never be in a position where I'd be taking part in one. Which is why the thought of a tournament dictating the game I play strikes me as quite unfair. As tournament play and casual play are two different beasts entirely, in my opinion.

Edited July 18, 2017 by StrummersGhost

[Captain Idaho]

There does need to be a little crossover though. I'm a tournament player though I take a different philosophy to the scene. I enjoy the cut and thrust of tactical play.

 

The game needs to be balanced as best it can whilst being pragmatic at the same time. A tournament can highlight concerns that need adjustment (stress testing) but being the sole method of design will just skew the game towards a particular direction.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Captain Idaho

[chapter master 454]

Tournaments are where players go to win. Top Tier anything in any game is the strongest because there is little in the way of good answers for it within a reasonable setting while itself can handle anything. In the case of 40k, don't look at top tier tournament lists too much. Nice to know what is broken but largely don't do it. It will make you depressed because 'aw all the cool units don't get used' or 'why do they use only one unit?'

 

The answer? Cool doesn't win. Remember, storm raven spam is no different to scatter bike spam. A list is strong when it has few avenues of interaction from the opponent and in the case of storm ravens, they can get across the map at any time they like and kill what they like while at the same time are harder to hit (the best armour) along with having a lot of kill power (Hurricane Bolters and Multi-meltas coupled with stormstrike missiles let them take anything really) so it's only natural they are the new...to put it nicely..."Bicycle" of tournament power gamers. Just an instance of the power gamers finding their new way to abuse the game.

 

Any edition has had their cheese and stupid lists. Remember, there is a reason fluffy and strong lists are largely separate, not all the time but mostly. If someone comes to your LGS with that then maybe give them A game, just one. After all they may just want to see for themselves how stupid it is and they might actually really love the model hence why they have 6 of them (to be fair, I kinda love the storm raven myself.) but after that if they keep bringing it they will quickly find no-one plays. I have humoured many tournament lists at the GW Falkirk (known tournament player shop. Brutal learning grounds! That's where I went to play the game XD) and to be honest, most players there using them acknowledge that it's dirty or just downright stupid along with hating getting into top bracket games and would actually prefer mid tier brackets because that's where fun is.

 

Take a look to my signature for a phrase that many power gamers get wrong and just remember: play what you like. I played land raider centric against any and all comers, including Eldar and I began to learn how to make my style work and make tournament lists struggle and to be honest, bringing a top tier list to a draw or only a near win against some low tier land raider cheese is by far more entertaining than winning.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

They don't necessarily need to increase Stormraven costs, they could just as easily do something about spamming dumb detachments.

[Slave to Darkness]

Get rid of detatchments, IMHO they are just a less restrictive version of 7th ed formations and more open to abuse. 
 

[Adeptus]

Anyone who plays X Wing is familiar with List Juggler. List Juggler takes every list used in a competitive event, and stores it away along with it's final placing. So FFG can see exactly how many people are running a given list and exactly how many of those people are winning games.

 

Then they can look at ways to bring those lists to parity, either by boosting unpopular units, introducing new counters to top-tier units, or changinger the way things work through errata and FAQ.

 

My concern is that GW doesn't have a List Juggler, so any notion of what is OP is just based off anecdotes. There's always basic math hammer which can help you identify points irregularities but without an accurate database of which lists are being taken and which lists are winning games, any balancing measures will be basically unguided.

 

The benefit FFG has when it comes to balancing games is that they only have one scenario, with one points level so balancing is quite easy, whereas GW games are played at a range of points values using different scenarios, so that makes data analysis much harder, and also gives people multiple ways to deal with problem units.

 

The problem that FFG has, and that GW has to be careful to avoid, is that balancing a unit for competitive play can break it for casual play. FFG suffers from this more because all their competitive games are played at 100 points using a basic deathmatch scenario and any deviation of points or scenario can drastically alter the balance, but it's something GW needs to be aware of. With the gap between narrative and matched play modes, GW has the ability to tweak a units points values without adjusting it's power levels, which I think is a great way to keep competitive play balanced without breaking narrative play.

 

The problem of course will be that it is much harder to see if something is broken in narrative play since there is no effective data collection.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

ITC has a List Juggler.

[Crimson Ghost IX]

I am sorry if your matched play 1500 point list gets messed. Truely.

I really hate those moments when the list I am buying, building, painting towards gets tossed etc.

It has happened before to me and will happen again I suppose.

Since you are playing with your friends (as do I), discuss it with them. Maybe Narrative/Mission based your list still works etc.

 

That said... In My Opinion.

The stormraven is FAR too good for it's base points cost for matched play as is. (and I own and play one).

The Razorback also needs an increase in base cost. (and I own and play 4).

So are Bobby G and Magnus. (man screw those guys, but they are supposed to be badass, and can't be spammed).

Been feeling that way since I got my index books.

Tourney Reports and personal experience haven't changed my mind.

 

Spam is spammed because it is too good or best in slot usually.

Open composition compounds the issue certainly.

 

Tournies / Games clubs could set comp requirements / start a highlander class etc, to reign in their WAAC crowd.

The rest of us have to hope GW steps in and helps out with adjustments (up and down) based on how things are going.

You can always refuse to play a pick up game or ask your opponent to soften.

 

I watched alot of pick up games in 6th and 7th edition as a Blood Angels player. (we kinda sucked)

Hope 8th will be different for everybody. I hope GW are willing to buff and nerf both.

 

It is my sincere hope that GW makes a real effort to keep the game fun and somewhat balanced for the majority of players and the newbies also.

 

My friends and I have discussed making each repeated unit cost X% more points each time as a possible spam solution instead of highlander if needed. 

Base cost for the first, then +20% for two, +30% for three, +40% etc.

 

We are in wait and see the codex mode at the moment tho.

The indexes are supposed to be a temporary thang and the real game is still coming out I'm thinking.

Flying Primaris Land Raiders are coming...

 

Back to the subject:

I really do think one stormraven as costed is too low at it's current cost tho.

Prolly gonna mess up my 1500 pt list too if/when it gets balanced *nod.

But so will the codex.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Crimson Ghost IX

[Frater Cornelius]

If you want to avoid this at tournaments, put a restriction on what detachments you can take to avoid extremisms among lists. Maybe even give out fluff point on top of painting point to cover the whole hobby spectrum (my favourite approach). This is the only sort of restriction tha is sure to leave casual play unaffected.

[Schultzhoffen]

Surely tournament organisers should set restrictions if they wish? After all, if you go to a tournament without restrictions then one shouldn't be surprised by the lists you come up against.

 

However, I would prefer to face and play mid tiers lists because close games are awesome (win/lose/draw), whereas one army obliterating the other is dull as dishwater.

 

One can only dream...

[Closet Skeleton]

Storm Ravens have been undercosted every edition, even when they weren't good enough for tournie lists they were obviously more competitively priced than the mostly inferior land raider.

[chapter master 454]

Storm Ravens have been undercosted every edition, even when they weren't good enough for tournie lists they were obviously more competitively priced than the mostly inferior land raider.

 

Mainly because storm ravens bring more firepower. By default they carry 4 main guns (2 stormstrikes + 2 Twin-linked weapons of varying abilities which furthers their power) while land raiders are apparently transport only according to many despite having armour rivaling a super heavy. To be honest, would love to see a land raider kit have new options, ranging from all manner of awesome gear. Actually use the land raider as a modifiable platform like the predator.

 

Another issue is GWs 'soft cap' of 8 toughness. Dreads I can see being toughness 7 however predators are only t7 as well? an ironclad is more well armoured than a predator...makes no sense. Hope they address this next edition as they clearly aren't in this edition, seems silly, an ironclad has the same armour as a super heavy (T8, 3+ sv) and wounds don't really make much of a difference other than how much they have to shoot it. That or maybe think about rebalancing weapon strengths around this new soft cap...

 

ugh...storm ravens, tough as a land raider but with flyer so thus harder to hit, the best armour in the game.

[Venerable Jazzman]

 

 

There are times when taking a single Storm Raven is actually not worth the points yet artificially increasing the points for Storm Ravens because someone takes 6 of them

One option, however, would be to increase the cost of additional units, maybe 5-10% for each extra one you take. So the second one costs say 110%, third costs 120% etc. That would mean a 6 SR list would cost 7.5 SR (50+40+30+20+10=150%, on top of their base cost)

 

You could tweak the % values without affecting players who just want to take one in their list - GW could even tweak the increases so they're not straight, but get larger the more you take, say 5,15,30,50,100? This would allow you to curb excessive spam lists, and it obviously would't be just limited to Storm Ravens.

[Boudan]

I'm not sure 5 stormravens flying together in a pitched battle isn't "fluffy", but I can certainly understand why the tournament outcomes are not pleasing.

[Noserenda]

They wont change how much it costs in casual/narrative games, because they intend those to use Power Levels which they wont be tweaking much.

If you are using matched play rules like points, you are going to get the balance of matched play lists.

Its kinda the point of three ways to play after all :D 

[Finkmilkana]

Now, if power levels weren't a complete mess from even the most casual balancing point of view people might actually use them. As is it seems to be more balanced to just guess based on stats than use power levels for narrative games.

They kinda work for factions without many options, but just fail with highly customizable units.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Finkmilkana