Feast of Blades Will be Enacting Restrictions and Bans

fb1

EDIT: Yes, I am reading all the comments. No, I do not have the time to respond to even 1/4 of you, and will generally try to stay out of it. I appreciate all your thoughts and ideas.

This is not going to be a short post. I will do my very best to explain what Feast of Blades as a tournament is doing, and to give you some insight into the thoughts going around at the high-level organizational level. For those of you who are unaware, I am the head 40k Tournament Organizer for Feast of Blades, an annual major 40k event.

With the recent release of Stronghold Assault and Escalation, 40k is, to put it bluntly, no longer suitable as a tournament game. The inclusion of Strength D into the game, following months and months of “power combo” lists taking top tables at tournaments has made it more than evident that this game as written simply isn’t designed for or appropriate for ANY sort of high-level competitive play.

Some people think that’s a good thing, or may simply say “no duh”. Believe me, none of us are blind to this fact, it’s something we’ve all been aware of for the few decades 40k has existed. But up until this point, we’ve still pushed for competitive play and organized tournaments because they’re fun. It’s great to be able to go to a tournament for a weekend, drink beers and play games against strangers. It’s awesome to see the variety of lists, the master-level paintjobs, and the crazy conversions that people come up with. And there’s nothing in the hobby quite like seeing one of those big-event Apocalypse tables, with more Baneblades, Titans, and Thunderhawks than you’ve ever seen, flying around and fighting on the same board.

There’s no doubt that 5th edition was the closest this game has ever been to a “tournament” rule set, but 6th has turned things the other way around. This isn’t due to 6th being an innately terrible rule set, (yes, it definitely has problems, but it’s not awful) but rather due to the rapid-fire codex release scheduled creating very powerful builds and combos.

Recently, we’ve been hearing from several very reliable sources that GW has stopped their playtesting, or has at least reduced it to a very minimal amount. This jives with the releases and units we’ve been seeing show up all across the country. You’ll find mass Wraithknights, quad-Riptide, Necron Airforce, and Screamerstar as common contenders in many major (and not so major) tournaments across the country.

Can these lists be beaten? Yes. Definitely. We see top players beat them all the time. But are they fair? Do they create a fun tournament environment? To address that I’m going to take a very long quote from an article by Sirlin, a man who has designed several of his own games and rebalanced several more. I believe it cuts to the heart of the issue:

“…While I think the earlier arguments that good balance leads to problems in Chess and Starcraft make no sense at all, the argument about the metagame is much more subtle. I believed this same argument for a long time, but I don’t any more. The argument goes like this: it’s ok for a character to be too powerful because then players will try to find ways to beat that character with otherwise weaker characters who happen to be good against that particular strong character. Extra Credits further says that you explore more strategy in a game with this property than with a game with actually fair characters because with fair characters you’d be locked into doing the same kind of thing and not looking for counter-characters.”You could make that same argument about decks in Magic: the Gathering. I think this is an illusion, and I was caught in it for years because it’s kind of “conventional wisdom” and never even really questioned or talked about. I only really started to realize why this doesn’t add up when I was working on my own customizable card game. A “rich metagame” means there are lots of decks that counter other decks, and you get to sit around thinking about which deck will be common at a tournament and which you should choose in response. For example, if you discovered an unusual deck that could win 9-1 against the most of the field and lose 1-9 against part of the field, that could be a very, very strong deck. This is metagaming at its finest, yet it also leads to 100% of your games having terrible gameplay. (emphasis mine -Biscuit)

“And there’s the rub. The kind of metagame under discussion is one where global imbalance is assumed to be “good.” The assumption is that sitting down to play another player and having a advantage or disadvantage before the game even starts is a great thing. Well, it kind of sucks actually, and violates the concepts of basic fairness. You could define “the game” to be the larger thing that involves “picking a deck/character + playing it” but that’s hardly an answer. It’s just admitting that the part where you actually play is kind of sucky and unfair.

“I’ll tell you the key moment of discovery I had about this issue. I had several decks mocked up for my CCG. You would expect a variety of decks to happen to have several really unfair matchups, and for that to cause a metagame to form. The thing is, I didn’t design these decks to win a tournament, I designed them to test out how the game plays, so I used a few rules of thumb in deckbuilding that actually prevented any really unfair matches like 8-2 from happening. I figured that later when we thought about how players would really build their decks (not according to my personal rules), we’d have to figure out how to deal with those inevitable 8-2 matchups. The CCG community often assumes they are great (“it’s the metagame!”) but I think the emphasis should be on the part where you actually playing the game and making decisions. Deckbuilding is great, but not if it wrecks the fairness of individual games you will actually have to play.

“Anyway, allowing players complete freedom in deckbuilding in my game absolutely would lead to 8-2 matchups (like in any customizable card game) AND it would actually lead to worse strategy than my playtest decks! When metagaming and trying to win, you really want to take out all the “strategy” you can, and make sure you just stomp as many opposing decks as possible, even if you have pretty bad matches in there somewhere.

“You probably already see the revelation. Why not codify the rules of thumb of deckbuilding I was using into real rules of the game? Put limits on deckbuilding in such a way that still allow it, but that prevent the majority of unfair matches from happening. This seemed so obvious in hindsight.

“Now, unrelated to that, I also went to great lengths to give the player more strategic choices during a game than is usual in the genre. Tricky to do without being too complicated, but that’s another story. The bottom line is so far this game is shaping up to be a game with more strategic choices during gameplay than other similar games I’ve played AND with fewer unfair matchups. This is possible by REDUCING the importance of the metagame. It’s just more fun to have the GAME, the part where you actually sit down and play give you a) a lot of strategic options and b) as fair a match as we can give you.

“We shouldn’t dwell on this particular in-development card game though. It’s a general principle that you get more strategic depth during a game session by, well, focusing on making that as good as possible. As good as possible means putting more strategic decisions in and taking unfairness out. That’s the opposite of the intentional imbalance glorified in the Extra Credits video. It’s the opposite of making the decisions made before the game even starts become more important (necessarily making in-game decisions that much less important.)

“Making a bunch of unfair matches intentionally is just a poor man’s solution to the problem of strategic variety. In the end, that poor man’s solution constrains your strategic choices anyway, rather than opens them up. You’re constrained to playing the overpowered characters or the counters, rather than having free choice of all characters. Having a set of characters who ALL have fair matches and who ALL have a lot of strategy options makes you wonder what the point of intentionally having unfair matchups ever was in the first place.”

Obviously, there’s no way for us to make 40k into a “perfectly balanced” game without rewriting it from the ground up- no amount of banning or small rewrite is going to significantly alter the game to the point where listbuilding isn’t a major part of the game that provides a major advantage to those who do it well. To be honest, I’m not even sure such a game would be fun- to make it work, much of the character of 40k would be stripped away in the process. And even if we did, no game is perfect. (I suppose it’s another Sirlin reference, but the discussion of Chess’ evolution and current state is what I’m more interested in with that article.)

Right now top level tournament lists are incredibly polarizing, much more than they have been in a long time, and playing these lists simply isn’t any fun. No one is having a great time playing against Screamerstar, even most of the Screamerstar players I talk to aren’t having a great time playing it. The mere existence of 3+ Heldrake builds has an extreme effect on the meta, annihilating hundreds of possible builds through it’s ability to simply obliterate them. (So why even bring them?) I could go on, but I think you all know what I’m talking about.

It’s past time for tournament organizers to step up and start taking some stewardship of the game. The top lists in 40k are, as a rule, simply no fun to play or play against, and limit much of the field by being so overwhelmingly powerful against so many reasonable builds. Really, the fact of the matter is that games in 6th edition between what we would consider mid-tier lists are a heck of a lot of fun, and what most players are requesting to play.

Feast of Blades is not the only tournament who is thinking this way. I would be extremely surprised if there is a major tournament from this point forward that does not use some form of restrictions and bannings in order to create a better game. GW has made it extremely clear that they do not care to balance the game for tournament level play, or create a fun top-tier metagame, so that architecture falls to us.

We are interested in running a tournament who’s results fall more to player tabletop skill than listbuilding skill. We are interested in running an event where many builds are possible, not just a few power-and-counter builds. To that end, Feast of Blades will be enacting limits and bans.

The exact nature of these restrictions are already well into discussion and development, and will be available in their discrete form VERY soon. We know what the problem builds and combos are, now we are giving them the axe. Below, I will preview some of our potential changes:

———————————————————————————————————-

1.) The Grimoire of True Names from Codex: Daemons is banned
As of right now, this is the only true banning. We feel there is too much potential for abuse, and disagree with the effect it has on the army and the game.

2.) A few units will receive 0-1 status
For those of you who weren’t around when 0-1 was a thing in codecies, means that a maximum of 1 of that unit may be taken per army. These are all units whose mass inclusion limits the potential lists in the game, and will thus be restricted. (As none of them are a problem on their own.) Rest assured that this will be a very short list, we are not interested in creating very restricted armies.

3.) Supplemental Codecies will no longer be able to ally to their base codex
There will be no more self-allying, no more cherry picking the best parts of a supplement while paying none of the costs, and no more force-org bloat from doing so.

4.) Dataslates will take an ally slot
Taking units from many, many different books and ignoring the force organization chart is too much. This change will make dataslates an interesting addition to the game, without allowing for truly bizzare armies.

5.) The number of psychic mastery levels in an army will be limited
This change will eliminate a great many power combos from the game, and will stop a player from making a lot of lucky rolls on the psychic power tables to effectively win the game before it begins.

6.) Strength D is out, Lords of Battle are in
We feel the the Lords of Battle are not overpowered on their own, the fact that they give the opponent some advantages (bonus to seize, and especially victory points) balances out their fearsome firepower and powerful endurance. Strength D, however, is too powerful. This is well-known by every apoc player (and I am one of them), and has been the case for the past two editions. (Yes, it was even overpowered back in 5th, and it was much worse then.) There is some debate still going on, but it looks like S:D will become S:10, ordinance, ignores cover. That still makes it very powerful, but more in line with the price paid for the superheavy as well as it’s other weapon options. In addition, superheavies will have to start on the table.

7.) Super-forts are gone, or at least downsized
No AV15, it will be AV14 instead. Every individual fortification from Stronghold Assault is allowed, but the “network” choices are simply too big and unwieldy to allow for tournament play. (As a consolation, they’re pretty terrible, so I think it’s OK.)

8.) Dedicated transport flyers will be limited
Flyers are not the be-all end-all of this edition, but all-flyer and mostly-flyer armies change the meta in uncomfortable ways and are notoriously unfun to play against.

———————————————————————————————————-

For the vast majority of players, this list of changes will have little, and frequently no effect on their army build. Many of the games power builds, however, will become quite different.

We are aware that limitations such as these also create “new” power lists- after all, what was once second-tier must now be first. Perhaps. In the new environment there will certainly be builds better than others, and some that are extremely powerful. We expect that, but we also expect there to be a much greater variety of competitive options and lists vying for those spots. We also expect the game to be much more fun.

This is obviously a living document, and will be updated as time goes on. Not necessarily when a codex is released, but when we have had time to evaluate whether a certain unit, combination, item, etc. is actually very limiting to the field or not.

Our goal is to limit the game at the top end in ways that will be very small to most players in order to create a more balanced and fun tournament scene. We do not want to rewrite unit rules or entries or do things like adjust point costs, nor do we want to create massive documents that preside over army composition and limit force creation in detailed ways. We believe simple changes are for the best.

Obviously there are some who will cry foul at our attempt, or disagree with some of the things we have done. That’s fine. They can always choose to play in different events, or create their own! But I think it is worth noting that Feast is simply the first of many events that will be instituting policies like these in one form or another, so you should be prepared. It’s worth remembering that the 2013 Feast event was one of the the most by-the-book events ever run- it even used straight book missions with no modifications. If we’re the first to do this, we certainly won’t be the last.

GW is no longer creating a fun tournament environment, so it falls to us. In the same way that casual gamers are adults who can agree on how they would like to play, the tournament scene will adjust itself so that it creates fun, memorable, and challenging games of 40k.

Anything else would be a failure on our parts.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

580 Responses to “Feast of Blades Will be Enacting Restrictions and Bans”

  1. IndigoJack says:

    Which units are getting the 0-1 treatment?

    • sirbiscuit says:

      TBA. This is purposefully vague at the moment as there is still discussion of the specifics. But the full list should be out within the week.

      • LordDrakon says:

        I don't like comp. Also under this I won't be able to play my sm list I loving bought and painted no scars/imperial fist(sentinels of Terra) for me.

        • Brotherhood of Rynn says:

          Why would you not be able to play your army? If anything, look at it as a challenge to find other ways to do what you want.

          I worry from your response that you may be the exact type of power-gamer that these changes are meant to address.

    • Gundog8324 says:

      Probably Heldrakes, Wraithknights, Centurions, Riptides, Daemon Princes off the Top Of my head

      A better choice IMO rather than merely reintroducing the 0-1 tag for some units would be a Fantasy style FOC Limit of 25% of your points on Each FOC Slot, however troops have a minimum of 25% and no more than 2 of a non troop unit can be taken. Dedicated Transports point costs would fall under the allowance of the unit they are designed for. IE Drop Pods for Sternguard fall under Elite, but a Tac Sqauds would be Troops, Assault Squads would be Fast Attack, etc,

      A well rounded Army should be okay, maybe make command squads not count against the HQ allowance, Certain armies that have weaker FOC slots or weak troops may suffer but those armies aren't excactly in good shape now.

      I disagree with Banning the Grimoire, I would keep it make it only use able on a Daemon Save from the Daemon Codex, limit saves so no unit can have an "invuln/armor average better than" better than a 3+, what i mean by this is limit a unit to a 3++ save, and no unit can have a 2+/3++ the best would be a 2+/4++(giving an average of 3+) Assault Terminators take a hit, Seer Councils do as well and we no longer have 2++ Save Daemons

      • WestRider says:

        Eh, there are tons of things that are perfectly reasonable in 3s. No one's seriously complaining about even the solid options like triple Predators or Dev Squads, let alone the fluffy wacky stuff like the guy who wants to run 3 Assault Squads outside of BA, or three Broods of Raveners, or three Squads of Rough Riders.

        One of the goals here is to get the biggest final difference out of the smallest change to the rules themselves, and Biscuit's changes mess with the core rules far less that your suggestions, and I think would actually do better at opening up a greater range of viable options.

      • Sethis_II says:

        Why would you 0-1 Daemon Princes? They almost always cost 250pts+ and are not even slightly overpowered.

        • Ataraxean says:

          My expectation is that if Demon prices go to 0-1 it will be because Flying Circus is simply another flavor of flyer spam.

          "all-flyer and mostly-flyer armies change the meta in uncomfortable ways and are notoriously unfun to play against."

          • blacksly says:

            True, but…
            CD with CSM (BL) Allies:
            Fateweaver, LoC, Tzeentch DP from CD
            Nurgle DP with Last Memory, Heldrake

            4 FMCs & 1 Flyer, no duplicates.

            So, why bother?

          • Herpguy says:

            Exactly. Daemons actually require tons of skill and finesse to play with the big boys, unlike Tu and Eldar whose tactic is shoot every gun until everything is dead.
            Also, Daemons are not winning big tournaments, so I don't exactly see the problem…

          • abusepuppy says:

            IT'S A FINESSE ARMY YOU WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND.

          • Gundog8324 says:

            Of Course, the only army that required more finesse was Guard back in 5th, I mean you had to choose between firing your Lascannons or moving to get your meltas/plasmas in range, that is the kind of choice that really keeps me up at night

          • Kellvain says:

            I have watched my local Tau player shoot down and kill every daemon prince/flying greater daemon in the list by turn 2 or 3.

          • Mycroft says:

            And many other armies are completely unable to do this; this was the point of the entire article. Just because there is one (or two) counters to an army doesn't mean it's balanced.

          • Kellvain says:

            The flying counters are there with fortification gun emplacements, heck now you can have more than 1, and your own aircraft. Everyone has this stuff and every new codex has more options to counter flyers.

          • Mycroft says:

            A) An all flier list is just one example of the most broken aspects of the game, there are others that were listed in the OP

            B) Dark Angels still don't have any good anti-air and MUST buy fortifications to make up for this. "Everyone" doesn't have the same access unless you start buying larger kits.

            C) Where you see balance I see ham-fisted attempts to sell fliers, fortifications and super heavies.

          • Gundog8324 says:

            Well it would depend of course if 0-1 Choices were limited to the army or just detacthment, I cannot in good faith say Its okay for a CSM/Daemon Player ally in an Extra DP, using allies if we aren't allowing Tau/Eldar to ally with their supplements for their extra big guys.(Fair is fair after all)

            Also if LoCs were to be considered 0-1 Choices I do not think making Fateweaver Counting as the LoC slot would be a complete surprise. Much like any named character that is based on a generic choice typically follows the same rules, if Chapter Masters were 0-1(because you can't have 2 presidents) would you allow Calgar and a Generic Chapter Master?

            Like I said earlier I personally believe limiting where points could be spent is better than limiting the amount of a given unit that can be taken

          • Herpguy says:

            Allying in a different codex is different from allying in supplements.

          • Gundog8324 says:

            Technically it isn't supplements are essentially standalone armies that GW was to lazy/cheap to print out a a whole separate codex for. Imagine they could just as easily reprinted every single Tau unit entry in the Farsight Enclave book but substitute in the new wargear in place of the old one, and added Bonding Knife Ritual and baked those points in. If they had done so would it be any different than what supplements are? (besides now needing 2 books instead of just 1)

            They have been doing this for years with the Marine Chapters and still are (Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and until recently Black Templars) The intent of the intent of disallowing supplements from allying with themselves is to prevent them from cheesing the 0-1 requirement (as well as ending the cherry picking/abusing wargear combos) and for all intents and purposes a Daemon Prince in the CSM book is the same as a Prince in the Daemons Book, (and the same as a Black Legion Daemon Prince) the difference is just the wargear options , just like Devastators from Dark Angels are the same as Codex Marines.

            I am just expressing my Opinion on the issue, while it technically would be allowed, I would probably downgreade someone's comp/sportsmanship score, much like a Marine player trying the same with Blood Angel/Dark Angel/Space Marine ally abuse

        • Gundog8324 says:

          It Depends on the powers/gifts they roll, a FMC, with Iron Arm, Enfeeble, Warp Speed, 4+ FNP, Rerolling Invulns saves even at 300+ points 2-3 of these can be fit into a list and these can really tear through armies with little active psyker defence(IE rune staffs and shadows in the warp), or anti air(most 5th ed armies and CSM)

      • Herpguy says:

        Also I would REALLY like to see any armies with more than 1 Heldrake that have even placed in the top 10 at a big tournament.

        • Luna Wolf says:

          I think it's less that these armies are winning major tourneys, and more that multiple Heldrake lists are one of the biggest culprits in terms of invalidating massive numbers of builds. Just because they don't win against some of the other top lists (because really, what's a baleflamer against 2++ rerollable?) doesn't mean that they don't have a MASSIVE impact on what is considered viable to take to a big event. Things like Screamerstar and Flying Circus suffer against tons of bodies that can tie them up or force a crapton of grounding tests, but with multiple 'Drakes on the table bodies in the open just become fodder, as one example.

          • clever handle says:

            I would suggest that banning HELDRAKES or making them a 0-1 choice is not the correct path as nobody cares about a drake with a hades autocannon – the limitation would need to be on the wargear.

          • Erasmus says:

            I don't think they should be banned, because they're the best thing CSM armies have right now. and while i don't believe in spamming them i've been running one just to keep up with the newer codex's really powerful units. But i think making the 'drake 0-1 is not a bad idea, its a unit that is abused way too often to go unaddressed.

          • Norseman says:

            Couldn't they just take away the turret that would make things a little easier to deal with.

  2. Eric says:

    This is it! These rules are the ones that should be used in every game! I know recently, esp. on this website, people have been freaking out about the escalation expansion. Yet how many have done their research. Many lords of war are very expensive and are balanced (sort of). The only "overpowered" addition is strength D, yet very few lord of war actually have this, being the eldar revenant, the shadow sword, the tessearact arc and transcendent ctan. Note however that one the two necron ones, it is an optional power that can be chosen among many. I really do like the idea of making d st 10, ordanance ignore cover. Even not being able to ally with oneself and dataslates (and thus formations taking an allied slot) reasonable and making the experience more fun. Very good job whoever wrote these, we might actually start using these at my local gaming group.

    • WestRider says:

      Everyone freaking out about the D Units is still valid even tho there are only a few, because those are the ones that are actually going to be taken in a competitive setting.

      Look at how CSM and the Helldrake turned out. Same thing will happen here.

      • Durgen says:

        True. But no one's even giving the dust time to settle. Just freakin' out before seeing the aftermath is silly. I've only seen one battle report with a Str D weapon, and that was with the Revenant (Which is stupid anyways) against a list that was pretty bad at taking it out (Daemons with no real competitive pull). Three extremely lucky shots with Str 8 weapons can take out a Superheavy on turn 1. Yeah, that's really hard to ask for, but….it's sort of the point. Don't take three Str 8 weapons, have 10+, and you can deal with those things. Str D can't kill your entire side in one turn. Just spread out and get ready. They still need LoS anyways. It is a major thing to adjust to, but most people are just crying about it instead of working around it like everything else that has come in the game.

        • Sethis_II says:

          You're missing the point. Just by having S:D exist in the game means that lots of unit choices are no longer even slightly viable because their points cost takes into account their extreme survivability (such as Paladins or Nob Bikers, there are many others). If you have a freely available unit that straight out ignores all those multiple layers of protection (Armour, FnP, Cover, Invuls, Multiple Wounds) then it means you're wasting any points you spent on those layers of protection and may as well just take 5pt models like Guardsmen, Boyz or Gants, because then at least you're only losing 50pts per shot instead of 500.

          All of the above simply leads to a reduction in variety in army lists, as the more expensive and elite models get left out in favour of massed cheap units. Which is a bad thing.

  3. sonsoftaurus says:

    Downgrade all Battle Brothers one step and you'll neuter a lot of the combos.

  4. BaselessElm says:

    A year ago I would've cried foul at this, but now I'm extremely interested in how you implement this. Many, many games implement bans at competitions, and I see no reason that 40k should be any different. Restrictions breed creativity, or something to that effect. I also think that bans are just a better way to handle things than comp, since comp rarely actually gets people to remove things from their list.

    To take things one step further, do you think it would be worthwhile creating different formats or metagames with their own individual banlists a la MTG or Smogon's Pokemon tiers, so that individual organisors can tailor the hardness of their event to what they want? It'd work well for pick-up games as well, you just ask people if they want a game of "Legacy 40k" or whatever, both people can therefore have an agreed upon level of hardness without their own pre-conceptions affecting their judgement.

    • sirbiscuit says:

      I would think that will happen anyway, as it is notoriously difficult to get event organizers to agree on anything, and everyone likes a different fix when we're all playing game designer.

  5. steinerp says:

    Seems very reasonable. I would suggest that Strength D be changed to S10, ignores invulnerable. There already is a lot of ignore cover and 2++ units are still going to be very powerful under this format.

  6. Ish says:

    "In addition, superheavies will have to start on the table."

    What about superheavy flyers?

  7. Madd_Mike says:

    Will jerseer 2+ reroll be impacted as well?

  8. mk2_ID says:

    Its hard to believe you guys have done this. I have attended feast of Blades before and even helped sponsor one at our local shop (I paid their package out of my pocket) I assure you , you lost a supporter as long as the 2 invul re rollable ban is in effect.

    D weapons is understandable but 2 invul re roll is part of the game and I personally do not play it and have beaten it in a tournament setting (just like you mentioned) . My advice is that people who play in tournaments should not support this silly banning and learn how to play the game better.

    • derreavatar says:

      Agreed. I use this combo and it is far from unbeatable.

      To counter it, shoot the Grimoire bearing demon prince first, then shoot the Tzeentch chicken the following turns.
      If you are shooting aganist a 2++ rerollable, you're doing it wrong.

      • Coyote81 says:

        Shooting the bearer out of a unit of screamers is far from being easier, especially for some armies. Don't try to simplify the complicated to lesser it's effect.

    • Sethis_II says:

      "Part of the game" is not a valid defence when creating a list of rules that alter the game.

      You need to tell us WHY you think it should deserve to remain in the game. What does it add? Is it more fun? More variety? More tactics or strategy?

      As far as I can see, it does none of the above (admittedly, it's a little subjective) and so I have no problem with it being taken out.

      • blacksly says:

        Actually, what it does is that it gives a reason for more armies to take tarpit units. Since the Screamerstar doesn't have Hit & Run, it can be held up by a mob of Zombies or an IG Blob.

      • abusepuppy says:

        I think the counterargument would be "it's not broken, so don't fix it." Sure, 2++ rerollable is really good, but it's eminently counterable- if the other guy goes first, if you fail the Grimoire (1/9 chance even with Fatey, and I've lost games to worse odds than that), if they negate it with Misfortune, if they fail to cast a power, etc, etc. There's tons and tons of things that can go wrong with the plan, just as with any deathstar unit.

        When it works, it's essentially impossible to kill, but even that doesn't actually win you a game.

        • MadmanMSU says:

          "When it works, it's essentially impossible to kill"

          You're right. We should have more units in this game that are "essentially impossible to kill". That absolutely makes the game more fun.

          Hell, GW already released the perfect counter to Screamerstar anyway…D weapons! Why bother trying to counter the unit? Just blow it off the board with a D weapon. It's way easier. Now we just have to wait for the next supplement, which will release an even bigger unit than the Lord of War that has a weapon that kills any LoW on a 2+, and on a 6 will collect your opponent's tears and form them into a new super-unit made of rainbows.

          • MadmanMSU says:

            Also, I'm going to call it now: next supplement will release the new "Titanknight Lords", which will be 5 Titans that form into one super Titan. I'm calling mine Voltron, which has no irony whatsoever.

          • blacksly says:

            The problem with "the counter to Screamerstar" as D weapons is that they remove any reason to bring in all expensive models that are expensive because of good saves to the tournament. Terminators, Centurions, Obliterators, Dread Knights etcetera… plus expensive vehicles. Russes, Land Raiders, etc. So to solve one relatively minor problem, we introduce far more balance issues

            BTW, while Screamerstar is extremely difficult to kill while all of its buffs are up, it CAN be tarpitted by a ton of units. And given that it's a 600+ pts unit, tying up that many points for a few turns can lose the game for the Daemon player.

            Lastly, Hell, GW already released the perfect counter to Screamerstar anyway… Rune weapons!

          • clever handle says:

            sure so lets all play either bugs or guard for tarpit units, and ally in space wolves so we can bring a rune weapon along… that solves everything for everyone who plays every army on the table!

            Planning on (a) going first, or (b) my opponent failing a single critical dice roll is not tactics. It is not tactics when you plan for your opponent to make a mistake in target priority (refer to: AP's previous article on just that subject) so why is it a valid tactic to stop screamer-star or seer-star? short answer: its not.

          • blacksly says:

            You mean, "ally in" Guard or SW. But if you think about it, who can't bring in SW or Guard? Or has no options for putting down a large mass of Fearless blobs either inherently or with other Allies?

            DE: Beastmasters with 40+ wounds in the unit, plus a Farseer with the Shard to make them Fearless. Heck, if the Farseer gets Fortune, they might even beat the Screamerstar.
            Eldar: Same as DE but with reversed Allies.
            Tau: You expect to get beat in CC. Shoot the others, or hire 60 Ork Mercs who will protect you from CC, score, kill some infantry, and tie up the big, bad Screamerstar for quite a while.
            Daemons: Heh. Mirror matchup, or run mass Beasts or Hounds. Or Flying Circus.

            There are similar suggestions to be made for pretty much every Codex. Pretty much everyone has some option to deal with Screamerstar. And to deal with Flyers. And to deal with Seer Council. And to deal with Land Raiders. Granted, you may not be able to make a list that can deal with the Council, and the Screamerstar, and 3 Land Raiders, and 4 FMCs… but that's not because Screamerstar is broken. It's because sometimes you can't cover all of the bases at the same time.

          • WestRider says:

            And you just missed the whole point of the article. If every Army has to be built to counter one specific Build, that Build is fucking up the metagame, reducing viable options, and making the game boring.

          • blacksly says:

            You missed the point of my point… I'm saying that you can build to beat that specific build, if that build worries you so much. And that these "build to beat" counters are not so ridiculous that they invalidate your army in general.

            Yes, "bring melta weapons" is a reasonable argument to saying "how do I handle Land Raiders", and it's reasonable because it doesn't have to break the list for most lists.

            I think that the same holds for Screamerstar. You may have to dedicate 300-400 pts to a unit that can handle the Screamerstar, whether by beating it, blocking its powers, or tarpitting it… but that doesn't break most builds, because it's not like those 400 pts are going to do nothing versus other lists. There is a big difference between saying "every Army has to be built to counter", and saying "every Army has to have something in it to counter". Especially when that "something in it" is a good unit on its own.

            It's not like Rune Priests or Fearless Beastmaster units are a bad thing to bring. Maybe they're not the best for all occasions, but they're generally good units. And my point is that you can fight some of these extreme builds by including decent units that are still good in TAC lists.

          • Chad says:

            The point is clearly not "can you deal with that army", the point is that so few builds can, it's simple presence in the tourney limits the look of the whole tourney scene. This is bland and many players do not find the game fun when they have to build an army to handle once specific opponent list. He specifically calls out the Heldrake as single handedly eliminating hundreds of potential lists.

            Personally, I like playing a competitive game, but GW has become so broken, I have to retool my army every time a new codex or supplement drops. The new codex should fit into the meta of an edition, not break it…unless you're a model company and not a game company.

          • Kellvain says:

            Goodness the heldrake is so easily countered with a balanced list utilizing transports, fortifications, aircraft, and anti air firing units built into newer codexes, surely the choice is there.

          • Herpguy says:

            Nice of you to cherry pick something Abusepuppy said. Why don't you also quote the paragraph before it where he completely outlined how many things can and do go wrong?

          • MadmanMSU says:

            You missed the reading comprehension part where his second statement contradicts his first statement.

            In essence, "The Screamerstar is totally something you can counter, but actually it's impossible to kill".

          • Sethis_II says:

            "Counter" is not a synonym for "Destroy".

          • abusepuppy says:

            WHEN it works, it's impossible to get rid of.

            Except that it very often does not work. That was the point.

          • skoll mctavish says:

            except it works 8/9 times …. an exemplary track record tbh, it is also absurdly strong against things not running a tar pit. If your army requires other armies to run a tar pit (which most armies have to ALLY for) you are poisonous to the rest of the game.

          • abusepuppy says:

            No, the Grimoire works 8/9 times… while Fateweaver is alive. Which you shouldn't leave him, and he's a lot more fragile than most FMCs. Also if they pass their psychic check- which is a 15% failure right there as well (unless they got multiple Forewarnings, which is possible.)

            And that's assuming you don't have a debuff power of your own (Misfortune) on them, that you didn't negate their power (Rune Priest) or their Daemonic Gift (Dark Excommunication) or snipe their character (the bearer of the Book doesn't benefit from it).

            And that also assumes they got to go first and put all their buffs up- half the time you'll go before them, either by rolling higher or by Seizing. And you know what that unit is without all its fancy buffs? It's meat. 26 T4/5++ wounds is really not that hard to kill at all, and the more models you drop then and there- even if you don't wipe the unit- the less it can do. Four Heralds and one Screamer flying around is a LOT less scary and a ton more vulnerable, even with their buffs up.

          • clever handle says:

            Planning on going first or planning on your opponent to fail a single critical dice roll is neither a winning strategy nor is it a fun strategy. This is the crux of the issue here – not that it is possible to beat unit X or Y, but that a significant portion of the community is put-off by the need to design around the next broken combination.

            You may be one of the few in the community who enjoys that prospect but the fact is that you are in the minority. If FOB ONLY caters to the players like you, the majority will cease attending (this is evident now based on recent tournament showings) and FOB will not be able to offer a tournament that caters to the needs of either the majority or the minority.

          • Dimmet says:

            All I'm hearing from you and the people who share your point is, "I have something that's POINTEDLY OVERPOWERED. But because it has a theoretical percentage chance of being beaten, it's actually A-Ok."

            So I could have some sort of unit that wins the game if I roll ten 6s in a row? Eventually I'm going to roll that, might be in a game against you. Then what are you left with?

            Point being, just because it CAN be beaten doesn't mean it's fair to anyone not running a hard-counter (Oh wait, there aren't any) or who don't want to be forced to build a soft-counter to one specific 'strategy' (sarcasm) which otherwise completely walks all over them. That is the very essence of not being fair. When you show me that the majority of players with random, non anti-Screamerstar lists can at LEAST 5-5 Screamerstars, I might actually take that viewpoint to be worth something.

            Until then, like anyone else who has an OP beatstick, all they'll do is be biased towards it when it comes time to defend it.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            If that's all you are hearing, then you are not paying attention. It's not pointedly overpowered, you can manage it with smart play, good tactics, and strategy, and it completely sucks and is an easy win when it rolls bad.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            >> LEAST 5-5 Screamerstars

            Hand me any tournament list, at random, and I'll go more then .500 against Screamerstar.

            Seriously. Learn to play the game before you think you enough to start changing it.

      • Guest says:

        what everyone replying to this is forgetting is the fact that the Original article is encouraging more in-game strategy with its decisions and less "determine the outcome of this game before it even starts" list building and random dice roll outcomes that no one has control over.

        As it stands, the player has no control on when someone brings a screamer star, nor when a screamer star gets all its necessary powers off, nor whether a sufficient tarpit unit is present to "Tie up" said screamer star. Simply listing what players SHOULD or should NOT do before the game even begins is like saying "Roll a 6 to win, if you do this, you instead roll a 5+ to win, if you bring this particular unit, you instead roll a 2+ to win"

        This is also why heldrakes are such a big issue. yes you can bring interceptor fire, yes you can bring sky fire, and yes you could bring monstrous creatures, but the fact of the matter is that making range and armor almost a non issue for removing large chunks of an army from the table while avoiding 90% of the retaliation that can be tossed at it is poor balance. Even when everyone can get access to a Quad gun or something similar, if your defeat is determined by whether you brought a skyfire interceptor weapon or not, then the game has issues to address, because thats less viable variety.

        Long story short, encouraging the inclusion of specific counters is not what game balance is about, its about giving every unit tactical value so that it has a reasonable chance against most otherwise equal armies, regardless of whats in either army.

        When its all said and done, if your defeat is obvious before you even get to deploy an army, thats what this article is trying to solve.

    • Karvala says:

      D-weapons are as much 'part of the game' as 2++ rerollable saves now. Neither really should be in a tournament 40k game.
      Yes, screamerstar is beatable if you have the right tools in your army, but not every army does.

    • clever handle says:

      clearly you missed the point of the article. The discussion isn't about the folks who want to bash face against these hard lists. The discussion is about the folks who DONT WANT TO & are staying home because they're not prepared to subject themselves & their pocketbooks to the current meta of stupid combos. When you consider that tournament players make up maybe 50% of the gaming community & hardcore, top table tournament players make up maybe 10% of that market you're focus on "let us bring everything that is dirty and hard and whoever goes first wins most of the time" is leaving 95% of the gaming community (or 80% of the tournament community) out in the cold.

      Tournaments and gaming events are losing money through attendance because casual gamers who attend tournaments for nothing more than an excuse to interact with fellow hobbyists & have several fun games over a weekend are not coming. Thus the scene must evolve or die.

  9. Brittani-Pearl says:

    Love all of these, only worry is the psyker master level limits. As a grey knights player almost all of my units are psykers…

  10. Donzo says:

    Im all for limiting things, but outright ban of grimoire gimps daemons too much. would rather see limiting invuls to a 3++, as you still have eldar with a 2++ re-roll or 6 wave serpents. sleep on this more before making any definitive announcements please.

    • Japatoes says:

      Eldars is a cover save that can be neglected. Also only one character can have it and as a result he loses IC.

      I love all the screamer star players crying here.

      • Gangrel767 says:

        I think that just not letting it stack with a 4++ psychic power should be enough. 3++ re-rolling 1's is much better than 2++ re rolling 1's. and i think it is more in the spirit of what the designers were aiming for I think.

        • Kellvain says:

          I concur the Grimoir would have been balanced better if it was a +2 to invulnerable save to a limit of 3++, to just knee jerk say "BANNED" lacks creativity or fairness. Codex Daemons is a low save army at 5++ that any list designed to deal with hordes will table as it attempts to cross the table and engage in melee, especially seeing as most models are only T4/3 in the codex besides monstrous creatures.

      • Sokhar says:

        People are referring to jetseer councils, not the Mantle.

    • Sethis_II says:

      If removing a single optional item of wargear nerfs an entire codex to be no longer competitively viable, then it was a god-awful codex to begin with.

      Eldar have no way to get a 2++ unless running Dark Eldar allies (who are terrible), and even then it's a single Independent Character who gets ID'd by S6 which is a vastly different concept to a unit of 10 models with T4 and 2W plus characters.

      • Frank says:

        Chaos players as a whole agree with this…the book and the demon chicken are the only things holding their codices up right now…

        • IndigoJack says:

          From what I hear, flying circus is till doing well.

          • Herpguy says:

            Please reference which big tournaments flying circus is winning?

            Plus, Eldar does not need 2++ saves to work, all they need it wave serpents completely blowing away everything with 60" guns.

          • Dimmet says:

            You don't have to WIN a tournament to be doing well/too well. There's always one or two lists above combos that are too strong EXCEPT for the most broken. Just because a combo or list isn't THE most broken, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be nerfed because of what it does to the playing environment.

            Get out of your shallow thinking.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            >> Get out of your shallow thinking.

            :o)

          • abusepuppy says:

            Alright, so give evidence that Flying Circus is doing so well it is a degenerate list and can only be managed by banning/restricting its components.

        • clever handle says:

          as a life long chaos player I disagree with your statement.

          Chaos players who happen to be poor generals may agree with you however

          • Alastores says:

            Life Long is irrelevant. This codex is not the 5th edition codex, is not the 4th edition codex, is not the 3rd edition, or 2nd edition codex.

          • clever handle says:

            way to contribute, thanks for coming out. Did you have a point or did you just need to add your 2c?

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            I think your handle is looking rather clever today, CH.

          • clever handle says:

            every now & then I try and add something of value that isn't simple trolling or flaming of Abuse Puppy.

      • Kellvain says:

        Codex Chaos Daemons is a cool and fun codex to play but it does heavily lean on the grimoir to increase the survival of its naturally low save units.

        And yes allying in HQ choices from codex dark elder completes the warlock/seer star combo.

      • Fulcrum says:

        DA are definitely not terrible. Go find a player who knows what he's doing & I guarantee you will have your hands full.

        • Sethis_II says:

          I didn't say they were terrible overall, I said they were terrible allies for Eldar because they add nothing we don't already have outside of adding Baron to a Jetseer unit. We don't need Venoms, we don't need blasterborn, we don't need Ravagers. If an ally isn't filling a hole in your list then it's a bad ally choice.

      • Deth says:

        Dark Eldar are a sleeping monster. They either destroy or get destroyed. When they destroy a list, I've either tabled or left a few models standing. I would never take Dark Eldar as allies. But I usually make them the main branch and add Eldar allies in. So I'm not sure if you mean Dark Eldar Allies is horrible or Dark Eldar are horrible.

    • Soph says:

      Seers 2+ save is atleast a cover, and seer will likely fall under the limited mastery levels

  11. MadmanMSU says:

    I think this is great. Can't wait to see you develop it.

  12. Jasonc says:

    Many armies can deal with screamerstar, I would suggest the current daemon book is rather underpowered and that the grimoire (whether on a star or something else) at least levels the field a little bit for them.

    • clever handle says:

      evening the field by having one superhard unit that 95% of the community does not have fun playing against is a problem

  13. Volrath8754 says:

    Well that sucks I was thinking about attending feast in the next year or two. But their is simply no way I will play in a comp tournament. I respect their decision and they absolutely have the right to do as they want but I'm having a blast playing the game as is and will continue to do so.

    • Bigpig says:

      Expect that most major tournaments will be going to a "tournament 40k" system. I suspect you won't be playing in any major tournaments within six months if you aren't willing to accept a modified rules set. 40k has become untenable for balanced competitive play. That's not to say these decisions are the end all be all or what will shake out as the standard for TOs, but it's a starting place. This is not comp system where soft scores will affect your ranking, rather a modification as to what is allowed. As has been pointed out, many major game systems do this if the base rules set does not lend itself to balanced competitive play.

    • Dimmet says:

      They're only trying to tone down the overpowering reach of models, options, and combinations that kill the game for everyone who isn't a victory-over-all addict.

      There's meta, which is already deplorable, and then there's when meta goes too far and becomes what we have now. "Patently unbeatable killing machine! You can only stop it if you're lucky, there's no surefire way that almost every codex can even slow it down, let alone kill it!"

      If you're not going to show up because the OP crap is being made more tolerable so things are more fair for people on the whole, then obviously you're one of those people who relies on said OP crap. Basic deductive logic.

  14. gaz1858 says:

    Im interested on Kirbys thoughts for 3++…..

  15. gaz1858 says:

    Im interested on Kirbys thoughts for 3++con…..

    • Kirby says:

      It'll come – I have been massively busy at work but I think we need all the major TOs to sit down and work it out. I'm fine for modifications – we've done it since Day 1 without mysterious terrain, etc. but we all need to do something of a similar note otherwise it becomes everyone's own little version of 40k. Little changes we see across tournaments are natural but if we have some people 0-1ing, others doing this, others doing that, etc. then 40k fragments into a crazy pile of homebrew everywhere and the national/international tournament scene flounders to obscurity and our game hits a rock bottom even 4th edition can't match.

  16. Spaguatyrine says:

    Biscuit,

    Bravo. I will email you. I am thinking the same thing for my GT.

  17. Slaede says:

    If the Heldrake makes the 0-1 list, please consider allowing a second one with a Hades as Chaos has very little in the AA department.

    • MidnightSun says:

      Agreed. I would say that Heldrakes need to be controlled, but rather than a 0-1 restriction on Heldrakes I’d like to see a 0-1 restriction on Baleflamers specifically.

      • Sethis_II says:

        The question is whether that will have any impact on the fact that 90% of all CSM armies take Heldrakes over any other FA choice? After all, even without the Baleflamer it's still one of the toughest models in the entire game that's effective against all targets.

        And if you restrict the Heldrake and Dedicated Transport Flyers, suddenly you don't NEED all that much anti-air, which puts older books without Skyfire back onto equal footing (Space Wolves, Dark Eldar et al).

        • MidnightSun says:

          Heldrakes with Autocannons are effective anti-tank choices with a bit of utility and a bunch of resiliency measures. Heldrakes with Baleflamers are absolute infantry annihilators, and incredibly reliable at said job.

          • Erasmus says:

            Its like; i want to have two heldrakes to keep up with other lists, but i want to be limited to one so everyone has to start using the other fast attack options in the book. Because chaos bikers are good and spawn are worth the points and warp talons are…. well bikers are good.

  18. TheGraveMind says:

    I agree, do not ban the Grim of true names. Make a ruling where it does not stack with other abilities, or a 2++ cannot be rerolled, or something along those lines. As some have said, seercouncil can potentially pull this off.

    I also am not sure on the Psyker mastery limit. That does hurt armies who are supposed to be based on army wide psykers. Maybe limit the number of lvl 3 in an army. Or maybe only so many powers may be cast from a squad, regardless of who many psykers are in it. Or limit how many can be in a squad.

    I'm not fond of #3, allying with suppliment, is good sometimes, but I can live with this ruling if it sticks.

    for 0-1. Maybe consider 0-2. normally two of the units are tough, but not unstoppable to a balanced army.

    • TheGraveMind says:

      Actually, a more convincing Argument for allowing Supplements to ally with parents. Why would this be banned? normally because it allows extra of the best units to be taken? (heldrake, riptide etc?) I'm assuming these are the units that would receive the 0-1 limitation, and thus allying wouldn't matter.

      Would marines still be allowed to ally with themselves? How about just say units cannot be taken from both books. So you can't take a Farsight and a normal riptide when allying together. Marines can't bring whitescar bikes and iron hand bikes. I don't know, still spit balling Ideas.

      • Durgen says:

        Too many changes too fast without any proper playtesting is bad. It's amusing that the article references GW stopping any real internal testing before releasing stuff, yet just tries to address issues without playtesting the results itself. If I can't play my army the way I want to because I have to adjust to tournament meta kinda blows, but so does not playing my army the way I want to because I have to adjust to a tournament FoC.

        • Sethis_II says:

          How do you know they haven't been playing with these rules for the last 4 months in their own games?

          Apart from that, how would you suggest playtesting rules for a major tournament? It seems the only way to playtest them is to put them in place, and see what the results are.

    • clever handle says:

      I would suggest attempting to treat the random psychic powers like fantasy: each power may only be selected once per army unless a particular caster has loremaster (or its 40K equivalent such as Be'lakor)

  19. Herpguy says:

    I am not a daemons player but I have to say that the grimoire is really what keeps them in the top tier. In the end the grimoire relies on a lot of rolls and the warp storm table plus failing the roll can easily make that unit very vulnerable for a turn, not to mention turn 1 they are mincemeat against alpha striking wave serpents. 300+ point characters with a 4++ or worse spells disaster.

    Not to mention with the grimoire gone jetseers can still have their cake and eat it too.

    • Sethis_II says:

      Monobuilds are bad. They're bad for the game, and they're bad for the players who use the army. If you can't keep an army in the top tier without a single item of wargear that relies on having a Special Character + Deathstar unit then that's a bad army, and no amount of crutches will help.

      • blacksly says:

        Daemons are a good Codex without the Grimoire.
        But, that said, the Grimoire is not so overpowered that it needs to be banned.
        So, in the end, I would be against this particular ban. Bring Rune Priests or bring tarpit units or bring MSU and let the Screamerstar eat a single 90pt unit a turn.

        • Dimmet says:

          Not everyone plays Wolves. Not everyone should HAVE to play Wolves. Not everyone brings just masses of units. Not everyone SHOULD HAVE TO. If the current meta is so far gone that a single item of wargear forces you to build lists using all sorts of FOC trickery just to have a shot at slowing it down, then it //NEEDS// to be stopped, because that's only fun for the person who gets to have a nearly unstoppable combo that will 8 or 9 out of 10 times absolutely wreck everyone else who showed up and didn't want to be a cheap little bastard like that person.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            You really need to stop commenting and start reading.

            You've made it wonderfully apparent that you have much to learn.

          • Herpguy says:

            It really sounds like he has never actually played any of these lists, but is still condemning them.

            You're acting as if the meta is hinging upon the grimoire. Daemons are barely making showings in the top levels at events, and Tau and Eldar are keeping steady unoppressed domination. Why do Daemons need a bump down? All that will do is definitely make sure every army in the top rankings is Tau/Eldar.

          • clever handle says:

            you're kind of wrong here. Daemons are making a showing & I believe that many tournaments ran through the summer & fall showed a significant number of Daemon players in the top 5. Please review some of the tournament result analysis articles on BoLs for details.

      • Brendan Gallagher says:

        And they were not until Eldar and Tau hit tables with tons of ignores cover shooting….and there are 2 top Daemon builds both which are hurt by losing the Grimoir.

        What you are saying is akin to me saying…lets ban serpent shields…or marker lights…

        • Sethis_II says:

          If you don't see the difference between:

          A 50pt Wargear Choice taken only by a single HQ once per army, useable on a single unit to improve only their saves, and requiring upwards of 500pts investment to make work…

          And Markerlights; which are useable by any number of units, can be given to about a dozen units freely, cost around 10pts, require no points investment to make work, and provide numerous situational tactical benefits…

          Then I can't even be bothered talking to you.

          And also, how the frak does cover-ignoring shooting screw Daemons over? Apart from Nurgle then they're the least cover-reliant army in the entire game.

          • suswerd says:

            Wow, this entire comment showcased your lack of reading comprehension and why you shouldn't be commenting on the issue at all. You have no idea what you are talking about or what is even being talked about.

            "Then I can't even be bothered talking to you"

            Seeing as you couldn't even be bothered to read his comment properly in the first place, that is no shock.

          • Sethis_II says:

            So why don't you tell me, instead of just throwing out insults?

            Or do you think the Grimoire, Serpent Shields and Markerlights are the same thing as well?

          • SnaleKing says:

            "So why don't you tell me, instead of just throwing out insults?"

            This. Why do some people think saying just "pff, I'm obviously smarter than you, simpleton" is a legitimate counter to any statement?

            Prove it, smartass.

          • clever handle says:

            serpent shields are broken & should be limited to a one use only (had I written the rule the range would be 24", and it would be a one shot only & the eldar player loses their protection for D3 turns rather than just the turn used.

            Grimiore isn't broken in & of itself, however when used the way the community does in the particular combo we've discovered it is broken (relying on your opponent to go 2nd or fail a 1/9 chance roll is NOT an effective strategy to win)

            Markerlights are fundamental to the Tau army & are not DIRECTLY the cause of the problems with Tau – those are more related to the significant ability to output damage per point coupled with very good survivability on the (non-troops) options in the codex either through good saves or great mobility (or both)

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            >> (relying on your opponent to go 2nd or fail a 1/9 chance roll is NOT an effective strategy to win)

            You don't need to rely on that, though. It makes things a lot easier, but Screamer star is very beatable even when it "works."

          • Rob says:

            That comes off as pretty biased, Tau player much? I bet you see no problems with a buff commander then?

          • Sethis_II says:

            Here's a quote from a post by me a few days ago in the "Dataslates" topic:

            "Frankly the amount of attention Tau is getting from GW is pissing me off slightly now… Or maybe it just feels like they're getting more attention than other armies because THE INTERNET WON'T SHUT UP ABOUT THEM."

            So no, I don't play Tau. I don't even like them that much, falling squarely into my "Meh" category of armies.

            But seriously, you can't compare a unique named wargear item to a system of interdependent buffs that are a part of pretty much every unit in a codex. It just isn't a valid comparison in the slightest. It's like saying windfarms are better than giant squid.

            If you want to compare the PEN chip, the SNS or any of the rest of the stupid experimental crap Tau commanders can strap on that sounds like the latest console release/sexually transmitted disease to the Grimoire of True names, then go ahead (for whatever it'll get you), but don't compare it to what is effectively an armywide USR.

          • Kellvain says:

            Both Nurgle and Tzeentch can use cover saves to greatly enhance their survivability often at 2/3+, but Tau just ignore the cover save and knock them off the table, as well as serpent shields with near 100% reliability. 5++ is not that buff, its nice but not worth bragging about. I play daemons and it is all to easy to be tabled by Tau and Eldar based on not going first or missing just one die roll. Remember folks Daemons randomly roll for their wargear, and sometimes you plain fail a 3+ roll even with a reeoll, and don't forget were the only army that on our turn can roll a 4 on the warpstorm table and our army looses a +1 to our save table wide.

          • Herpguy says:

            Exactly. If it weren't for Tau and Eldar ignoring all cover way too easily, there wouldn't necessarily be such a huge need for the grimoire.

          • Sethis_II says:

            Armies like Guard, Nids, Necrons etc don't seem to have a problem with it, and they don't have the native 5++. Like I said, Nurgle obviously is neutered by it because you're paying points through the nose for Shrouded on everything, but I don't see the removal of cover as being the reason Tau and Eldar can deal with Daemons – I think it's far more due to torrent of reliable high Strength fire.

          • Kellvain says:

            Are you smoking or snorting something? Did you really just trivialize using cover saves to keep scoring troops alive in a game where 5/6 of the missions are objective based and only troops can hold/score them.

          • Sethis_II says:

            I have no idea what you read into my comment, but I'll prove this statement with simple math:

            "Daemons are the least cover reliant army in the entire game".

            A Daemon behind a Forest, Hill, or any other non-ruin feature gets a 5+ cover save.
            A Daemon in the open has a 5++ save.

            Therefore it doesn't matter what the frak you're being shot with, you have a 33% chance (roughly 50% chance if you're Tzeentch) of ignoring it, cover or no.

            A Guardsman in non-ruin cover has a 5+ cover save.
            A Guardsman in the open has a 5+ armour save.

            Therefore if you shoot a Guardsman in the open with any AP5 or better weapon (i.e. everything that matters) he has a 0% chance of ignoring it, compared to a 33% chance of ignoring it when in cover.

            This means that Guardsmen rely more on cover to keep them alive than Daemons do.

            This means that weapons that ignore cover are more efficient against Guardsmen than against Daemons.

            Provided your weapon has a good enough AP value, then this efficiency grows better and better as you go against higher armoured targets like Space Marines because they cost more per model, hence why the Baleflamer is so good – it toasts Marines just as effectively as Guardsmen.

            I don't think I can really explain it any more simply. As I said, Nurgle (which is the only deity that relies on Shrouded as a defence mechanism) is the only part of Daemons that suffers significantly. Obviously from time to time your save is going to go from a 4+ cover to a 5+ invul, but it's still better than going from a 4+ cover to nothing at all.

      • _Garnet_ says:

        So, your answer to an army that has to rely on a crutch is to kick the crutch out from under them and tell them they're shit for not being able to stand up without it? Yup, that's a solid plan that's sure not to screw over players with the misfortune to love a weak codex.

        • Sethis_II says:

          I'm sorry, but I don't see a very satisfying difference between:

          "You must run this specific not-very-fun list with little-to-no variation in order to win in tournaments"

          and

          "You cannot win tournaments"

          For the love of god, have people even properly experimented with the Daemon codex to find other competitive builds, or has everyone just copy/pasted the same list or three? (Dog rush, Circus and Star)

          Hell with it, you could ban the Grimoire, make Serpent Shields a once-per-game attack, and make Riptides and Heldrakes 0-1 and all of those codices would still be books that are able to win games against anything released in 5th. If CSM players weren't dead set on burning their FOC slots on Drakes then Bikers and Spawn would actually be decent showings that change how the army plays entirely. If people took fewer Serpents then we might see larger Jetbike units or War Walkers.

          Just because a crutch is the most obvious, most common solution doesn't mean that it's the ONLY solution and that without it the codex can't compete.

          • MidnightSun says:

            'Just because a crutch is the most obvious, most common solution doesn't mean that it's the ONLY solution and that without it the codex can't compete. '

            This.

            There's also the main purpose, which is levelling the field – yeah, you don't have multiple Baleflamers anymore, but your opponent isn't fielding 3 Riptides or firing 6 Serpent Shields every turn or spitting out 100 Twin-Linked Bolter shots from Scouting Bikers.

            Is having to actually put effort into building your list a bad thing? Is it even possible to argue that it's a bad thing?

          • Kellvain says:

            Troop transports are a good answer to helldrakes its a really easy counter. Quadguns and your own fliers can handle a couple of helldrakes with little problems. Heck stronghold assault makes air turrets even more accessable for not to crazy a points investment.

          • Gorsameth says:

            To be fair Transports are a terrible counter to helldrakes. They swoop and kill your transport, not hard to kill a rhino with 3 str 7 hits, and then flame the squad that came out of it.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            I see people say this all the time so lets see how it stands up to the math:

            Lets see, 3 S7 hits will average 1.5 HP against AV 11, inclusive of 1 AP 3 penetrating hit, per turn. That means, statistically, the Helldrake really shouldn't kill jack shit. Also, if its swooped over the Rhino, it's likely left its self very little else to drop its pretty little template on, meaning you've reduced 175 points of not coming in till turn 2 at the earliest and sometimes not coming in till tun 4 into taking off roughly 20 points worth of HP from one Rhino. A unit that cannot score, and cannot directly impact the victory conditions of the game in any way besides killing things, just took off 1 or 2 HPs from a 35 point model.

            If you have bubble wrapped, hugged the side of the board or other vehicles, or any number of counter tactics, the Helldrake might not even be able to pull off its miraculous1 to 2 HPs at all.

            Yeah. Totally broken, that fearsome Helldrake….

          • Sethis_II says:

            And if there's a pair of them then they just wiped out the transport and the unit it was carrying with no difficulty, or to put it in your terms, roughly 240pts of scoring unit.

            God forbid you rely on Chimeras, Venoms, Trukks etc which have side AV10.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            >>And if there's a pair of them then they just wiped out the transport and the unit it was carrying with no difficulty, or to put it in your terms, roughly 240pts of scoring unit.

            1.) 240 points? WTF army are you playing, GK?

            2.) So now, the 350 points worth of Helldrakes, who did not come on till turn 2, and might not have come on till turn 4, are wiping out your entire unit? Rhino's have access points on all three sides, yes? Are you that retarded that you can't pile guys out of a transport from three separate directions without them ending up in Template formation?

            3.) Trukks and Venoms are open topped. Also, they carry much cheaper cargo (making it much more difficult for the HD to earn its keep). But more importantly, open topped. As in you have zero excuse for them ending up in kill me with a template formation.

            4.) Fuck IG.

            jk.

            AV 10 is only 2 HP and 1.5 pens/turn, though. Venoms have a 5++, so they will obviously lower that even further.

            The point is, it's not nearly as devestating, or hard to counter, tactic as people think it is. I think there are people literally not bringing transports against Helldrakes for this very reason. It's bad gaming. Just bad, bad gaming.

          • abusepuppy says:

            While you're right on a number of your points, I think it's worth noting that the Heldrake isn't the only AT a list is going to bring. The Heldrake's main advantage is that disembarked units will be absolutely annihilated by its template in most cases, so if you have units that are getting forcibly disembarked, you are not going to be able to use most of the typical counters to a Heldrake (spacing, ruin levels, etc) and are thus going to take far more than average casualties.

          • Sethis_II says:

            1. Any Space Marine variant? 10 Marines, 140. Sergeant, 150. Rhino. 185. Meltagun, 195. Multimelta, 205. Maybe a power weapon for the Sarge? 220. Chaos obviously have it worse (much worse in the case of cult troops), as do GKs. God forbid you have a Libby or something in there.

            2. If you want to keep your squad in coherency, the best you can do from 3 access points is a giant "U" shape, which is perfectly flamable from 3 sides, and is assuming the transport didn't explode outright, denying you the opportunity to disembark.

            I'll *agree* that having your troops in metal boxes gives them an additional layer of protection from the toasty flame of soul death, *and* is probably worth the 35pts, but don't imply it's a hard counter either. Not when there's an unspecified number of Auto-havocs and Obliterators running around the table from turn 1 if the CSM player wishes.

      • suswerd says:

        If you can't deal with an army that has one guy that gives this buff and killing him ends it… then you are a bad player.

        • Sethis_II says:

          But this isn't a "Screamerstar is impossible to beat, how can we break it?" post. This is a "Screamerstar is not fun to play with or against, and neither is Quad-Tide, Quad-Drake, Hex-Serpent or D-Weapons, how can we ameliorate them?" post.

          • _Garnet_ says:

            And yet, they didn't ban ion accelerators, bale flamers or serpent shields. The other things may need 'ameliorating', but the fact that the Grimoire itself is specifically banned, on the first point no less, rather undercuts the idea that it's just them dealing with one of a number of builds in an even-handed across the board way.

          • MidnightSun says:

            But on the other hand, we haven't been provided with a 0-1 list yet, which I'll bet includes Riptides, Baleflamers and presumably some kind of change to Serpent Shields (probably add One Use Only, but ultimately only Biscuit knows).

            The 'ban list' in the article is not the set in stone, authoritative source. It's not even complete yet.

          • _Garnet_ says:

            My point is, there are myriad ways to tweak the Grimoire; you can make it only affect the native Daemon save, meaning 3++ is the maximum, you can restrict Fateweaver from using his once-a-turn re-roll on the activation, giving it a thirty percent chance to catastrophically backfire, you can do all the things that apparently they'll be doing with everything else people are complaining about. But they didn't. They just threw any kind of subtlety out the window when it came to Daemons, and only Daemons, and hit them as hard as they could with the ban-hammer.

            Given that this will be followed up by 0-1 restrictions (including FMCs, no doubt) and psyker restrictions (primarily hampering Nids and Chaos, at the moment), one could almost be forgiven, I suspect, for thinking that someone at FoB just doesn't love Daemons…

          • Herpguy says:

            I didn't want it to come to me saying this, but it is interesting to note that Kirby is a Taudar player…

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            This is Sir Biscuits post, who runs Tournaments on the american west coast. Kirby lives down under.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            Excellent comments all around _Garnet_. You are not being a generic non gender related pejorative at all, here ;).

          • _Garnet_ says:

            Well, one does one's best. : p

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            You are in no position to tell anyone what armies are fun to play WITH. Now, you might not like playing against it….I really don't know why you wouldn't (assuming you like playing the game to begin with), but that is certainly your right.

          • Sethis_II says:

            I'm not, FoB is by telling people that those builds will no longer be allowed.

            But given that I am allowed to have an opinion, my opinion is that none of the previously mentioned armies are fun to play with or against, having played with three of them myself.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            To each his own. Admittedly, I've never faced D weapons outside of Appoc. Buy everything else you mentioned is hardly "broken." In fact, the Quad lists are plainly bad.

          • Sethis_II says:

            I didn't say "broken". I said "Not fun". 🙂 Not the same thing.

          • Dimmet says:

            Yet all your arguments seemed to be based on defending something that harms the game in terrible ways. You're so biased that no one should even consider listening to you.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            Are you sure you didn't mean to register the handle "Dimwit?"

            How am I biased, exactly? I play an INCREDIBLY non standard Necron army. I don't have a single Night Scythe in my entire army. Yet I crush these power builds like flies.

            I just like seeing people come up with crazy combinations and trying to beat those crazy combinations. You just like being an anonymous internet non gender specific pejorative.

          • _Garnet_ says:

            Even at its most egregious, something like screamerstar doesn't harm 'the game'. It might annoy certain players at prestigious 'high-level' tournaments, but the vast majority of 40K games have nothing to do with such 'elite' events. And even then, the complaint that screamerstar requires specific armies, or prohibits specific builds, is an incredibly weak one; Grey Knights basically killed BA assault armies, Guard heavy artillery builds can cripple a shooty Marine force in one round, triple-Tervigon lists can flood the field so hard Deathwing can't hope to accomplish anything, and yet nobody has suggested banning force swords, or Griffons, or Tervigons.

          • clever handle says:

            well the thing is that it doesn't harm "the game" but it does harm "the community" . Two completely different yet intimately intertwined entities. As has been mentioned several times the fact is that EVENT ATTENDANCE is suffering because a significant portion of the gaming community has no interest in wasting their hobby time and/or money in ways that they don't consider fun. As event attendance suffers & events cease to turn a profit the organizers cease to run events. The trend of declining attendance is empirically measurable & visible – ask SB how many players attended the last event compared to previous years? How about local events in your area? In my area both WHFB & WH40K are seeing significant drops in event attendance (20%+ drop, events that would sell out in 48 hours are not selling out PERIOD). This is not because of the "top level" players, but the rest of us. You 1%'ers need to stand on our shoulders to support your hobby & if we're not interested you have no hobby (damn, channeling my inner occupy [gotham] I guess)

        • Kellvain says:

          Chaos daemons is an unconventional codex seeing as it is a predominantly melee oriented codex in a shooting addition of the game. Heavy shooting lists can heavily damage Daemons the first 2 turns of the game before the opportunity to engage in melee. It is not a codex for the faint of heart. You get clobbered hard before you get a chance to give it good to your opponent.

      • Shadar_Logoth says:

        It's not a monobuilds, though, Sethis. Its a keystone in a wide, wide variety of builds.

      • Shadar_Logoth says:

        It's not a monobuild, though, Sethis. Its a keystone in a wide, wide variety of builds.

        • Sethis_II says:

          I've never used it and still win plenty of games, so frankly I don't see what all the crying is about. From my point of view.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            I get that, Sethis. You are doing fine with out it. But, surely, there are some elements of your list that ARE critical to it, yes? And if a bunch of non gender specific pejoratives had trouble beating that element, and banned it from a tournament you were planning on attending, it would upset you, yes?

          • clever handle says:

            then don't attend the tournament and use your cash votes. Instead run your event that is YOUR version of perfect 40K. If the community prefers your version they will attend your events, until then be happy that others are prepared to run events for your leisure (while sacrificing their own) and accept that just like living in a society, you may not agree with all of the rules but the social contract obliges you to follow them for the greater good.

  20. Glocknall says:

    No need to ban the Grimore, just address the 2++ reroll mechanic. Perhaps allow for a single 2++ reroll for each shooting attack, or simple limit the second roll to a 3++.

    I applaud you stepping up to the plate and its a good start. I would probably address the broken combos first like Jetseer+Baron and the 2++ mechanic and work from there.

    • Sethis_II says:

      Jetseer isn't broken, because you can simply focus fire the baron until he drops because he doesn't have the same cover save as the bikers. Nor does he move as quickly. It's rather harder to do it to Screamerstar.

      • abusepuppy says:

        If the unit is Invisible or Concealed and benefiting from cover of any kind (not exactly hard to do), he will have the 2+ cover also, so you can't Focus him.

        He only moves slower when Turboing, which they arguably can't even do when he is attached.

        I don't think Jetseer is broken because for one 2+ cover is very different from a 2+ invuln, but…

        • Brendan Gallagher says:

          The problem is that it is not just 2+ cover

          It is 2+ cover
          2+ armor
          2++ invul on baron….so you focus fire him, and he look out sirs and takes a 2++ re-roll on failed look out sirs….yeah…that sounds reliable.

          2+ armor with 2+ cover is not all that different from 2+ invul because cover ignoring AP2 shots are not exactly common.

          • abusepuppy says:

            But again, that's assuming they pass all their psychic tests and get all the right powers. With eight warlocks, there's a pretty non-ignorable chance that they just don't get any of a particular power- and the combo is EXTREMELY dependent on getting Protect and Fortune in combination. (Let's remember that there's about a 1/4 chance of them not getting Fortune, either.)

            With the full setup going, sure, they're pretty hard to kill, but the chances of them actually getting it off consistently are not very high- and, unlike the Screamerstar, the Council is not putting out any meaningful firepower at range and is actually rather middling in melee (at least for its points.)

          • Sokhar says:

            With the upside being that you cannot lock them in combat at all, like you can with Screamerstar.

          • clever handle says:

            and that T5 they "explode" into multiple units that can each move 48" and contest objectives whereas screamer-star can only grab one.

  21. Apothecary says:

    I like the sound of these restrictions; they seem to restore a level of sanity to a game that has gotten a bit too silly over the last couple of months (and much more so over the last couple of weeks)

    May I suggest adding another restriction: independent characters may only join units from their parent codex.

  22. PhalanxLord says:

    Out of curiosity, have you guys tried super-heavies with S:D weapons other than the Revenant in playtest games? I'm mostly wondering because I look at things like the ShadowSword and think "Yeah, it can instant-kill an MC or a tank or something like that, but at something like 450pts I can likely get similar amounts of firepower in other things". I mean, the Revenant is obviously over-powered (it's about as durable as any two lords of war and has roughly the same firepower as any 3 or 4), but with most of them it doesn't seem like a single S:D gun is going to break the game anymore than having their points in Leman Russes or the like.

    Perhaps I'm completely off base with this and you've playtested ShadowSwords and the like extensively already, but it does honestly seem to me that other than the Revenant S:D weapons aren't quite the issue most people seem to be making it out to be.

    • sirbiscuit says:

      The short answer is yes: I am a massive apocalypse fan, as are many of my friends. I love love love it, and even own a Warhound. (Though he only has one turbo-laser arm.) So yeah, I've played with a ton of strength D appearing on a pretty wide variety of platforms.

      The problem with Strength D is that it's not only good at busting tanks and such, it's good at busting *everything*. Think about it this way: if you know S:D can be across the table, are you going to take any kind of terminator? Any kind of ANY elite unit? Probably not. And you're certainly not going to take something like a Land Raider.

      Besides being artificially limiting in that way, it also makes superheavy-on-superheavy combat very boring. Basically, it simply boils down to who shoots first. (And who rolls lucky on the D table.) It's actually pretty silly and anticlimactic when two gigantic war machines meet on the field of battle, and one just opens fire first and obliterates the other.

      This is a pretty superficial and short response, but I hope it gets your own wheels turning. S:D is just one of those things that warps the way the game is plays and the way people build lists too much.

      • Jarrett says:

        My gaming group has made a few amendments to D weapons. It makes them tolerable and much more "Cinematic" 😉 Instead of just removing all our super fucking awesome toys every time someone hits with their 10" hubcap at 48", we get to play a somewhat strategic mega awesome battle.
        We still do not allow any type of save as per the Apoc rulings.

        Tanks:
        1: Glancing Hit
        2-5: Penetrating Hit D3+1 Hull Points lost
        6: Penetrating Hit 2xD3+1 Hull Points lost

        Not Tanks:
        1: No effect
        2-5: D3+1 Wounds
        6: 2xD3+1 Wounds

      • Wraeccan says:

        Surely the answer is to keep S:D as is then, but limit the amount of wounds / HPs to 1? That way a Revenant will still pretty much destroy a Land Raider or 300pt character in one turn (as it probably should be able to) but won't destroy 4!
        Personally, I don't think S:D should effect invulnerable saves though. Kind of goes against the very word 'invulnerable' doesn't it? Perhaps rule that only cover or standard armour saves can be rerollable?

      • PhalanxLord says:

        It was a short but overall pretty good answer. And you're right. Being able to wipe out a unit of assault terminators or a LR for 450pts with an 83.333% chance is pretty powerful. You have a pretty good chance of taking out either of those for the same points with other choices, but thinking about it the lords of war still allow those other choices since they take a different slot. Deathstars usually aren't the most viable of things, but S: D weapons makes them worthless in one shot no matter how tough they actually are.

        Thinking about super heavies, I wonder how well it would work if normal vehicles were modified to work the same way. Ignore all results other than immobilize and explodes, explodes instead deals +d3 hp of damage, and it explodes as normal if it loses all of it's hp due to that result. It may make vehicles more useful and a bit more survivable while not making them 5th-ed kinds of dominating and also gives anything with 3+ hp a chance to survive a critical hit (explodes result).

      • clever handle says:

        >> Think about it this way: if you know S:D can be across the table, are you going to take any kind of terminator? Any kind of ANY elite unit?

        I don't think this is necessarily a true statement as usually your elite units are the ones best suited to put the hurt on something like a titan. Chaos terminators deepstriking with combi-weapons & chainfists, tau crisis suits, dark elder trueborne packing blasters, etc.

        The inclusion of SD weapons does nothing but further the "I go first I win" problem that 40K currently has (this is of course helped a bit utilizing proper amounts of LOS blocking terrain to mitigate shooting alleys)

        • Shadar_Logoth says:

          Just a tangent on your comment, CH, but I think the current tendency for many armies is shoot for second.

          The first/second balance is an extremely critical one in this game, and it's one I think this edition has balanced out better then any previous one. There are very good arguments to be made for either side, and it largely depends on the kind of army you have.

          • clever handle says:

            the game is still very much a "identify your opponents linch-pins and blow them up before he does the same to you" the player who goes first has the significant advantage (if designed for it, notably shooting armies have this advantage). The leafblower archetype rose to prominence for a reason & while the actual concept changed from the initial guard template & autocannon spam it evolved into rasorspam / venomspam (all significant long-range, high concentration firepower) to the current Tau & Eldar which are both armies full of long range shooting based on units that put out significant amounts of mid-strength shooting per point. The counter to this type of army is to bring ones that are incredibly resilient & able to withstand the first turn barrage (hence screamers, dogs, beastpacks, etc rising to the fore). The go first, shoot first, win first concept is HUGE in games workshop games

      • Aurenian says:

        Another way to limit strength D is by making those weapons use the next smallest size template. Two small blast turbolaser/pulsar shots per gun are much less scary. Even elite units can handle that by spreading out. And the gun still keeps its utility vs Armoured targets.

  23. Fitz says:

    bravo to the FOB crew for having the foresight on this. I'm the TO for my local and with these releases as well as the data slates i was totally at a loss for what the competitive scene was going to be like. Remember s D under the new books is not limited by what super heavy you have. There are fortifications with it as well now and everyone has access to them. I have met with the players here locally and we have decided on our own ban lists, or more accurately the books we will be ignoring. I'm looking forward to the decisions you guys make on this and will adopt it once it is realized.

  24. Atrotos says:

    At least you can add forgeworld now right? Or are we going to argue how a ban list can fix GW units but not FW ones?

    • sirbiscuit says:

      It's still a hot topic. Personally, I don't think Forge World is all that borked and actually puts out a lot of really cool, balanced models these days. (*generally*) But their status is still kinda unclear and there is something to be said for rules bloat and rules inaccessibility. In the end, it's a bit of a different topic than I'm addressing here.

      • Eggtoastie says:

        How can this not be clear nowadays? The FW introduction in every FW book is the same or very siilar to what is in the Escalation and SA books you are accepting? The FW books are designed for normal play. FW models and armies are featured in every White Dwarf as products recommended for players to buy and make things with. And very publcially GW employess like ADB have defended FW as official: FW and 'design team' staff work together.

        More so, FW are making the game more even than the design team books allow – very soon they will add alot more 'more fair' or 'more interesting' Lords of War to the game (http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/forgeworld-pdf-coming-for-escalation.html). this means that in addition to the limited ones in Escalation, and in addition to the five for space marines ALREADY marked Lords of War in IA2:2nd edition (Fellblade, Cerberus, Typhon, Thunderhawk and Thunderhawk Transporer) and the one for Grey Knights (their own Thunderhawk), they will add countless options for

        – Nids (for LOW, hierophants and hierodules; for normal Malanthropes and alternate Carnifexes)
        – Elder (for LOW, Scorpians, Cobras, Lynxes, Warp Hunters, Phoenixes, Dragon Bombers, Nightwings, Vampire Hunters, Vampire Raider)
        – Tau (for LOW, Mantas, Orca, the other Tiger Shark; for normal, the beautiful Barracuda)
        – Imperial Gurds (for LOW, countless, but also more fun than endless Baneblade variants; also the great fun Imp Guard tank company, the Elysians, the Krieg list; etc)
        – Chaos Daemons (for LOW their greater daemons, the Brass Scorpian, the Blood SLughterer, Great Chaos Beast, etc; but also Plague Drones, Decimators, etc)
        – Chaos Marines (Fire Raptors, Hell Talons, Hell Blades, Spartans, etc)
        – Dark Elder (the far more fluffy LOW Tantalus; then also Reavers, Ravens and Dragon Pheonices)
        – Sisters of Battle (presumably LOW will includes Titans, but also things like the Avenger Strike Fighter or this will be additional fun options like Lightnings and Thunderhawks, as well as the Repressor).

        Surely all these additions help make some lists alot more viable (chaos marines for example), and when combined with 0-1s, more interesting? FW even include 0-1 as part of their list design, as a balance tool, with things like the new Relic rules requiring HQ sacrifices to feature more (see the Fire Raptor pdf).

      • Eggtoastie says:

        How can this not be clear nowadays? The FW introduction in every FW book is the same or very siilar to what is in the Escalation and SA books you are accepting? The FW books are designed for normal play. FW models and armies are featured in every White Dwarf as products recommended for players to buy and make things with. And very publcially GW employess like ADB have defended FW as official: FW and 'design team' staff work together.

        More so, FW are making the game more even than the design team books allow – very soon they will add alot more 'more fair' or 'more interesting' Lords of War to the game (http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/forgeworld-pdf-coming-for-escalation.html). this means that in addition to the limited ones in Escalation, and in addition to the five for space marines ALREADY marked Lords of War in IA2:2nd edition (Fellblade, Cerberus, Typhon, Thunderhawk and Thunderhawk Transporer) and the one for Grey Knights (their own Thunderhawk), they will add countless options for

        – Nids (for LOW, hierophants and hierodules; for normal Malanthropes and alternate Carnifexes)
        – Elder (for LOW, Scorpians, Cobras, Lynxes, Warp Hunters, Phoenixes, Dragon Bombers, Nightwings, Vampire Hunters, Vampire Raider)
        – Tau (for LOW, Mantas, Orca, the other Tiger Shark; for normal, the beautiful Barracuda)
        – Imperial Gurds (for LOW, countless, but also more fun than endless Baneblade variants; also the great fun Imp Guard tank company, the Elysians, the Krieg list; etc)
        – Chaos Daemons (for LOW their greater daemons, the Brass Scorpian, the Blood SLughterer, Great Chaos Beast, etc; but also Plague Drones, Decimators, etc)
        – Chaos Marines (Fire Raptors, Hell Talons, Hell Blades, Spartans, etc)
        – Dark Elder (the far more fluffy LOW Tantalus; then also Reavers, Ravens and Dragon Pheonices)
        – Sisters of Battle (presumably LOW will includes Titans, but also things like the Avenger Strike Fighter or this will be additional fun options like Lightnings and Thunderhawks, as well as the Repressor).

        Surely all these additions help make some lists alot more viable (chaos marines for example), and when combined with 0-1s, more interesting? FW even include 0-1 as part of their list design, as a balance tool, with things like the new Relic rules requiring HQ sacrifices to feature more (see the Fire Raptor pdf).

      • Eggtoastie says:

        How can this not be clear nowadays? The FW introduction in every FW book is the same or very siilar to what is in the Escalation and SA books you are accepting? The FW books are designed for normal play. FW models and armies are featured in every White Dwarf as products recommended for players to buy and make things with. And very publcially GW employess like ADB have defended FW as official: FW and 'design team' staff work together.

        More so, FW are making the game more even than the design team books allow – very soon they will add alot more 'more fair' or 'more interesting' Lords of War to the game (http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/forgeworld-pdf-coming-for-escalation.html). this means that in addition to the limited ones in Escalation, and in addition to the five for space marines ALREADY marked Lords of War in IA2:2nd edition (Fellblade, Cerberus, Typhon, Thunderhawk and Thunderhawk Transporer) and the one for Grey Knights (their own Thunderhawk), they will add countless options for

        – Nids (for LOW, hierophants and hierodules; for normal Malanthropes and alternate Carnifexes)
        – Elder (for LOW, Scorpians, Cobras, Lynxes, Warp Hunters, Phoenixes, Dragon Bombers, Nightwings, Vampire Hunters, Vampire Raider)
        – Tau (for LOW, Mantas, Orca, the other Tiger Shark; for normal, the beautiful Barracuda)
        – Imperial Gurds (for LOW, countless, but also more fun than endless Baneblade variants; also the great fun Imp Guard tank company, the Elysians, the Krieg list; etc)
        – Chaos Daemons (for LOW their greater daemons, the Brass Scorpian, the Blood SLughterer, Great Chaos Beast, etc; but also Plague Drones, Decimators, etc)
        – Chaos Marines (Fire Raptors, Hell Talons, Hell Blades, Spartans, etc)
        – Dark Elder (the far more fluffy LOW Tantalus; then also Reavers, Ravens and Dragon Pheonices)
        – Sisters of Battle (presumably LOW will includes Titans, but also things like the Avenger Strike Fighter or this will be additional fun options like Lightnings and Thunderhawks, as well as the Repressor).

        Surely all these additions help make some lists alot more viable (chaos marines for example), and when combined with 0-1s, more interesting? FW even include 0-1 as part of their list design, as a balance tool, with things like the new Relic rules requiring HQ sacrifices to feature more (see the Fire Raptor pdf).

        • MadmanMSU says:

          So now I'm basically forced to buy Forgeworld models to complete with your Forgeworld models? Because you spent $500 on your huge Forgeworld LOW, if I don't do the same to get some kind of parity on the table, I'm boned?

          No thank you.

          • Atrotos says:

            That's not exactly true sir. Pirated PDF's are free and available and 90% or more of the rules can be used with regular GW models.

            For instance: You can make a punisher Vulture by gluing Assault Cannon or LR Punisher bits (cheap on ebay) to a normal Valkyrie chassis.

          • IndigoJack says:

            Believe it or not, there area actually people who don't pirate things, probably more than you would think.

          • clever handle says:

            how is that different than being forced to buy the new shiney when either your codex gets reprinted or mine does? I'm willing to bet all the internets ever that there is no man standing in your room with a gun held to your head whispering "that's it, add the centurion box to your cart. Good. Good. Now lets grab some fancy new bikes. What? Vanguard vets? What are you doing? If you mess around like that again I'll F&#$ing shoot you! See this gun? It's not a F&(@#ing toy!"

            I mean, I could be wrong but I'd suggest that if I am, you have bigger problems than a few plastic models….

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            🙂

        • Coyote81 says:

          Did you really just list a Manta as a LOW option for standard 40k games. You know it takes up the whole table right?

        • blacksly says:

          Sabre. Defense. Platforms.
          Balanced?

          Most of FW is fine. But unless they're also going to take a long look at it to make sure that a few OP units are limited or banned, just saying "all FW is fine" would be a mistake.

          This is further complicated by FW's inane policy of not keeping an updated list of where the current rules for any unit may be found, as some units have 2-3 sets of rules in different publications.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            I read a lot of BRs from a major tournament that allowed FW and I also didn't see a single broken thing about SDPs. They may have seemed stronger in the 5th edition meta, but in the current edition that seem about right.

      • Hellgore says:

        I might add another specialty that only FW seems to do these days: They revisit their rules. For example, in the new IA2 book the Mortis Contemptor Dread has its third incarnation now. The changes? In the second variant (from IA: Aeronautica to IA:Apocalypse) they reduced the BS from 5 to 4. In IA2 they increased the point cost from 155 to 175. I mailed them about my anger that the Aeronautica I bought got obsolete for me due to their changes and they told me they thought the Mortis Contemptor was to strong for the points cost and thus toned it down a bit. The Fire Raptor is also toned down from the experimental rules to its now official appearance in IA2.
        Do you see this kind of "living rules" from GW these days? Get over this "I still dunno if it's official"-sillyness and just incorporate it. If necessary give all FW-Units a 0-1 restriction. They are great models, great to play with and against and enrich the game,

        • MadmanMSU says:

          My biggest objection to Forgeworld is still that I have to buy multiple books to get the rules for a single army. It's like they release the FW equivalent of codex: Tyranids, then they release codex: Dark Angels but it has a single, updated version of one of the Tyranids units in it, so now I have to buy the new one just to get the updated rules for a unit that should have been in the old one. WTF?

          • Hellgore says:

            I feel your concerns. As I described, I got the same WTF moments. On the other hand some of this "mess" is tied to 6th edition changes that inferred with their releases. And the books themselves do have more to offer than just the data for a single unit. I own now a Stormeagle, another standard contemptor (which didn't change btw, although it is represented in the new book) and a lucius droppod. So I somewhat get more value out of one book. Although, I see your point. Still, you are not forced to field FW.

          • _Garnet_ says:

            It's not like FW didn't know GW was working on 6th, and they could hardly expect the core game to remain stagnant forever just so as not to interfere with their tiny niche market. They should've been ready for 6th when it dropped, with erratas and FAQs, just like GW was.

        • IndigoJack says:

          I think the fact that FW upates their rules is part of the problem. Not so much that they do it, but how. Rather than releasing a pdf faq for a book, they just incorporate it into the next relevant book. I have models from aeronautica (released just last year) that are incorporated into IA2;SE and I have no idea if the rules I have are out of date.

          I have no problem with FW in regular games, the problem is that in a tournament setting you need to be knowledgeable on all of the rules.Given FW's relative inaccessibility to the general populace,

      • Atrotos says:

        Indeed GW has still not come out and sanctioned FW even at their own events. However, I still feel the topic is relevant to this post:

        If you reduce options by banning things you might want to add way more options by allowing FW thereby promoting attendance for your event. We all know that FW is horribly imbalanced but by banning or limiting artillery models the issue is contained*.

        *IMO

      • Guy holding a mirror says:

        I disagree. If you are going to make all these changes then settle it now for "Approved for 40K" stamped entries….May as well find out now.

        As to the "It's still a hot topic"…Really , compared to the can of worms you just opened up?

        Get all the pain out now.

  25. Chosen of Khorne says:

    It is interesting that the only ban so far is the grimoire. It is an item with a built in "downside". The problem is the interaction between this and fate weaver's reroll, mark of tzeench, and forewarning. Rather than a ban, why not just rule that it may only modify the target's daemonic save (which was probably the items intent), or that it isn't subject to fateweaver's reroll. More likely to fail the d6 to give a negative result, and no risk of the 2++ with reroll.

    On it's own it isn't overpowered, but in this combination it is. Don't remove the item, remove the combination. Otherwise this will be a slippery slope of deciding which things are too effective and need to be banned. Limit, but don't ban.

    • Slaede says:

      I'm curious what tournaments Daemons are winning that merits the ban stick. Eldar won Feast. Eldar won Da Boyz. Why do you want to cripple one army's ability to deal with the best army out there?

      • Slaede says:

        (To sirbiscuit) For example. I won the Feast qualifier in my local area and had to face an Eldar list with six wave serpents and two wraithknights in the final round. I had Fateweaver, the grimoire on a Tzerald in a bastion, three Soul Grinders and an allied Drake plus troops. Hardly a netlist you see complained about.

        The board had no LOS blocking terrain save for the bastion I brought. My entire army was almost completely slaughtered by a faster, shootier force. I was only able to kill one Wave Serpent and four squads of Dire Avengers, but I was able to win 8-1 due to superior generalship and using the Grimoire to keep Fateweaver alive long enough to contest an objective. Without the Grimoire, I get shot off the board by an army with superior maneuverability and firepower in four turns.

        In a game with ignores cover weapons everywhere and tons of dakka, how are Daemons supposed to compete if you take away our best tool to weather the storm? Make Tzeentch Heralds 0-1 if it's the Screamerstar you're worried about, or change it to a 2+/4+ on the reroll as has been proposed.

        • Herpguy says:

          This is a perfect example. The grimoire sounds absurd to non daemons players, but it really is completely necessary for daemons to survive.
          Also like said before daemons are not winning these big tournaments. Eldar are, with a sprinkling of Tau. Daemons are up there, but they really can’t beat 6 wave serpents.

        • Jidmah says:

          The way I read it, the problem your army not being able to kill either wraithknights nor serpents (without rating – your codex might not be able to actually produce such an army). Which is pretty much is what the article was talking about before announcing the bannings. You daemon scissors just met an eldar rock and broke. The real problem is eldar being able to exclusively field so many powerful and resilient models, not your models being too weak without the grimoire. Balancing rules is an iterative process, if the next tournament is completely dominated by wave serpents, they'll just have to put a limit on them, just like they are planing to do with the croissants of doom. Suddenly you're facing four waves serpents, one wraithknight and a bunch of other eldar stuff you can actually kill in your final round. You might not need the grimoire to keep alive your fateweaver in that case.

        • Jidmah says:

          The way I read it, the problem of your army is not being able to kill neither wraithknights nor serpents (without rating – your codex might not be able to actually produce such an army).

          Which is pretty much is what the article was talking about before announcing the bannings. You daemon scissors just met an eldar rock and broke. The real problem is eldar being able to exclusively field so many powerful and resilient models, not your models being too weak without the grimoire.

          Balancing rules is an iterative process, if the next tournament is completely dominated by wave serpents, they'll just have to put a limit on them, just like they are planing to do with the croissants of doom. Suddenly you're facing four waves serpents, one wraithknight and a bunch of other eldar stuff you can actually kill in your final round. You might not need the grimoire to keep alive your fateweaver in that case.

          • Sokhar says:

            There's a much more quantitative argument for Wave Serpents breaking the tournament scene right now, rather than daemons.

          • Jidmah says:

            Just because Daemons aren't _winning_ tournaments, doesn't mean that they aren't part of the problem. I once place second in a magic tournament where three out of the eight top players were playing the same deck, none of them placed first or second. Pretty usual for a magic tournament. However, 108 out of 128 of the tournament participants were playing that deck. That IS a problem. WotC then went and banned the deck to death, and suddenly there were dozens of different decks in the next tourney.

            Sir Biscuit explains that he wants to make the game more enjoyable by limiting spam of overly reliable units and combos. Screamer star is one of those combos, and probably one of the biggest offenders. If this really cripples daemons to the point where they become unplayable, he still could take a step back and just prevent it from buffing the psychic 4++.

            It's not like he is printing those rules in a book, sells it to you, and then refuses to change them for the next three years. 😉

          • blacksly says:

            "If this really cripples daemons to the point where they become unplayable, he still could take a step back and just prevent it from buffing the psychic 4++. "

            Wouldn't it be better, though, to work in the other direction? Start with preventing Grimoire from buffing Forewarning, and if Screamerstar is still such a commonly spammed build that it needs further adjustment, at that point looking at an outright Grimoire ban would make sense.

          • Jidmah says:

            Yes, from a balancing point of view.
            No, from a practical point of view.

            Yes, because you are right, taking little steps is more likely to get your stuff ballanced than not.

            No, because right now this is just one rule change you have to know about and remember. The next step would be a document akin to the INAT FAQ being handed out, which in turn would cause more anger and confusion when people find out about the nerf at the wrong time, because you might have built your list differently or have already used the wrong rules during a previous turn/game. People can hardly remember rules changes made by 6th, FAQs and codex updates, no need to add to that problem.

            "The following things are banned/restricted to X" is pretty much non-arguable. You brought six serpents but were only allowed four? Please rewrite your army list before the first game. Simple problem, simple solution, no room for honest mistakes.

          • _Garnet_ says:

            Why is it that people can be told that there's a four-Wave Serpent limit far enough in advance to rewrite their lists (and have access to the necessary models to make use of the newly-available points), but wouldn't learn about the change to the Grimoire/Forewarning interaction until they're halfway through their game, exactly?

            Feast of Blades isn't a saturday afternoon tournament put on by your FLGS; it's got a dedicated website, you have to pre-register, it already has an FAQ section, it's already made specific alterations to the rules that players would have to know about ahead of time. There's no reason at all to assume that the sort of people who are going to this, especially the invitational, are going to just wander in without checking anything out, plop down a random army list, and expect to start playing straight away.

          • Jidmah says:

            People still forget rules, mix them up with the codex from two editions ago or flat out cheat in hopes to BS their opponent, who isn't as solid on rules from a codex he doesn't own. Even in kirby's battle reports of tournament games posted this very page you read things like "I totally forgot that my X could do Y", "we both forgot that something had to roll for something" or "my opponent didn't realize his unit could do foo".

            Not to mention that people are lazy. Some simply don't care about whatever material you handed out before an event, no matter how professional it is.

            Army lists are checked before the game, your complete knowledge of the rules isn't. In addition, a tournament game is a stress situation, you screw up things while under stress.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            Yes, but when a rule chance directly effects your entire list's linchpin, people will remember it.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            >>However, 108 out of 128 of the tournament participants were playing that deck. That IS a problem.

            That's a nightmare. But we're not talking about anything remotely close to that here. We have 4 big dog Codexes, Tau, Eldar, Daemons, Necrons, and a variety of builds, with a vareity of Ally combinations, out of each one, not to mention all the other Codexes that people are still bringing armies to Tournaments with and winning. There is not a single build in the current Tournament setting that is so good it's CLEARLY the only way to have a chance at victory.

          • clever handle says:

            Ignores cover weapons can be fixed by simply using LOS blocking terrain. Building LOS blocking terrain doesn't take much time: buy a flat of tall boys. Finish said tall boys. Spray paint them silver & put them on the table upside down. BAM! You just got yourself a grain silo / frac tower. Put two of them together & you've got a decent LOS blocking piece of terrain that most vehicles / decent sized units can hide behind.

            Sure the wave serpents may be able to move around the terrain but that's kind of the point of the game….. mobility and junk…

  26. RayJ says:

    I'd amend dataslates taking up an ally slot to having Formations take up an ally slot. Be'Lakor is a dataslate, and he really shouldn't eat up your ally options.

  27. ansacs says:

    I think this is a good idea. It will take tweaking but it seems you are going in with eyes open.

    I think an alternative to baning the grimoire and a way to fix seer councils etc. to some degree would implementing a simple rule. "Any reroll saves always uses the units base save for the second roll with no modifications possible" This removes all but the baron and he is easy to negate with good positioning and LoS sniping.

  28. BaselessElm says:

    Actually, I have been thinking more about the Grimoire ban, and it's probably the wrong target for banning. The problem isn't the Grimoire itself, seeing as a 3++ with rerolls one is strong but really not that busted- the real problem is the combination of Forewarning AND Grimoire, so I would suggest the following-

    Allow people to take the Grimoire, but errata the Grimoire so that either a) it is capped at 3++ or b) taking the Grimoire bars you from taking any Divination psykers in your army.

    • Sokhar says:

      So Eldar 2++ that only has to pass a psychic check if you roll the power is fine, but Grimoire that requires a psychic test plus a grimoire roll each turn is broken? Going from a re-rollable 2++ to a 3++ with re-roll 1's is a HUGE increase in damage the unit takes. For reference sake, even just limiting the re-rolled save to a 3++ rather than 2 is doubling the amount of wounds the star will take.

      I think a simpler solution to rein in daemons somewhat would be to impose a blanket rule that for a model to utilize its special rules/warlord trait, it has to be on the table. Then if you want your re-roll on the grimoire and on the warpstorm table, Fateweaver has to be present for the action. At present, smart players will hold him in reserve and/or fly him off the table, limiting the risk to him, because he's the lynchpin of competitive daemon lists, for minimizing randomness. Force him to be on the table and opponents actually have something to shoot at.

      That rule, plus prohibiting ICs from joining allied units wouldn't DRAMATICALLY alter the game, but don't involve banning or subjective restrictions. And they'd decrease the power level of the currently dominating builds out of daemons, tau, and eldar. And that was the intended goal, right?

      • BaselessElm says:

        Do the Eldar reroll their saves off a single psychic check? Last I checked that combo needs 2 powers to go off, which has a pretty hard counter in Runic Weapons. How are they even getting a 2++? If you're referring to a 2+ cover save, don't even bother comparing that to an invulnerable save- the former can be pretty easily ignored by a helluva lot of stuff within the metagame (Tau, opposing Eldar, Heldrakes, etc).

        Note that we're also talking about this restriction in the light of other bans- most notably the proposed cap on mastery levels, which is pretty much designed *exactly* to harm the consistency of the Eldar deathstar you're describing.

        Also, the argument that my proposed limitation doubles the damage taken is disingenuous- yes, it is technically correct, but when you're doubling a number that's next to nothing (which is currently what the deathstar takes) it's still a damn small number- 3++ rerolling ones is still extremely resilient.

        • IndigoJack says:

          "3++ rerolling ones is still extremely resilient."

          See Eldrad from the last codex to confirm this.

        • Sokhar says:

          3++ re-rolling ones isn't even the same as a Terminator. Given the metric fuckton of shots that Eldar and Tau vomit out on the table, you're not going to weather the storm for more than two turns at best.

          • _Garnet_ says:

            And while the entire Tau army is shooting at this one unit of Screamers, the rest of the Daemons army is, what, having a nap? Attracting that much firepower for two full turns could easily be counted as a win in itself as far as the unit goes, even if it's wiped out afterwards.

          • BaselessElm says:

            Are you seriously comparing Terminators to Screamers?

            Screamers are much, much faster. Screamers have 2 wounds. Screamers don't care about their opponent's AP. Screamers may have AP2 attacks at initiative. Screamers can perform Sweeping Advances. Screamers are *cheaper*. Screamers even have the option for Slashing Attacks if they don't particularly feel like engaging their opponent.

            And as Garnet said, if the unit is taking 2 turns of shooting from an Eldar or Tau army, then there's probably going to be a couple of Daemon Princes or a shedload of Khornedogs connecting in the next turn to ruin their day. This slight reduction doesn't nerf the deathstar into the ground, it just means the rest of the army actually has to do something.

    • Brendan Gallagher says:

      Or just rule the Forewarning is a set value modifier and thus is applied after the grimoir buff…which fixes the 2++ on everything except Fateweaver (who can re-roll it but is a single model that is not extremely killy) and Be'lakor, who cannot re-roll it.

      • BaselessElm says:

        This seems like a good option as well, and is probably the best. In all games, bans should be as specific and targeted as physically possible, thereby minimising their effect on other interactions in the game, and this method does what Sir Biscuit is attempting to do best- it nerfs the 2++ without removing any of the less "degenerate" (and I use that word not as a judgement or anything, but more in the "clearly is an untintended consequence of GW's rule writing) combos that still rely on either half of the 2++ combo.

        At any rate, I think most people at least agree that an outright ban on the grimoire is over the top, whether or not you think some softer restriction is necessary.

    • Soph says:

      best way to limit would be it would only improve the save given by the Daemon rule so wouldnt satck with froewarning.

  29. Orthon says:

    I agree that the rules for "normal" 40k" need to be changed for competitive play, but I disagree that these changes are fair.

    1.) The Grimoire of True Names from Codex: Daemons is banned
    Too specific and it seems to target Daemon players unfairly. The Eldar/Dark Eldar rerollable 2++ seer council crap is still allowed under your rules.

    2.) A few units will receive 0-1 status
    Which ones? It is too hard to be fair here.

    3.) Supplemental Codices will no longer be able to ally to their base codex
    Just ban the supplements. It is too much to keep track of. This also seems to unfairly target the Tau one.

    4.) Dataslates will take an ally slot
    Just ban the dataslates. It is too much to keep track of.

    5.) The number of psychic mastery levels in an army will be limited
    This doesn't work. Grey Knights and other armies have lots of psykers. Lots of armies rely on psychic powers to be competitive as well. Be'lakor is already banned as he is a dataslate.

    6.) Strength D is out, Lords of Battle are in
    Just ban escalation. It does not have any place in competitive play.

    7.) Super-forts are gone, or at least downsized
    Just ban stronghold assault. It does not have any place in competitive play. No fortress of redemption because it takes up too much space on the table.

    8.) Dedicated transport flyers will be limited
    No comp please. Flyer spam armies often do not have enough on the ground and they really aren't that powerful. There are plenty of counters to them now.

    9) "Codex Inquisition"
    Banned. I do not want to see Coteaz/inquisitors in every army. No FOC shenanigans.

    10) Codex Adepta Sororitas
    This would be considered a core codex and would be allowed. Sisters do not have a choice. See, I am allowing new things.

    11) Formations
    Banned. No FOC ignoring bullshit with multiple broadside/riptide formations included in an army with free overpowered rules at no cost.

    12) Forge World
    Banned. Way too much crap to keep track of. Players should not be surprised when they reach the tables and should not be reading (if they are lucky) unheard of rules for the first time right before a game.

    Players should only need to know the main rule book and the core codices. This streamlines the game immensely. You can clearly point to the rule book or a codex and have all your answers without having to look in supplements, formations, digital products (except Sisters), data slates, forge world, escalation, stronghold assault, etc. I pity any new player who has to wade through all the extra garbage released this year while also mastering their core codex and the main rule book.

    I think specific nerfs/restrictions to equipment/units/armies are a bit too hard to do. We don't know how Tyranids will shake up the meta when they are released.

    • Alastores says:

      "Too much to keep track of" is not itself a reason to ban things.

      • Sethis_II says:

        When it gets to the point where someone is rocking up to the table with 4+ different rulebooks then for practicality and time limit reasons then I would argue that it is a valid reason. Purely for tournament games – no-one is saying you can't do this in friendlies.

        You're already trying to fit in a, what, 1800-2000pt game in 2 hours or 90 minutes against another player? That's tight enough without having to spend literally 15 minutes pre-game telling each other what each individual unit you brought from Forgeworld does, what is allied to what, any special rules from your supplement etc etc.

        I think going back to "Codex + Rulebook – that's all you get" is actually the fairest way to do it.

        • _Garnet_ says:

          Nobody is required to show up with 4+ codexes, it's a choice, and if you're shitty and can't keep track of all your rules you're going to be a slow-playing mess stuck down on the low tables. It takes maybe two minutes to walk someone through your army list, which should contain things like "this formation has Tank Hunter" and the like, and you can just hand the other player your Forge World book (because you should have to bring all the relevant books) and let him read the rules himself while you set up. There's nothing at all 'literal' about your hyperbolic fifteen minutes. : p

          There's no requirement to have every element of your codex memorized; you could show up and be referring to your book for every single shooting attack, armour save, close combat assault role, leadership test, every time you want to use a special rule, and all of that would add far, far more time to the game than someone who knows what they're doing and has taken the time to memorize a couple additional units' stat lines from a couple of extra books.

          • Sethis_II says:

            You can know everything there is to know about your army, but if you're playing someone who is forgetful, doesn't pick things up quickly, or has his own shit-ton of things to worry about, then it can eat far more than 15 minutes from your time in games. I laugh in the face of the suggestion that you can explain a near-2000pt list made entirely from FW models in 120 seconds to someone who has never seen any of it before, taking into account time during the game itself.

            And I truly have better things to do than read your FW supplements while you set up, such as making sure you're not deploying illegally, roll my own psychic powers and warlord traits, analyse where you're placing models so that I can place my own to counter them and so on.

            And yes, there is no requirement to memorize things, but at tournaments it's about minimizing the amount of time spent doing things other than rolling dice and moving models so that everyone has satisfying and full 7 turn games (where applicable). Sure, if you play against someone who doesn't know their own codex, or even the BRB very well, games can take longer so that you only play 4 turns. But how about that same person having the freedom to use any supplement, any FW model, and any terrain piece they want – even models that you've never seen yourself? Does that help or hurt the time it'll take to play the game?

          • blacksly says:

            I worry more about my opponent forgetting to mention that his Nurgle Prince has S&P and therefore cannot perform a Sweeping Advance. Or the equivalent disadvantage for a Forge World unit that I never saw before. What if he has 10 FW units that I have to read up, how much non-playing time would that add to a game?

            I'm not sure I'm onboard with "Codex + BRB only", but let's at least understand the reasons why it's being proposed before dismissing it.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            You know, GW could really help everyone out here by making a standard, across all books and supplements, army builder software. One that will atomically print all relevant rules for every unit you bring.

            I know third party has gotten close to this, and GW tried, and failed miserably, back in the 90s, but it's really time they went back to that. If you own the relevant book, electronic or in print, there should be some way to "authorize" that book's use with the software. TOs should be able to by a "commercial" edition of this software, and they could then print out every one's list for them so everyone is on the same page.

            Man, that would solve so many issues.

          • blacksly says:

            It would. And Army Builder has gone away from printing what the rules do, and instead just say "See Codex X, Page Y", in order to head off lawsuits. So you can't depend on any army builder software that I know of, to give you a good summary of what you need to know.

      • Orthon says:

        "Too much to keep track of is not itself a reason to ban things."

        Except it is.

        So here are some things they released beyond the core codices (did I miss any?):

        Clan Raukaan supplement
        Sentinels of Terra supplement
        Black Legion supplement
        Farsight Enclaves supplement
        Iyaden supplement
        "Codex" Inquisition
        Escalation
        Stronghold Assault
        Be'lakor dataslate
        Tau Fireblade Support Cadre Formation
        Space Marine Storm Wing Formation
        Eldar Ghost Warriors Formation
        and more to come this December such as Cypher…

        And for the core codices (did I miss any?):

        Dark Angels
        Daemons
        Tau
        Eldar
        Space Marines
        Sister of Battle

        Really GW didn't start this supplement trend until the Iyaden supplement which was mid 2013. At a very conservative estimate I can expect GW will release another 10+ of these things by this time next year increasing the number of things that break the FOC. So we will be sitting on 20+ supplemental rules things. Add Forgeworld and you have a borderline incomprehensible system. Just by looking at an army you will not be able to tell if its legal or not. You will have no idea what the special free rules are either. To check each submitted list you will have to consult 20+ supplements. No thanks. To me that is too much to keep track of on top of what will probably be at least 3 (conservative estimate) core codex releases in 2014 such as Tyranids, Orks, and Imperial Guard.

        These releases are a big "F you" to competitive players and the tournaments scene in general by GW and should just be ignored.

        • _Garnet_ says:

          Yup, 20+ supplements for every list. Because, if I'm playing Tau + Farsight with an FSC formation, obviously you'll need to consult the Clan Raukaan supplement, Codex: Adeptus Sororitas, and Bel'akor's data slate.

          • Orthon says:

            Obviously not for each list, but you can already have 4 armies in a list. This will simply expand in the coming year. As a TO you would have to be on top of all the supplements/crap though, which is a just a nightmare. As a player would also want to be aware of all these rules.

            I am sorry but all of your posts have been pretty terrible. Seriously, guy?

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            I haven't spent a dime on a GW core book or supplement in over a year and I'm pretty on top of what every single thing you just mentioned brings to the table. Just by reading blogs like this one. I also never pirate, although I did take an extended gander at the Elder ARmy List pages that were leaked.

            Seriously, the vast majority of "new" from each supplement is fluff. For the most part, its the same units you've seen before, with slightly different ways to field them. OH THE HUGEMANITIES!

          • _Garnet_ says:

            "To check each submitted list you will have to consult 20+ supplements."

            "Obviously not for each list, but […]"

            I'm not the one contradicting himself within two posts, friend.

          • blacksly says:

            Clearly he meant that you would have to consult 20+ supplements, overall, in order to check each submitted list (although each list won't individually require 20 supplements). It's pretty clear when read that way.

    • Nurglitch says:

      I like these suggestions better.

    • _Garnet_ says:

      "Just ban… just ban… just ban… just ban… whoa, whoa, comping flyers? That's outrageous! You can't just change the meta like that, it's already perfectly balanced, just let the players play! Anyway, just ban… just ban…."

      Seriously, guy?

    • I agree wholeheartedly here with Orthon. This WAS my suggestion! Go the route many other "Organized Play" systems go & stick with the meat & potatoes! Core Assumption! You MUST have the MAIN RULEBOOK as well as a MAIN CODEX to play. Everything else is where the problems arise the most!

    • Any says:

      Can't C: Inquisitor just be part of C;Sisters so i at least get a flyer. My book is crap and I'd just really like some more options like when i had a witch hunters codex

  30. GracianBCQ says:

    This is LONG past due. Bravo, Sir Biscuit. I've played in your Invitational for the last three years, and I was certain that the recent releases would push me out of the game. Put some serious thought into your restriction list, and I will most likely use it for tournaments I run.

  31. daboarder says:

    get lost, I'm out.

  32. daboarder says:

    Seriously, perhaps I'm knee jerking but what do you think chaos is going to do when you arbitrarily drop that 0-1 on their heldrake?

    Is it going to fix the codex? Hell know it will still get trashed consistently by almost any other book in the game.

    Escalation and stronghold I get, arbitrarily banning other things is part of the reason fantasy died hard.

    By all means re-introduce hard comp but don't go telling people they straight up can't play their own codex.

    • daboarder says:

      sigh, so many spelling errors.

    • Sethis_II says:

      Fantasy died hard because of the Magic Phase, Steadfast, and 1+ Armour Monstrous Cavalry.

      At least, that's what I hear from people who stopped playing it.

      • MidnightSun says:

        *shiver* Playing Fantasy is like playing a Chaos Daemon mirror match of the Scouring using Mysterious Objectives, Mysterious Terrain, Archeotech and Warzone Traits. The main difference being that instead of just casting spells at each other while rolling dice to roll dice to determine dice rolls, you do the exact same thing while smacking giant blocks of Stubborn infantry into each other to make the game grind on for longer.

    • Herpguy says:

      CSM is already a horrible codex, and even with 3 (or 4) drakes it isn't even coming close to winning tournaments. The only problem I see is that the mere existence of 4 Heldrake lists completely disallows a bunch of other lists from existing.

  33. hitandrun40k says:

    So you claim GW havent done any playtesting, have you done playtesting for these proposed changes?.

    Restricting psykers and banning grimoire you have made daemons un playable in a tounry setting (bar dog rush).

    I can easily see it not being hard to write a very good list which when run by a very good player is not fun for people to play against once you have released the final requirements. Doing this will keep tau and eldar at the top, and will keep assault phase as just one where people JSJ.

    • Lord Krungharr says:

      I agree 100%. People are WAAAy to concerned about the stupid Screamerstar. It's not that great! I've used it several times and I much prefer my Dog-star (4 Jugger Heralds and 20 Hounds). That kills Screamerstars

    • "So you claim GW havent done any playtesting, have you done playtesting for these proposed changes?"

      Running a tournament and seeing the effects of dozens if not hundreds of battles doesn't qualify as playtesting to you?

      • Sokhar says:

        He wasn't arguing that the current meta couldn't use addressing, he's asking if they've tested their proposed changes. And given that the new supplements just came out, its probably a fair assumption that they've had minimal experimentation at best. Which is the same crime they accused GW of doing.

        • guest says:

          implementing changes in a theoretical setting in a studio with math crunching and estimation of effects vs points values is one thing, Seeing the effects of rules and the outcomes of battles over multiple years? thats another thing entirely, Both are experimental, but completely different in what information and impressions are created.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            Sure, and I promise you GW is 100% aware of all the free play testing that happens every day with their product. You don't go rolling around with a 125 million/year product and completely stick your head in the sand when there is that much free and readily available consumer feedback to be mined.

            That doesn't mean that always make the right decisions with that data, but anyone who thinks that GW isn't cognizant of this stuff is sadly wallowing in festering pit of their own asshurt.

          • Fulcrum says:

            They know about, they just don't care or look at it. The only thing that would make them take any kind of action is a drop in sales. Otherwise they see all of this that we are dealing with as pure profit as people scramble to constantly buy the latest & greatest.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            I think the vast majority of the 2000 people who work for the company and actually make the day to day decisions care a lot more about the final product, and how fun it is to play, then you think.

            Do you really think the design team gives two shits about the quarterly reports, other then hoping they are good enough so they can keep their job? And what keeps their job? Making plastic that people actually want to buy. Either because its a beautiful piece of plastic, or its a valuable contributor to the table top. Those are pretty much the two reasons people by plastic. I guarun-fucking-tee you that Matt Ward is sitting around in his office trying to figure out the next way one of his units is going to fuck you out of your money. He's trying to make units that are fun to play with, and good enough to include several of, so that you will play the game that pays his mortgage.

            Human beings don't magically turn into troglodytes just because you can't see them far, far away on the otherside of internetland.

          • Try $160mil but I digress…

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            DAMN YOU WIKI!!!!

  34. Discordian says:

    I will be looking forward to seeing what this creates.

    Please remember there is a difference between playing 3-4 of something and maybe two of something.

    Also please realize some people don't use allies. Blanket restrictions because of ally interactions can hinder pure lists that don't cheat the system to cover their weaknesses. While I too think some codexs weren't balanced to exist alongside others, for the most part each by itself is somewhat internally balanced.

  35. abusepuppy says:

    As much as I dislike Escalation and Str D, I think this is an overadjustment. Screamerstar is far from unbeatable- it fails psychic tests, fails Grimoire, goes second, etc, pretty often. It's very much a gimmicky list, even if that gimmick is fairly good.

    I agree with your rationales, but this is pretty much just making FoB a comp environment. If that's what you're going for, fair enough I suppose, but I've been against comp for a long time, as I don't think it really solves anything.

    • blacksly says:

      I would rather just fix the rules for D-class weapons: S10, AP1, either Ordnance or Armourbane, then something about saves… either Ignore Cover or Re-Roll Successful Saves.

      Neither Screamerstar nor Seer Council is such an overpowered list that it needs crippling. They just take advantage of the metagame where everyone brings just shooty units, so mediocre CC units that can actually survive the shooting seem to be dominant. Bring more real CC units to fight those two deathstars, and they get stopped. And it adds a reason for CC units in tournament lists, too.

    • Karvala says:

      Screamerstar 2++ will fail at intervals because of the things you list. The issue with it is that you are pretty much left with waiting for your opponent to get a bad roll before you can do anything to it. A 'strategy' of 'wait for him to roll badly' is not a recipe for a good tournament game.

      Banning it is not a good solution though. Make the grimoire work off the native 5++ save, not any others. The rerollable 2++ only occurs if you get a 4 on the warpstorm table. The rest of the time they are failing 4/18 saves instead of 1/36 – still tough, but not ridiculous.

      • mr.darkness says:

        I definitely agree with AP here. The only real complaint about any of the new stuff is D- weapons. All the rest of it ( new terrain, non SD superheavies, dataslates ) aren;t really any more of a problem than allies were, or any new codex is that has some 'OP' stuff.
        Therefore the only thing you need to fix is D weapons, and there seems to be a couple of different ways to do it.

      • Herpguy says:

        So would you twiddle your thumbs against a Screamerstar with everything up or would you actually work on wrecking the rest of the army that only has 5++ saves?

      • abusepuppy says:

        Well, you can shoot at and kill Fateweaver and the other stuff in their list in the meantime- I mean, that's part of the strategy. Screamerstar can still only shoot one unit per turn, so cut away the rest of their list, wait for them to be vulnerable, and then hit them with everything, same as any other deathstar.

        I can see changing the Grimoire to only work on the Daemon save being a reasonable thing to do, but I'm not really sure if it's needed or not- as many others have noted, the army is not exactly tearing up the top tables at tournaments, and I think that's indicative. Good armies minimize luck by including redundancy and multiple layers of strategies, because if you're leaning entirely on one trick, that trick will fail you sooner or later, and in a 4-6 round tournament, chances are you're going to bomb out at least once that way.

        • Tarrasq says:

          Sorry but you just don’t get it yet. People continually brining up “screamerstar doesn’t win tournaments” (anymore because it was for a bit there) are ignoring the point. The 2++ star is going to wane because the 40k tourney scene is about winning the metagame more than the actual game.

          If everyone is bandwagoning build A, and build B beats build A 9/10 times, you can expect build B to win the tourney. Congrats someone just won a tournament because they made one shrewd choice before, they played a game. That person didn’t actually prove they are a good player or a superior general, just they can do well when the odds are vastly in their favor.

          It’s like 40k tournaments have become about betting on ponies instead of actually being a part of the race. It’s all about picking the right horse not about your skills as a jockey.

          It seems like the feast crew has acknowledged this fact and are looking to address it. Don’t get caught up in the minutiae and just applaud the effort. If it ends up working like they hope it’s good for everyone.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            >>It's like 40k tournaments have become about betting on ponies instead of actually being a part of the race. It's all about picking the right horse not about your skills as a jockey.

            Yeah, but in reality, it's nothing like that. Screamerstar isn't struggling to collect Tournament wins because it keeps hitting its hard counter, its struggling to collect to tournament for the same reason that every other build in the entire game is struggling to collect tournament wins…there's just not that many tournament wins to go around.

            If you really think the list/codex dictates the game more then the player, its just a testament that you have a lot, and I mean A LOT, to learn about the game.

    • Shadar_Logoth says:

      AP and I will disagree with a lot of things, but I absolutely agree with you here. I like the Matt's intentions here, I really do, but killing the Grim effectively kills some of the best builds in an entire codex. I'm sorry, some of this sounds like players who play one way are sick of having to play people who play a different way and want to change the rules to favor their way of playing.

      • _Garnet_ says:

        You can even see that in Tarrasq's post, just above yours. That guy isn't even worried about actually facing a screamerstar, he just hates the fact that he might have to build a list with the tools necessary to deal with it and then fight other people with the tools to deal with it.

  36. TheDuke says:

    Proof 6th sucks.

  37. Lord Krungharr says:

    Many of these new rule supplements are too new to make these rash decisions. Nobody's had a chance to test anything yet.

    Why not ban the Powerfield Generator between 4 Land Raiders? Or the Banner of Devastation between 30 or 40 bikes? Or Tesseract Labyrinths? Or Jaws of the World Wolf? Aren't all of those huge potentials for 'abuse'?

    By the suggestions above, that means Chaos Marines can't ally with Black Legion? WTF?! That's just stupid.
    Belakor because he's from a Dataslate would take up an entire Allied Detachment by himself? With no other FOC units in the detachment as required by Allied Detachment rules? That's really stupid!

    If you want to write your own rulebook, make your own damn models. I may have considered going to FOB next year, as I expect to have more money to attend. But if such restrictions are put in place there's no way in hell I'd go. Challenge and adaptation are fun.

    If you want to have separate composition-themed event go ahead, but there should always be a true rules event; and then for the super gamers a no-holds-barred Gladiator style event, which is exactly what Escalation and Stronghold are for.

  38. Rob says:

    Wow why is Escalation causing THIS much of an issue? Just ban the Lord of War section, is it really that difficult?

  39. Nick says:

    I think you have taken the right approach here. Super heavies, forge world, fortification upgrades, formations and data slates have all added a whole bunch of variety to the game, while also creating some massive problems. You seem to be limiting the problems while allowing as much variety as possible.

    I hate it when people say things like "ban forgeworld" when really it only needs one or two units banned.

    • Karvala says:

      But getting any sort of agreement on which specific units need banning is a LOT harder. For a TO it is easier to keep it simple and causes less griping from players.

  40. azatoth says:

    The only fair way to have a tournament is if all players play exactly the same army, on tables with mirrored terrain. Any other type of tournament is basically unfair.
    GW has stated again and again that they are not caring about tournament play, and their limited playtesting was evident in the number of simple questions rising after each publications. Question that would pop up, and be discovered if any kind of serious playtesting had taken place in the first place.

  41. SaintBeerrun says:

    I'm intrigued about the deeper thought process here, but willing to accept that (as far as I can tell based on the contents of your post) that it's still in a First Draft kind of state. However, at the same time, I trust that before it gets to Tournament Final state you lads at FoB will do the proper playtesting.

    I look forward to seeing what kind of data you guys come up with (either through more posts because MAN, I LOVE ME SOME DATAS, or the posted final list of official rulings for FoB – which I hope you aren't thinking of getting away without some context! …Not that I have any pull to ask, but all the same). Luck on it, mates.

    • sirbiscuit says:

      I'll do my best. I don't particularly enjoy making rulings without context and explanation.

      • SaintBeerrun says:

        Cheers, then. o7 It's vastly appreciated. Once again, I wish you lads the best of luck in getting this nailed down in a fair and equitable manner – not an easy task by a long shot.

  42. Shovi says:

    I like how people are thinking about rebalancing the game. And I like how a variety of listbuilds are encouraged. However, I do not understand how allying with your own Codex or Supplement is cherry picking and allying with other Codices is not. As the seer council shows, battlebroter combos can be at least as powerful as any combination of supplement and codex. Can somone explain this to me? I think too that degrading battlebrothers to allies of convenience would make the most sense.

    • Jidmah says:

      I think they want to encourage people to actually play a Black Legion, Farsight or Clan Raukaan army, instead of most people using supplements to just ally in either supplement's best units or to just get more things from their original codex by increasing their FOC size by one.

  43. Jason says:

    I am glad you guys are taking a stand this is what the game needs. I would just ban dstr outright to be honest. Cover is already too ignored. Any way I applaud this step and am totally behind you guys.

  44. TheIronSnake says:

    "With the recent release of Stronghold Assault and Escalation, 40k is, to put it bluntly, no longer suitable as a tournament game."

    It never was in the first place, no way, no how, never. The player communities wanted it to be, but it just isn't.

    • Shadar_Logoth says:

      20 years of thousands of people coming together and playing the game in a tournament setting disagree with you here.

      It will always be a tournament capable game. Always. Certain people might not like the parameters of a particular event or system, but don't confuse your personal bias and subjective opinion for objective and established fact.

      • clever handle says:

        and a significant portion of those players coming together spend more time bitching about how unsuitable the rule set is for competitive play than they do actually playing the game….

  45. "The Grimoire of True Names from Codex: Daemons is banned"

    Uhh…. WHAT?! I can understand the Grimoire on Forewarning while on top of Tzeentch Daemons being banned but the Grimoire itself? WHAT?! It's pretty much the only form of defense that can only be used on one unit at a time. A 3+ Invul makes the unit as tough as a Space Marine against small arms fire but that won't matter much thanks to the torrent of fire coming out of everyone these days. Why ban the Grimoire? Why not ban the stack of the Grimoire on top of Forewarning instead of the wargear itself that actually make Daemons actually viable?

  46. Creezy says:

    Banning Grimoire is definitely the wrong decision and highly questionable. Most likely a subjective decision.

    Expansions, Dataslates, Formations etc should be assessed, but the original codices should be left alone.

  47. Arrethasotmail.fr says:

    Using grimoire disable your 1" reroll
    Giving daemons a strong 2++ (usually on 2 wounds+ units) without being game breaking?

  48. Creezy says:

    "The Grimoire of True Names from Codex: Daemons is banned"
    Total nonsense. Very subjective decision.
    On the other hand they allow the new Tau formation. Now that's something going too far (even if it used a slot).
    Expansions like Escalation and Stronghold assault should be carefully assessed, not the original codices, people.

  49. AJH says:

    Ban allies as well. That would cut down on a lot more of the stupid combinations available.

    • Sethis_II says:

      Banning allies entirely is a gross over-reaction in response to a handful of stupid lists, and would kill variety in list building for this tournament.

      Allies need looking at, but not banned entirely.

      • MidnightSun says:

        I would suggest that rather than look at the Allies mechanics, the only real change needed is the Allies chart and who has which level of alliance. Battle Brothers should be reserved for factions that get on really, really well (Inquisition should be Battle Brothers with nobody; nobody is the Inquisition's best friend, for the Emperor's sake, not even the Inquisitors); however, this cuts Battle Brothers down to Imperials-only. Change what Battle-Brothers entails, and change the ally chart, and I'd say it's ok.

    • abusepuppy says:

      Actually, banning allies would get rid of a lot of stupid stuff, but I don't think it goes far enough- as the Daemons and CSM books show, there's lots of combos that are broken within a codex. So I would suggest banning allies, but also banning parent codices and Inquisitorial detachments as well. (Formations would be in, but they would take your ally slot as normal, which would be banned.)

      • Warbossluke says:

        Lol!
        Dr Puppy, ‘In order to save the patient, we’re going to have to kill the patient first’

      • Shadar_Logoth says:

        >>there's lots of combos that are broken within a codex

        I don't know how you can say that. Incredibly high strength, low AP, large blasts that ignore cover are one of the most frustrating combination in the game to deal with. I don't think there is a single combination in Demons and CSM that come close to how effective that is. That being said, I don't consider it "broken." Its relatively expensive, and relies a minimum of two units to pull off.

    • Tim B says:

      Yep. Ban allies ( unless you're going to fix them to reflect the 40k history). As is, the allies page is just a means to sell more models and makes NO sense.

  50. Ouroboros says:

    I assume from the phrasing, the Grimoire of True Names from Codex Inquisition will be allowed?

    (Does different stuff completely, even though it's the same book fluffwise)

  51. Durgen says:

    What's wrong with allies? I hate that people are so against them. You want to fix them? Move all allies down one step (IE: No one is battle brothers). Problem solved. You can ally with yourself (if you normally could), but you are effectively Allies of Convenience for balance. Fixed. No more grimoire on Helldrakes, no more Seer Council Baron tanking, no more O'vesa-Star. It's a simple way to address it without going crazy.

    Always start with small changes and tweaks until you get where you want to be. Never go all out on Banhammers and alterations, hoping that it will fix a game that isn't that broken.

    -Limit fliers (no more than 3? Transport or not)
    -Limit Allies (Addressed above. No more Battle Brothers)
    -Change a few mission rules. Add in some secondary missions, and stress that you can't win by killing your opponent's entire side. Only troops can deny or claim objects. Str D may be nice, but bringing something too powerful just means you can't actually WIN the game.

    • mr.darkness says:

      I think a better way is to make everyone allies of convenience. That encourages the most list variation, whilst stopping any stupid combos.

      Oh, and if anyone says that is not fluffy, I challenge you to come up with any combination of two armies that I cannot think of a fluff explanation for ( I'm not even that knowledgeable on the fluff ).

      • Tedwardius says:

        Tyranids and anyone comes to mind. Daemons and Grey Knights. If you want to get specific within codices any of the old heresy rivalries like Smurfs/Word Bearers or Iron Hands/Emperor's Children. Uh… Necrons and Chaos anything. Craftworld Eldar and a Slaanesh Daemon list.

        Take your pick, I'm interested to hear what you've got

        • _Garnet_ says:

          You don't even need to get into the specific rivalries; Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines, period. Sororitas and CSM/Daemons. Eldar and Necrons.

          • Tedwardius says:

            Truth

          • Mr.darkness says:

            The fact that the 40k universe is meant to be so massive makes all of the combinations relatively easy, especially when you already have guidelines for ones like necrons and BA.

            Tyranids and anyone – gene stealer cults
            Gk and daemons – Inquisitors from the gk codes use daemons ( in the form of daemon hosts)cso why can't they bind a larger group of daemons, only to destroy or banish them later
            Necrons and chaos – necrons are known for being logical, so if the greatest chance of success comes with allying to chaos then I'm sure they'll do it. Also the amount of different crazy chaos cults out there makes it feasible that one of them ( maybe some sort of dark mechanicumFirst group ?) idolizes, worships, or is just happy to work with necrons.
            Slaanesh and eldar is a difficult one, but again, it's chaos. The eldar might not realize it is slaanesh, or maybe the far seers have seen that a temporary alliance will save them from a far greater threat (eldar have gone great lengths to avoid belong destroyed before ).
            Space marines and chaos space marines. Chaos space marine book represents renegades amongst other things, and I not all of those are totally anti emperor ( the BA one comes to mind, lesh testers?). And again, chaos is fickle. A cult might be fighting to obtain daemon tech that the loyalists don't know about, or actually covering up a ritual by pretending they are on the same side ( in order to get more blood for the blood god or something ).
            Sororitas and chaos – don't know much of the sisters, but greater threat comes to mind. E.g. Tyranids are descending, oh look the daemons have stopped fighting us, let's team up until they have killed al the bug things.
            Eldar and necrons – eldar group that realize they need to join the necrons to survive, necron overlord with a malfunction ( which basically all of them have in the new codes for some reason ), so he cannot recognize eldar, or thinks they are something else, or doesn't realize that he should be killing them, etc…

            And even as I finish up, slaves comes to mind for most of them. Tyrarinds controlling any race with brainleesh worms or psychic powers, same for daemons possessing most armies, and chaos cults enslaving groups of anything.

            Sorry for the poor spacing, typing on the iPad.

          • _Garnet_ says:

            That's not how genestealer cults have ever been shown to work. The genestealer cult lists were about shitty hybridized half-humans being brainwashed into stealing some generic PDF vehicles and making a mess before the Hive Fleet arrived; it certainly did not involve Space Marines operating at their standard efficiency, equipped with their chapter's best gear, functioning as an appendage of the Hive Fleet in combat during the invasion itself.

            Likewise, given that all Craftworld Eldar have a rule called Ancient Doom that gives them Hatred of Slaaneshi daemons, the fluff for which states baldly that Eldar "fear and loathe She Who Thirsts above all else", I'm going to call some pretty serious shenanigans on the idea that there might ever, ever be any threat big enough to make them even stop killing Slaaneshi daemons, nevermind actively work with them.

            And given that Sororitas are religious zealots who revere the God-Emperor above all others and view even upstanding Imperial citizens with suspicion if they don't genuflect hard enough, again, there is no threat big enough to make them work alongside traitors, heretics and daemons, the ultimate enemies of their god.

            A lot of your other examples fall apart almost instantly if the books take anything they're actually known for, because it immediately gives away the ruse you've constructed to explain why they'd be capable of fighting together. Sure, you could use Codex: Chaos Space Marines to represent recent renegades who might fool loyalist Marines… if you didn't take any Obliterators, Spawn, Possessed, Plague Marines, Berzerkers, Rubric Marines, Noise Marines, Forge Fiends, Mauler Fiends, Heldrakes, Defilers, Daemon Princes, marks, icons, possessed vehicles, Dark Apostles or Warpsmiths, and if the loyalist army immediately turned on the 'renegades' the very first time any character model rolled on the Boon of Mutations chart.

          • mr.darkness says:

            Tyranids – I had no idea about Genestealer cults, but another option is the 'nids controlling them through psychic powers or some sort of organism.

            So are you saying that the a group of eldar ( maybe volunteers from the warrior temples )wouldn't ally with slaanesh to stop him taking the souls of a whole craftworld? Maybe slaanesh needs them to combat the growing power of another god, and farseers have seen that it could help them in the long run, or allow them at least some respite. Or again, maybe the eldar don't realise that it is slaanesh. And another option is that they a re a craftworld of 'fallen' eldar, which want to give their souls to slaanesh, or think it is a lost cause.

            Blood angels allied with necrons, so why can't sisters ally with chaos in the face of a greater threat. Maybe by allying with one chaos cult, they can defeat a larger cult( which the smaller one also wants to stop ).

            And with the chaos, maybe the renegades do have all the evil tech, but if they are fighting on the same side ( because not all are anti emperor/imperium ) then the space marines aren't going to stop them. And other explanations such as fighting a greater threat, or looking for something, or maybe psychic control ( Chaos appears to have more powerful psykers than their loyalist counterparts ).

            You seem to have found certain flaws for some explanations, but I have still given lots of other reasons for possible alliances.

            TBH, greater threat ( because there is almost always a greater possible threat ) and enslavement through one means or other basically covers most if not all of the options.

        • daboarder says:

          stealer cult

  52. Delhas says:

    Not wanting to sound to offensive but all I see the doing is going around in a loop. First this is banned because I don’t like it, but then I will ban this because it is know to powerful. Sure the game is made to be played with people using the army’s they want to but if you want a completely balanced tornement why don’t you just right an army list for each army and you can only bring that to the tornement least it would be balanced in your opinion.

    Now I will be the first one to admit I have not played with the D weapon rules and they could be OP. But not every thing you fine OP I do. And visa versa.

  53. Jason says:

    This is a step in the right direction. The game is not balanced for tournament play. The calls that they made may not be the best in some cases but time will tell. The important thing is they are taking steps to balance. and this looks like a first attempt. Honestly I think this whole thing is extremely positive.

    In a narrative environment players can talk about what they are going to take and plan for it or even play an imbalanced game for the fun of it. In a competitive environment you want to pit player skill vs player skill. Not Broken rule and exploit vs Broken rule and exploit. This is trying to take out the most egregious offenders while leaving the game rules relatively intact.

    As a player that likes tournaments but of late has just walked away in frustration, this is a extremely welcome change.

  54. Dakkamite says:

    Bravo for having the balls to actually *ban* something. The fuckin grimoir no less.

    I don't know if removing D is enough to balance the superheavies. For example, I can take a Stompa with built in 5+ cover, and 10x 4+ repair rolls to regain HP each turn. It can take 20 Lascannon shots a turn, and is perfectly legal under your comp.

    Then again, at 1100+ points and being vulnerable to melta spam, its still a hell of a lot better than the Rev or 2++ reroll garbage

    Good luck with your comp, its definitely the right direction and banning the grimoir really shows you have the balls to see it through.

    • Alastores says:

      That stompa doesn't near-automatically obliterate multiple units a turn, no ifs, no buts.

      • Jidmah says:

        A kustom stompa could take two lifta-droppa arms for two one-shot 10" S:D blasts 😉

        A klawstompa near-automatically obliterates any unit it charges, even if its attacks are toned down to S10.

  55. hitandrun40k says:

    player tabletop skill than listbuilding skill

    IF you really want that, and by mentioning Chess, then just make everyone take the same army, bingo, you got what you wanted 😉

    • Nurglitch says:

      Actually, I think this is solution that people should run with if they want to play 40k competitively.

    • WestRider says:

      You totally didn't read the actual article about Chess that he linked. The whole point was that Chess is boring and stagnant, and the article was primarily about a guy who remodeled the rules of Chess to include asymmetrical forces

  56. Woody119 says:

    The Grimoire of True Names from Codex: Daemons. – change to best save of 3++. and remove the roll required.
    Strength D weapons. Only issue I have with this is the chaos LoW D weapon is melee. So changing it to strength 10 on a walker which is already s10 is a waste of a LoW. There are so many 2++ out there, you need balance.

    I liked the idea of all strength D weapons are a 3″ blast only.

    • Coyote81 says:

      How many 2++ are there? (I can only think of one other 2++, Sevrin Loth, and his isn't rerollable) You do know that means invulnerable right? Everyone complains about the seerstar, but doesn't everyone know that they depend on a cover save for their 2+ hijinks. Bring cover save ignoring weapons that everyone has and take them down.

      • BaselessElm says:

        I cannot +1 this enough. The amount of people who still seem to equate cover saves to invulnerable saves is staggering, considering that Tau and Eldar ignore them so easily. The only other 2++ out there is the Baron standing out the front of a Seerstar, which isn't even that hard to snipe around with Focus Fire or LoS blocking.

        • Brendan Gallagher says:

          Here is the issue though

          Seer Council often has 2+ re-rollable Cover and armor…tell me how many armies have Ap2 ignores cover shots?

          So we have Tau
          Anyone who might roll it on diviniation and have one squad loaded down with AP 2 weapons….

          and?

          Nothing else?

          Then they have the Barron for 2++ re-roll just in case..and a 4++ re-roll on everyone else. Lets not pretend that for most cases against most armies they might as well have a 2++ save.

          • abusepuppy says:

            Keep in mind, however, that the Eldar player has to pas THREE psychic tests to get that effect, and two of them are likely on Ld8. And that cover saves don't do a dang thing in close combat, where that unit is actually kind of mediocre- sure, it can HnR out of a fight… assuming it survives. Because it certainly isn't immune to being Swept, so it really doesn't take many bad rolls for things to go downhill- especially since it doesn't hit all that hard considering how many points it costs.

            2+/4++ rerollable is nothing like a 2++ rerollable. One of them can be punched through with the right application of effort, the other essentially cannot.

          • Sokhar says:

            One character with Shard makes it immune to being swept, does it not?

          • Brendan Gallagher says:

            more or less, unless you get terrify past their defense. or embolden on a warlock…

            And it is not bad in combat since it is flesh bane, with a bumch of attacks, and has a 2+ armor saves, how many units that can beat it in combat can also catch it. Furthermore in combat Baron Can tank wounds/challange out special weapons….

            2+ armor/2+ cover/2++ character/4++ invul on everyone with re-rolls is a lot like 2++ re-roll especially when it has hit and run….a multitude of psychic powers to mess with your enemy. (So if I lower your armor save, or WS and I, reduce your strength, cast misfortune….in some combination, and I am re-rolling hits and or wounds, etc how often am I really losing combat?)

            and sure I need to get off 3 Psychic tests just like a Daemon player needs to get off a psychic check and the Grimoir…. and 2 key pieces to my combo don't get buffed…so can die.

            Seer Council in general is far more powerful than screamerstar in reality.

          • blacksly says:

            That's not quite accurate. More like "against most TOURNAMENT armies", because in Tournaments, shooting is king. But a lot of armies have access to a lot of AP2 weapons that ignore cover by virtue of being melee weapons, and a lot of the units that bring these AP2 weapons will beat Seer Council well enough that you don't need to overload on them. And they do provide a counter against other units that may come and threaten your shooty units and are hard to shoot down, such as Hound Rush or FMCs.

            Termies of all types, Mega-nobz, Assault Centurions, heck, even Oblits and Defilers can fight Seer Council well enough in Assault, since they have AP2 attacks spread out everywhere. An IG blob with Power Axes will also beat it.

            Since these units are a lot cheaper than the Seer Council, they don't need to chase all over the map… just use them as blockers between the Council and your shooty units, and the Council either has to come to you, or else the Eldar fire support trades against your fire support (but your units are usually hundreds of points cheaper than the Council, so that should be in your advantage).

            Now, these kind of lists may struggle against pure shooty lists because the units that beat Seer Council in CC are usually 6" move (except for Maulerfiends and Fiends of Slaanesh), so they are out of the fight for a while. But this is more of a case of rock/paper/scissors rather than of the Seer Council being overpowered.

  57. inquisitor dunn says:

    You have lost my support for your event.

  58. Albert says:

    We should just revert to 5th Ed.
    Add in hull points and perhaps the 6th Ed wound assignment mechanic. Profit.

    • AJH says:

      Just roll it back to 4th edition and have a rule set that actually worked without some of the stupid lists that cropped up in 5th. Even the 4th edition overpowered lists were weaker than the 5th and 6th ones.

      • abusepuppy says:

        >Just roll it back to 4th edition and have a rule set that actually worked

        You didn't really ever play competitive 4th, did you? First-turn assaults were right in the rulebook.

        • _Garnet_ says:

          I know I, as a Tau player, long for the days when my opponents could consolidate out of one combat and into another. Nothing was more fun than watching a unit of Assault Marines just conga line through my army while I could do nothing to stop them! Good times, good times.

          • abusepuppy says:

            Losing automatically with literally no chance to ever shoot at the opposing army is called "balance." Maybe you should learn something about it, _n00b_.

          • _Garnet_ says:

            Oh, even better; unit of old Vanguard Vets drop in, immediately assault without any way to shoot at them; kill a Tau unit, consolidate into another combat; lather, rinse, repeat.

            Fun!

      • artemi7 says:

        How about we just roll all the way back to 2Ed? Then you don't even HAVE to worry about Tau or Necrons!

        • Sethis_II says:

          Just Vortex grenades and Web guns (oh, how much fun were they??).

          • abusepuppy says:

            Don't forget Pulsa Rokkits and Virus Bombs! Sometimes your whole army dies before the game starts.

          • Shadar_Logoth says:

            No shit? What were the mechanics behind those?

          • Mattgawl says:

            I don't know about Pulsa Rokkits, but virus grenades killed any unit that wasn't protected from the environment on a 4+, in addition any unit that was killed by the virus randomly spread the virus D6" in all directions. This usually resulted in a chain that would wipe out a good 50% of an army that had no protection, like orks. Units that were protected from the environment were vehicle crews(unless open-topped) and units in power armor. It cost something like 50 or 75 pts and was available to pretty much everybody.

          • abusepuppy says:

            Matt gets the Virus bomb pretty spot-on; it should be noted, however, that some armies (like Space Marines) were just immune as long as the model had a helmet on, whereas others (like Orks) had to buy a specific wargear item- and not a cheap one, either- to get immunity for a single squad. So yeah, it was tremendously unfair and unfun.

            The Pulsa Rokkit was a blast weapon with a 2d6" radius (which actually wasn't that unheard of back then, but even still…) that essentially paralyzed every unit underneath the template in addition to doing quite a bit of damage. It spewed out shots continuously from the "center" until… you rolled doubles? Something like that. Basically, it kept shooting until you hit its fail condition, and sometimes that just wouldn't happen before most or all of your models were dead.

  59. korskarnkai says:

    I think if you restrict allies to a standard FOC you solve a lot of the issues with the game.

    ie, you take your normal 1 HQ 2 TR. If you want allies they have to fit in with the normal 2 HQ 6 troops, 3 elite, fast attack & heavy support.

    It also means no go for 4 riptide/drake lists, taudar loses a lot of its strength and codex inq isn't banned (banning stuff outright is lame), but since you can only have 2 HQ they will take your ally slot.

  60. Roland Durendal says:

    Honestly, I think the tourney scene needs to have 1 tourney with all this craziness from GW allowed just to show the world how out of control they’ve gotten. Before we go through and begin making adjustments to restore a semblance of balance. As this thread alone has showed, the tourney community itself is split between people for re-balancing and those against it. Have one tournament of no-holds barred everything is allowed per GWs own rules so naysayers across the board can see how broken the system is.

    And to prove my own personal point, with FW now legal, my IA3 Elysians are now legal and so is my 6 flier plus shadowsword and void shield generators army list at 1850. Ridiculous? Yes. Possibly game breaking? Yes. Fun to play (both with and against)? Meh.

    • Atrotos says:

      No one is afraid of 6 valkyries sir. Even if 3 of them come on turn 1

      • Roland Durendal says:

        It’s more like 3 Vendettas and 3 Valkeryies. But apparently people are afraid of them otherwise there wouldn’t be talk of limiting fliers. A list such as the one I jokingly made comprised of a shadowsword, void shield generator, 3 vendettas and 3 Valkyries would prove especially difficult for most lists to face. Few armies have that much AA to bring to bear and whatever’s shooting the fliers isn’t shooting the d-weapon pie plate dropping super heavy.

        Not saying it’s an awesome list…it was made to point out a possibility of ridiculousness the new 40k is getting to

        • I Play Elysian says:

          Then you do not run Elysian do you? NO vendettas on turn one…don't you know that? Only 1/2 of Valkyries, Valkyrie Sky Talons, sentry gun batteries or drop Sentinels… If you are running Elysian you also get NO Shadowsword since only the primary may take a SH….and if you take IG as primary them no combat drop….

          • Roland Durendal says:

            I do play them and I never said the vendettas would come turn 1. I was telling Atropos that there’s more to the list then just valks. But as far as I see with regard to escalation, the elysians as the primary force CAN use a shadowsword as a LoW. Pretty sure there are no army list restrictions to who can use a LoW…cuz you know IA3 is now 40k legal and can be used as a primary detachment and in normal games of 40k w/on opponents permission

            Ps been running elysians since 04 and the original IA3

          • I Play Elysian says:

            Same here, damn we may be the only two Elysian players here…. I surrender, we need to gang up on the rest…

    • IndigoJack says:

      They do have such an event. The adepticon 40k gladiator has featured super heavies and strength D for years

      • Roland Durendal says:

        True the gladiators has existed but my point was to have a major tournament like Feast or NOVA do it and not have it as some side mini tourney within a tourney like the gladiator is.

    • Fulcrum says:

      I think you are right. It wouldn't be a bad thing to have a no holds barred event for the people who want it.

  61. CaptGrizz says:

    While I hate escalation and feel there does need to be a way to deal with it, I hate comp even more.

  62. Barry says:

    1. Battle Brothers are limited to Allies of Convenience.
    2. 0-2 Flyers per army.
    3. Stronghold cannot be used.
    4. Escalation cannot be used.
    5. Data slates and Codex Inquisition cannot be used.

    Simple.

    I have never used Daemons but have faced plenty and the Grimoire lists are fine by me as they need to be very lucky for it to work through more than a Turn or two.

    • Barry says:

      Sorry

      6. Supplemental Codices cannot Ally with their base Codex.

      Much as I like my Tau being able to Ally Tau with Tau is very Overpowered/Boring

    • AllTheRules says:

      You either play by all the rules or you are playing something kinda like 40K but not. Most folks are fine with the new stuff, only those who do the WAAC at tournaments are whining…

      No the TO's have a choice to make… Cave to the "Top" tournament players who go there to WAAC or the bulk of the folks who show up to have a good time… I can have a great time putting a D on a star….

      I wonder which will keep the TO's in business. I bet they are wondering too…

      • Sethis_II says:

        "Most folks are fine with the new stuff, only those who do the WAAC at tournaments are whining…"

        Really? Do you have any actual evidence for that? Because asking around my local GW store the last few days has told me that no-one wants to play against a Revenant Titan, at all.

        Maybe it's because "Forging a narrative" is hard to do when 50% of your army is removed with no saves of any kind allowed on turn 1. Who knows?

    • Fulcrum says:

      Did those daemon lists include fateweaver to reroll the grimoire any time it failed?

      • Barry says:

        Yes, so I moved my important stuff away and shot/assaulted whatever else I could. Moved Dark Eldar vehicles towards him thus reducing his leadership leading to failed psychic tests then used things like Focus Fire, Characters rolling 6 To Hit and Ordanance Blasts from my Night Spinner to get rid of him.

  63. Rob says:

    I like this. People calling foul are those power gamers that are only interested in winning at all costs who are no fun to play so no lose there.

    • abusepuppy says:

      Agreed. Anyone who tries to win a game is the worst sort of person and should be roasted alive on hot coals for all to see.

      • IndigoJack says:

        Also, winners have no friends.

      • Shadar_Logoth says:

        AP, we should start a "your opponent picks your army" tournament. Where everyone brings the shittiest army they can legally put together, and then at each bracket, you exchange your army with your opponent.

        Now, you still try to win with the heaping pile of dog shit they give you, but it would certainly nip all of this WAAC playing in the bud.

        Actually, while not practical with having to buy and paint a heaping pile of shit, this sounds like it would be fun to do on Vassal.

        • abusepuppy says:

          Actually, I totally have considered that before! In MtG it's sometimes known as a "backdraft" format- sadly, in 40K there is the concern of handing all your models over to another manchild and hoping he is as careful with them as you are.

          But yes, it's a very amusing concept. However, it requires at least a little bit of caution, as some armies are unreasonably good at it. (Tau, for example, can make a list with zero guns and no melee to speak of, GK can field an army with only ~8 models in 1500pts, most of them unarmed, etc, etc.)

  64. Kevin says:

    Would it not be simpler to set the points limit at 1500 and have singleton lists or 0-1 in every slot but troop or heavy.

  65. Brendan Gallagher says:

    I think this is far too anti Daemon.

    What are the top 2 Daemon Builds

    1.)FMC spam
    2.) Screamer star

    What does this comp do…kills both…

    Does nothing to address Tau Buff commander shenanigans
    Does nothing to address Serpent Spam

    So Tau and Eldar win your event congrats

    Plenty of better ways to fix things that are "broken"

    Grimoir – Only effects Daemons natural invul. Or FAQ that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus trumps the buff by the grimoir.

    Done No more 2++ screamer star (or anything other than Fateweaver, and Be'lakor) depending on how you rule.

    Psyker level thing…don't bother…you want to fix seer council just errata fortune to be "Ignores a failed save on a 4+" done no longer uber powerful. Or you could errata the +1 Armor save power to 2 warp charges…also done.

    • Arrethas says:

      +1 armor save power is 1 warp charge for a reason… Warlocks are lvl 1 psykers -.-

      • Brendan Gallagher says:

        Exactly, if it was 2 WC they could not use it, end of seer council as only Spirit Seers could cast said power….

        • Sethis_II says:

          2+ Armour Saves on Jetbikes isn't the problem.

          • blacksly says:

            My Heldrake called and complained about it, so it's clearly a problem for it.
            Granted, it's a bit whiny at times for such an overpowered unit, but I have to put up with it since it's propping up the entire rest of the whole Codex.

  66. Brendan Gallagher says:

    YOu say in the comments that they psychic levels thing will have an exceptions list…now your rules become super complicated….

    Essentially unless your 0-1 restricitons are over the top (things like Every Tau unit, Wave Serpents etc.) which would be bad…your system above says…eldar and Tau win…which they already do.

  67. craig88 says:

    I'm not sure I agree with no allying of supplemental codices. It seems like a blanket rule that will stuff over some perfectly valid combos. Fair enough if you are using it to create an abusive 5 Riptide combo list or 4 Drakes then yes its a useful rule but this problem can be solved with a 0-2 units per army rule, no needs to ban supplemental codex BB. For example Farsight and Tau codex have a wealth of other options that aren't OP or abusive but provide interesting and unique lists. Same with Marines and Eldar.

    I also think the 0-1 ban is a bit much as I assume the likes of Drakes, Riptides and Wraith Knights will be prime targets. MC armies are a thing and shouldn't be eliminated completely, managed yes, but not eliminated. A 0-2 option I feel would limit abuse and still allow enough variation to create viable and morally legit such armies. Just my 2 Pence.

  68. Valek says:

    You want to neuter Grimoire, easy, do not let Fateweaver reroll it. case closed.

    • Fulcrum says:

      This would be great, also I wouldn't mind not allowing him to reroll warpstorm. That 11 is a pain.

      • abusepuppy says:

        But… his warlord trait is to reroll Warpstorm. Half the results on that table are bad for the Daemon player anyways- if possible, I absolutely would want to play without it.

  69. Victor says:

    <<You want to neuter Grimoire, easy, do not let Fateweaver reroll it. case closed.>>

    I agree with Valek, but I don't think banning completly the Grimoire is a good idea. I would limit the maximum invulnerable you can get for any unit to 3++. Therefore, a unit with a 3++ (and no re-rollable 1s if you use the grimoire, of course) is hard to kill but not imposible.

    If you ban the grimoire you should also ban TH/SS spam for example, something like limiting the number of storm shields to a 50% of the models in a unit…

  70. Narse says:

    Why don't you guys just create your own governing body like the DCI. Have a computer programmer take a few hours and design a database for points. Have a council to make decisions, made up from people inside and outside your circle. Make a real go at this thing.

    • Guy holding a mirror says:

      Yeah, just to remember to take that 40K thing off. Whatever else you may be running, it will not be 40K

    • Kemev says:

      The DCI's not an independent organization; it's managed by Wizards.

      The Torrent of Fire guys are trying to make a similar thing for 40k, but it seems like so far they're more focused on event management/reporting; they're not actively writing tournament rules.

  71. Ghost of the Past says:

    Idea that came up in our gaming community: Drop allied units in to the main detachments force organisation chart. In otherwords, you would be using your main FOC:s troop, elite, fast, hwy and HQ choises to get allies. That would solve a lot of the abuse allies will let you have, including "four of a kind" via suplements, maxing powerfull hq choises and so on. Our 2 cents

    • Craig88 says:

      I think this is a great idea. Having to choose Allies and dataslate formations out of your own single main FOC I hink would help solve the problem of abuse.

  72. MidnightSun says:

    I’m guessing;

    0-1:

    Baleflamer

    Wraithknight

    Ion Accelerator

    0-2:

    Vendetta Gunship

    0-3:

    Night Scythe

    And many more that I’ve missed, I’m sure.

    No more than 3 Divination powers per army

    Escalation/Stronghold Assault are not standard 40k

    And some other stuff

  73. crashnalot says:

    I hope night scythe aren’t going to be limited just because hell drakes get abused… Also do nids get nerfed on psychic powers because eldar can abuse them? I like the attempt and don’t disagree with a lot of it. I just hope it doesn’t turn into a ‘I don’t like playing that, it’s hard to beat, so it’s gone’… If so, I hate wave serpents… Please limit them next

  74. Hellgore says:

    Another question: Why don't you just limit the armysize to 1500 or even less instead of banning stuff? Scaling is no problem anymore these days with all the additions we now get from GW. Smaller armies mean less possibillities to build powercombos and at the same time speed the game up significantly.

  75. boomerz says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWnied-Z4s4

    seems just as ridiculous as what you've proposed

  76. Gus says:

    If you are allowing Lords of War, why not allow Forge World?

  77. aidobmac says:

    Sigh, lets all give in to internet peer pressure everyone. how about this: the only allowed unit is space marine tactical squads and space marine captians. I'm a good tournament organizer now!

  78. Real player says:

    I can see the escalation and lords of war rule changes, its a new addition to the game that hasn't been tested to its full. But banning the grimoire is childish and stupid, that's 100% official codex and you have no right to ban that. These bans and changes are simply the brain child of wussies and people who have no competitive sportsmanship what so ever.

    • MadmanMSU says:

      Silly TOs, thinking they can make changes to their own tournaments! How dare they? Clearly the people who don't like playing against a re-rollable 2++ jetbikes that can assault you with AP1 weapons and vector strike things are just don't have good sportsmanship. I say we reduce ourselves to calling them wussies, which is much more sportsmanlike.

  79. Prometheus says:

    I applaud the fact that you are taking corrective steps. Obviously the problem with comp is that no one will agree 100% with all the changes you make, yet……soem of these I have trouble understanding.

    Grimoire clearly isn't the problem, 2+ rerollable is, just ban that. Nerf screamerstars AND seer councils and let the poor daemon players continue to grimoire their blood crushers, which are absolutely unusable otherwise.

    Likewise, Codexes allying with themselves isn't the problem, people taking 4 Riptides is. Which it sounds like you're already set to put a limitation on. Or limit people joining characters to riptides.

    I don't see any reason to allow dataslates at all. D weapons, as I saw someone else suggest, would be better to ignore invos than cover, there's already too much ignores cover around.

  80. Incarno says:

    It really doesn't surprise me that the most striking changes are designed to neuter Daemons, and yet Tau and Eldar remain untouched for the most part since you haven't specified which units you are making 0-1. Banning the Grimore isn't really fair, no more then banning Markerlights or Serpent Shield. If you are concerned about 2++ rerollable, then just cap the Grimore's benefit at 3++.

    • Fulcrum says:

      Don't you think judgement should be reserved until the complete restrictions are released then?

      • _Garnet_ says:

        If SirBiscuit is going to post a work-in-progress rule set, he's going to get criticism on a work-in-progress rule set. Expecting people to read something as inflammatory as "we're just straight up banning a very useful piece of Daemons wargear, and absolutely nothing else" and just wait patiently until the full, finished product is available is just unrealistic.

  81. Not angry yet says:

    Blanket Forge World ban? Even those with the Approved for 40K Stamp?

    One plays by the rules or one does not….

    I suggest a list come out based on this decision right quick with Forge world Approved for 40K in or out on the list, so I am my friends can make alternate plans if necessary.

    • Prometheus says:

      Whose rules? FW rules are not GW rules, no matter how many times FW says they are.

      And anyway, that's not true in any case, as most of us are now talking about cherry picking even main GW rules. It's just gotten too silly.

  82. Spacecurves says:

    Guys, Spacecurves/Ben Mohlie here. Very well written article, I agree 100% with the philosophy you are arguing for here. The time has indeed come for a "Tournament 40k" rules set, where we re-balance the game and make tournaments more fun by introducing some reasonable changes and restrictions.

    The exact rules changes and restrictions should be a matter of open debate and play testing, and I would have made a few different decisions than the initial list you have above, but those are just details. The basic idea is something most tournament players now agree with. Go for it.

    Lastly, I would urge you to speak closely with other major Tourny organizers and coordinate your efforts. The holy grail of tournament 40k for 2014 would be a common restrictions/rules changes list for all major events.

  83. clever handle says:

    >> more than evident that this game as written simply isn't designed for or appropriate for ANY sort of high-level competitive play.

    stopped reading there as there is nothing left to say. It is almost like (several years too late) the community is unwillingly accepting the bitter pill offered by our pusher – this game is not meant for high level competitive play. Will continue reading the remainder of the article throughout the day

    • clever handle says:

      >> You could define “the game” to be the larger thing that involves “picking a deck/character + playing it” but that's hardly an answer. It's just admitting that the part where you actually play is kind of sucky and unfair.

      I would suggest adding emphasis to this statement as well.

  84. boomerz says:

    Next years tourny;
    Type 2 format: Only the 4 most recent codices are legal for use.

  85. Gorsameth says:

    People need to realize there is always a Best. comp does pretty much nothing. Your just moving the goalposts to the next "chessy" thing you haven't banned yet.

    Banning Supplements from allying there main is something I can get behind. Banning escalation & stronghold assault i can get behind. There addons to 40k that needlessly disrupt balance and add moneyhammer but when you start re- writing codexes your crossing a big line. So you ban the screamer star, you get FMC circus, you can that you get doggy lines and then you ban that aswell?
    You can 3 riptides? 2? just remove it all together? its after all not fun right!
    Limiting psychic levels? is this fantasy? There is nothing even broken about psykers atm.

    Congratulations. Your no longer playing 40k your playing FoB warhammer, which has just as many "broken" builds but there only the onces you like to see on the table.
    In the end you have achieved nothing except decide to punish an arbitrary portion of the players of this game we all love.

    • Sethis_II says:

      There will always be a "best". That's true.

      However two things:

      1. There doesn't need to be such a huge gap between the "Best" and "Second Best"

      2. You can have a "best" choice that still is fun to play with and against. When the "best" choices are units that do not interact with 90% of the enemy army except to shoot them to pieces from the sky then the game becomes un-fun.

      • Gorsameth says:

        The Tyranid monster lists that were near immune to most weapons were "unfun"?
        The GK's who could do everything and out shot and out fought you in every phase were "unfun"?
        The Guard who shot you off the table in 2 turns were "unfun"?
        The old Daemon codex with its walls of Juggernaught who re-rolled all there saves were "unfun"?
        The necrons with there flyers, the orks with there unkillable nob bikers, the list gos on and on

        Its not like this is anything new. Or that it is worse then it was before.

        You say the gap is huge, I say Daemons/Tau/Eldar/SM(bikers)/Necrons are all still competetive and have little gap between them. And look thats most of the new codexes and even 1 oldish one. And its not like 4 good books able to compete with one another is any less then we have always had since 3e.

        I agree that supplements allying with main books is a bit silly, Escalation and Stronghold assault have no place in tournaments together with datasheets but dont pretend like the codex balance is at its worse.

        • Sethis_II says:

          Regarding all of the above lists – which of them required you to hit any of their models on a 6+ with your shooting attacks, and were completely immune to assault in any form?

          Oh, wait…

          That's what I mean when I say "Unfun". A game where you have no effect on anything except the movement phase, because you can't actually harm the enemy flyers at all, so you're reduced to doing this weird movement phase conga line thing to try to make one of the damn things crash.

          And I was using "Best" in tems of units within armies, not armies within the meta. I'm not saying the gap between Tau and Eldar is huge, I'm saying that the gap between Heldrakes and any other unit in the CSM codex is huge.

          • Gorsameth says:

            So lets ban Land Raiders cause you didnt remember to bring a melta gun. Lets ban the assault phase cause you didnt bring any combat troops yourself….

            So you have a problem with flyers. Lets see which armies dont have anything, anything at all against flyers. Hm… Space Wolves I guess. Orks maybe? tho Lootas have enough shots to still hit stuff. And thats before we factor allies into it.

            So the CSM codex had a giant glaring problem. Its bad with only a faq'ed helldrake saving the army. So instead we should "randomly" ban stuff from all codexes?
            Is this a new thing? Has there never been a codex before that was just plain bad. No.

            Your complaining about units that you know exist, you know people field and you have answers for. Its not the games problem if you dont bother with said answers.

            Over here in the Netherlands we limited fliers to max 3 when 6e came out because AA didnt exist for 90% of the armies. That limit has since been dropped because all the new armies now have answers.

            You didnt complain when someone brought a Land Raider when you didnt have melta, you dont complain when someone brings a flier or a screamerstar/seercouncil/riptide/wraithknight or whatever unit you can think of that you happen to not like.

            People will always try and make armylists that limit your ability to interact with them. Its called tactics and target saturation.

          • Sethis_II says:

            And what are your answers to Flyers with the exception of Tau?

            Oh wait, it's MORE FLYERS. Because adding more Flyers to the game balances Flyers, because then everyone can take Flyers to kill Flyers, and Flyers can shoot other Flyers but also shoot non-Flyers so Flyers are fine.

            *headbash*

            Because if you're not using Flyers to kill Flyers, you're using:

            A. A Quad Gun which is 0-1 and a T7 model with 2 Wounds which technically gets placed before terrain so can just have a Bastion plonked in front of it, or dies T1.

            B. Flakk Missiles, which are so overpriced as to be non-viable in addition to not having Interceptor and therefore getting toasted by the Flyers before being able to shoot.

            C. A unit with Skyfire that actually has good weapons capable of killing AV12. Which is, um… Tau. Because what the tournament scene needs is more Tau.

            With regards to your rhetoric about Land Raiders et al, see my prior post. NOTHING in the game ignores as much of the enemy army as Flyers do. It's not about liking or disliking a unit, it's about having variety in lists you play with and against, and not being auto-defeated before you even deploy because someone brought 8 Scythes and you have a Single Quad gun because hey, you brought Space Wolves.

          • blacksly says:

            Wait a bit. While Flyers do have a "fun" problem because of their defenses and that they cannot be assaulted, statistically, you do NOT need Flyers to fight and win in a shooting game against Flyers.

            If the enemy only has a few Flyers (1-2), I don't see that it's a major issue.

            If the enemy has a lot of Flyers (4+), you move your entire army up into a blob in the center of the table. Don't bunch up, take up space. They should not be able to both threaten your dominance of the center AND have 4 Flyers (unless you brought a Flyer list, in which case there is no problem). So, being in the center of the table, any Flyer that has to make a run at you to shoot you, will only get to do this once, before it's too close to your blob and has to overfly you (which they won't do, they will just go into Reserves). This basically means that a Flyer-heavy, or all-Flyer army, has its Flyers shooting every other turn.

            So, the enemy is at 50% of his firepower due to not being on the board, and you're at about 33% due to inaccuracy when shooting at Flyers. Since you can usually get ground units with more shooting efficiency than most Flyers, that is a pretty fair fight.

            With exactly 3 Flyers, I wouldn't make blanket statements about whether to advance to the middle or not, it will depend on the list. And Heldrakes, Storm Talons, and Crimson Hunters do mess with this idea because of their shooting arcs and/or extra turns, but I don't really see a list with them spammed being so dangerous that you can't take the center AND can't hang back.

            All in all, Flyers are beatable even without Skyfire. It does take a different playstyle that emphasizes movement more to block flight paths than to set up shooting, assault, or defenses, but it's just one of the new flavors of 40k.

          • MidnightSun says:

            People don't complain when someone brings a flier. People complain when people bring NOTHING BUT Flyers.

            Yes, most books have anti-air now. Do they have sufficient anti-air to deal with four Heldrakes? My ass they do.

            Land Raider example is bad, because bringing a counter to Land Raiders is easy to fit within the points values and those guns are good against other targets – Meltaguns are also really neat against Leman Russes, Predators, Hammerheads, Barges/Arks etc. But Flakk Missiles? Icarus Lascannons? Quad-Guns? They're either only useful for killing that one target and one target alone, or are less efficient against anything that isn't a Flyer because they pay a bunch of points to be good against Flyers specifically (is a Lascannon gun emplacement worth 35pts? Probably not, no. Two twin-linked Autocannons on a gun emplacement is not worth 50pts.)

          • Fulcrum says:

            Right a LR goes down pretty easily to a single AP1 shot.

          • _Garnet_ says:

            That's a gross exaggeration. There's a reason the most commonly touted anti-tank AP1-toting unit is five Sternguard with five combi-meltas. One shot is far from reliable at dealing with a Land Raider.

  86. chumbalaya says:

    I agree that a "Tourney 40k" ruleset needs to happen now more than ever. Really, only a few things merit intervention. It's Tau "I ignore game mechanics", 2+ re-rollable saves, FOC abuse and Strength D.
    Personally, here are the things I'd change.

    1) Grimoire modifies the Daemon save only. 3++ re-rolling 1s is nowhere near as abusive as 2++, and Fatey can still get his since he does nothing otherwise.

    2) Protect becomes Warp Charge 2, Conceal gives Stealth. Now Seer Councils are 2+ cover at best and only when turbo-boosting (which they cannot do with Baron attached).

    3) Of the Tau "chips" (Puretide, M3S, C&C), only 1 may be used by a unit per turn.

    4) Strength D units are either outright banned or Strength D is modified to S10 AP1, Instant Death, Ordnance and successful saves must be re-rolled.

    5) Formations are banned, which includes multiple Fortifications in one slot.

    6) Supplements can't ally with themselves.

    There's more you can do, but here's where I would start.

  87. Ming says:

    The thoughts in the article sound reasonable. Any TO can establish their own restrictions and it is up to the player to decide if they want to participate in the event. Nearly every open tournament for 40K has a different twist to it, whether it be point size, scenarios, or recognition for the winners. By and large for most of us, a tournament day at the local store or club is about getting 3+ games in and spending time with friends and not about "winning" the event. Putting the game into a tournament format is really all about determining play partners for that game, and not much more than that.

  88. Largo39 says:

    Do we want to limit dedicated transports (mechdar)?

    Da Boys GT had a 0-4 dedicated limit if they were for troops, and 0-2 otherwise.

    • Soph says:

      as an eldar limiting serpents by numberwise would be very dangerous (its our only dedicated transport and only one who can actuly transport full size units) a nerf to the shield range down to48 or 36" i would approve of as an eldar player however, that would atleast make them get into range of the enemy (i never abuse the range of them anyway as i actuly use mine as transports for my short range troops)

    • MidnightSun says:

      I don't think that the problem is the number of hulls, because Imperial Guard can outdo them in terms of amount of AV12 they can plonk on the table. It's the Serpent Shield specifically, and as such the easiest fix (and what is implied by the fluff) is making the Shield one-use-only.

  89. Barontuman says:

    Totally warranted, and will bring me back to FoB as long as it goes a bit further. Serpent Spam is even worse than Flyer Spam. As is the jet-seer council. Just ban rerolls on any save that is 2+.

    • Fulcrum says:

      Agreed even worse when you combine the 2. Can I get a predator that flies, has a 10 transport capacity, twin links all its guns, has a 4+ cover save, & takes 3 unsaved pens/glances to down 85% of the time? Yes, o well thank you very much GW!

  90. Warflail3133 says:

    Be aware that making Str D ordinance would require every other weapon system on the platform to snap fire. That rule is not one that the superheavy rules overide. None of the other superheavies, even those with enormous megawhammy apocalypse blasts, are ordinance weapons.

  91. Clively says:

    Kudos; and I agree with the reasoning.

    Jervis seems to be one of the main responsible parties for this and I firmly believe he needs to be fired. Over the past couple of years his articles in WD has consistently shown that he has no concept of what a GAME is about, no idea what the players actually want/need, and no desire to do anything about creating a fun experience for the players.

    There should be no difference between a competitive ruleset and one for a “beer and pretzels” game. The concept is the same: fair and balanced. The implementation only differs by level of detail. A beer and pretzels game should be quick to setup with stream lined easily understood rules: not something that requires hundreds of dollars in books with massive cross referencing. Tournament rules should expand on that only to provide for a bit more depth and variety: again in a fair and balanced way.

    It doesn’t matter what GW “intended”. What matters is how customers are using the product. If a casual gamer refuses to play another casual gamer based on the legally allowed units then you have a serious rules failure. This has already been happening. Throw in even more OTT units as rules an the situation quickly gets to the point that casual gamers impose their own limitations on what they’ll play with/against.

    My point is simply that the current state of 40k rules are bad and getting worse with every untested, unbalanced release. I do have to say that the stronghold assault changes to the building rules are very welcome. Even the fortification networks are interesting. Escalation on the other hand is a bad idea. As was C:I’s destruction of the FOC.

    • MikeInfinitum says:

      "Over the past couple of years his articles in WD has consistently shown that he has no concept of what a GAME is about, no idea what the players actually want/need, and no desire to do anything about creating a fun experience for the players. "

      Disagree. His articles have been exactly about those things.

    • Matt-Shadowlord says:

      "There should be no difference between a competitive ruleset and one for a "beer and pretzels" game. The concept is the same: fair and balanced."

      – I agree absolutely. Rules that are good enough for competitve gamers are great for casual gamers.

      • clever handle says:

        Your point is completely true, however GW wants their products to be, in effect, dungeons & dragons. They provide the framework, the fundamentals & the models, you provide a story and a conflict. DnD is up there as one of the most successful game franchises of all times but I gotta say I've never really heard of a competitive DnD event

        • blacksly says:

          They used to run AD&D tournaments. In fact, some of the most famous modules (S1-S4) were created for the tournament circuit. However, the big thing about tournament AD&D is that they gave you a pre-generated party. So every group of players used the same party to go through the same module. While GMs differed a bit in style, that made things pretty much as inherently balanced as you could get in a free-form system like a RPG.

    • Fulcrum says:

      Agree, well said.

  92. Kernbanks says:

    I've only played locally, a few small store events but mostly for fun. I see the need for restrictions to get things back into a game of skill for tournies and that's your thing. I offer an option my FLGS uses for the DataSlates… that is the formation's units need to fill your Force Org slots. So to take that amazing Stormwing and gain the benifits you need to get two Talons and a Raven in your force org chart (that limits it to your primary and to one). It also leaves you with only one fast attack slot and 2 heavy slots. A fair trade for the little bonus you get…

  93. Tomguycot says:

    On the whole, I quite like these suggestions. And this is coming from someone who has traditionally (been playing since 2nd edition) been of the opinion that comp and special restrictions are a bad thing. However, I feel like we’re at a point where the game is just completely out of hand and GW has shown they have no interest in providing a rule-set suitable for tournament play.* Thus the onus is on the tournament scene to do something themselves.

    My only thought in regards to the substance of the restrictions is, in the interest of keeping things simple, why not just restrict 2+ rerollable invulnerable saves in some manner? Possibly by just disallowing it to happen or just reducing the save when you roll the second time (this is the solution Frontline Games is advocating). Making this one change solves both the problem with the Grimoire as well as the Seer Council and also any future combos of the sort that might pop up as new books are released. It should also simplify the issue regarding number of mastery levels in an army. Rather than having an exhaustive list full rules and exceptions you could just say “2++ saves work like X”. Seems way more elegant to me.

    Anyhow, keep up the good work and hopefully these sort of things will become more common because as it currently stands I find myself not even enjoying casual play as these sort of things are bleeding into our local non-tournament games.

    * The closest to how bad things are right now was the end of 3rd ed when, in order to play, you needed a rulebook, trial assault rules, trial vehicle rules, 3 different Chapter Approved books, some number of white dwarf articles, and whatever codex plus supplements that you were playing and assorted FAQs. Explaining all of that to new players was the opposite of fun.

  94. Cuddy says:

    I remember when IG were OP.
    Then when BA were OP.
    Then when GK were OP.
    Then when Necrons were OP.
    Then when CM were OP.
    Then when Daemons were OP.
    Then when Eldar were OP.
    Then when Tau were OP.

    This is why I have a bad feeling about this. The power combos change every release cycle, and FoB is neutering a combo that hasn't been dominant in what, a year? If you want to hard ban stuff like that, you need to be way more on top of the current meta. What if you nerf Tau, only for the Tyranid codex to roll them? Or nerf Eldar, and leave it that way until they're just noncompetitive?

    I do agree with some, like allying with your own supplement though. That always seemed stupid to me, since so many tournaments ban dual force org anyway.

    • Sethis_II says:

      BA were never OP. Ever. They were competitive and made good, balanced, varied lists, but you cannot level the accusation of being undefeatable at them.

      Which is why the 5th Ed BA codex stands in my mind as the epitome of in-codex balance and a standard that GW should be trying to repeat. Almost every unit had a function and was viable, and the army as a whole was never so broken you couldn't win against it.

    • Fulcrum says:

      Ya but these restrictions can always be easily changed or undone if new releases change the meta. They are not written in stone & at worst can be changed year to year.

  95. teslarod says:

    There is a very simple fix to Grimoire – simply allow it only to work on demonic invulnerable saves.
    A 3++ with rerollable 1s is absolutely fine. If a lucky roll on the warpstorm chart makes it a 2++ rerollable for a turn – so be it.
    The sole problem is the combination of 4++ power and Grimoire.

    Plus you really don't need to limit many of the 0-1 units you are talking about. Just limit some of their weapon/equipment options. While baleflamers are a problem, Hades Autocannons are not. The same goes for Riptides with Ion Accelerator or Missilesides, Heavy Burst Cannon/Railrifle are fine after all.

    The Tau Dataslate is horribly broken. If you ban anything you should consider starting withthis one or Dataslates in general. They ignore FOC requirements, Ally restrictions and grant free upgrades for taking a good combination of units.

    I aggree with the other ones. If you want to start restricting for a more enjoyable variety of lists all of them are valid points.

    • teslarod says:

      I'm simply assuming you try to restrict as few things as possible. Those three things are what stood out after a first quick look.

  96. Charles Tracy says:

    Wow, great idea. Just don't poorly execute. I am to understand these are suggestions not iron clad, however I wait with anticipation to see what's the final list of things changed.
    I for one want to see 2plus re-rollable addressed across all codex's. The seer counsel tourney I played recently at a tourney I lost the game in the magic generation phase. Why even bother rolling dice afterwords? It just sucked and was zero fun.
    Again I know this is a rough draft, so here's to hoping you do it right. Remember though for every 1 rage quit from going to your tourney ya just might grab 10 more who wanna have fun.

    Good luck

    Chas

  97. deFl0 says:

    Yawn. Any good tournament players can break the crap out of those restrictions too. Face it. Comp is dumb. The top players are still going to be on the top tables. By restriction one part of the game you only make other units more powerful.

    Necron airforce kills revenant titan. Tau 4 rip kills Necron Airforce. Deer Council spreed bumps Tau 4 rip. Revenant erases Deer council.

    It's the tournament circle of life.

    • Roland Durendal says:

      Haha that’s the most awesome and logical boiled down explanation I’ve seen

    • Lok says:

      The point is more that he's trying to create an environment where games are more fun rather than boiling them down to rock-paper-scissors.

    • blacksly says:

      I think the point is that games that are decided before they are played simply by the list type that the players brought, are not fun and he wants the tournament to be about more than just who won and who lost. If you're right about the circle of life, then players could just show up with a paper army list, turn it over against their opponent like they're playing rock-paper-scissors, then spend the rest of the 2 hours drinking and telling tall stories about how their lone Grot totally beat a Daemon Prince once.

      • Fulcrum says:

        Hmm actually now that you spell it out it's starting to sound a little bit better. Will there be guiness on tap at these events?

  98. DOMIN4TRIX says:

    Allow everything, exactly as GW intended. Forgeworld, D-weapons, grimoire, allies, fortifications, LOW, quad knights/tides, everything. It would be the most diverse and intriguing tournament ever held. Then pick over the lessons learnt for next year.

    Throw the whole universe on the table and definitively see what the best is before restricting in an attempt to find who the best is.

    • Roland Durendal says:

      Agreed and I made a similar point earlier. Throw the whole kitchen sink into a tournament and see where the cards fall and next year make needed adjustments

      • Herpguy says:

        Look how far this game has come in a year. Do you really think nothing will change a year from now and we'll only have exactly what we have now to pick from?

    • Fulcrum says:

      Right & if it kills attendance at a TO's event & they can't run it the next year? Or if people have such a terrible experience it gives the event a bad rep & next years attendance tanks?

      • Holding a mirror up says:

        You don't think these coming restrictions will not do the same? You may have all the WAAC players show up but watch how many you lose from the just show up to play group..and which group do you think buys the majority of the tickets?

        • clever handle says:

          problem is it isn't the majority of casual players who want to attend events for nothing more than several games, some good conversation & networking who are on this website complaining right now. What you have here are the folks who fancy themselves as top-tier competitive players (some actually are, some are deluded). The casual gamers rather have already spoken their mind by not silently not attending events. There are only so many top tables, everyone wants to win but some people are only their for winning – they'll continue to come with whatever abusive & gimmicky list they can pull together using these new restrictions. The casual gamers may come back because their specific hates have been addressed but the fact is that the differing styles of play (casual v competitive) are becoming mutually exclusive…

  99. dhf3 says:

    You can't arbitrarily "ban" or "restrict" specific units from specific codexes, no one has the ability to do that subjectively. You have to stick to core concepts of the game so that it is fair for ALL codexes, because once you "restrict" one army's powerful toys those who play that army will wonder why you haven't done so with other army's powerful toys, or else they are having to find ways to deal with them at an artificial disadvantage. You want to go down that road go right ahead, just don't be surprised when you lose credibility. If you think 2+ invulnerable saves are too powerful or "not fun" to play against, then ban them from the core rules, you can't fairly or subjectively choose which army's get to use them and which ones don't. If you think more than one riptide/wraithnight/heldrake is too powerful, then limit non-troop FOC selections to 0-2 of the same unit. Otherwise you are creating another targeted imbalance that will only change the problem, never "fix" it and also leave the people who play the armies that are singled out not very happy. Probably not the best way to increase the attendance of an event. Whatever is done, if its even necessary, must be applied equally to all codexes.
    (On an unrelated note, I find it extremely amusing that all these cries for "comp" come now from those who were so against it in 5th edition, when you really had to be an extremely skilled general to compete with anything that wasn't an imperial codex, but now that the gloves on the other claw and xeno's are "overpowered" the internet is outraged and we need to "restrict" alien, deamon and chaos codexes. Notice nothing on the "restriction" list is imperial? Who else thinks Grey Knights will be back at the top after these good people "balance" the game for us?)

    • MidnightSun says:

      'If you think 2+ invulnerable saves are too powerful or "not fun" to play against, then ban them from the core rules, you can't fairly or subjectively choose which army's get to use them and which ones don't.'

      Well who gets them at the moment? Daemons and Dark Eldar. No other army has 2+ Invulnerable Saves. Not one.

      Now look at the balance. How many times have you ever, ever heard someone complain about Shadowfields? Right, yeah, never, because they're available in highly limited numbers (you can have what, two models in a whole army) and have a pretty major downside in that when they've been failed once, they're gone. Compare it to Daemons, who have no such downside and can apply it to twenty models and easily have it re-rollable.

      Banning 2++ rerollable Invulnerable Saves for Daemons specifically and banning them altogether is pretty much the same thing (because let's face it, it hardly makes Dark Eldar shittier than they already are. I'm sure those three guys who still play DE would ignore you anyway).

      • dhf3 says:

        So then you have accomplished your goal without singling out a particular codex and alienating that portion of the player base who feel they have been discriminated against? Most of my point was that if you are going to "restrict" it should be done as broadly as possible to not make particular armies feel targeted. Yes we all know who a 2++ ban is targeting but it angers people more when they come across that unit with a 2++ character ( warding stave, shadow field) and think: "I used to be able to have that kind of durability, now I'm not allowed to but this codex still is, how is this fair?"

        I was mostly making the point because I would have no problem playing with "restrictions", but I don't want to be the only person there because so much of the community doesn't agree on them. The only shot that you have (in my opinion) of having this work is by not singling out particular codex's and making sure that what is implemented is done broadly. I'm pretty sure most people would be fine only being able to take 2 of any non-troop unit if it assured them that they wouldn't have to face 4 Riptides. Then you have accomplished your goal without singling out the tau players and you have promoted diversity in all army lists.

      • Herpguy says:

        A DE model with a 2++ is about 100 points, and doesn't really care about making multiple saves because one failed save usually means splat for a T3 model. A Daemons model that relies on a 2++ is a 300 point character. Oh yeah, and the daemons 2++ has a good chance to make your save WORSE.

        • dhf3 says:

          This is exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you. This is the kind of disagreement you will see in the community as a whole when you target specific codex entries. One side will always feel cheated, we can argue till the cows come home who deserves to keep what when done on a case by case basis.

          • dhf3 says:

            Also there has been a well attended 6th edition tournament with "restrictions", the DaBoyz GT.
            I suggest people take a look at the restrictions they had in place and there effects and see what can be learned from them. I know seer councils still took high placings but they were also ran by people who probably would have placed well no matter what they used. Instead look at the rest of the field. You may or may not agree on their restrictions, but they were fair for all armies across the board and didn't single out specific codex entries, and the tournament sold out so there must have been at least 120 people who thought they were fair enough to travel to all the way to Canandaigua, NY to play in it. http://static.squarespace.com/static/51959adae4b0

        • Fulcrum says:

          I don't think you fully understand the mechanics of a fully cheesed SS list.

  100. Ian Lathem says:

    I feel that a lot of the restrictions discussed are good in concept but could cause a lot of problems. I can understand why screamerstar or a mass of horrors with a 2++ invul could be troublesome (and the grimoir only affecting daemon saves not psychic powers is a fix GW should have done) but some of the other elements of the ruling leave me with questions.

    1) No supplement/core book alliances. This strikes me as a Tau nerf since the other big supplement books (Eldar/CSM) don't really gain anything from allies. The part that really gets me though is the way it favors towards Space Marines because they can ally the core with core explicitly in the core book.

    2) 0-1 unit restrictions. This change can be particularly egregious depending on codex because some books are limited in certain unit blocks. The most common one I've seen here is 0-1 Riptide/Wraithknight which is fine in the core books but hurts suppliments (Farsight has 2 elite choices, putting riptides to 0-1 kills their elite slots because stealth suits just aren't worth it outside of gimmick formation plays in Apoc). I understand riptides are tough (they're meant to be, their guns are a bit iffy unless you're running a "Get's Hot" risk) but with poison, grav, plasma, melta, and with Tau's crippling assault weakness most books have a way to counter that advantage unless the Tau Player specifically sacrifices large elements of his army to protect them (i.e. Kroot) which is likely severely limiting your opponent's ability to hold objectives.

    3) Lords of War. Quite frankly super-heavies/Gargantuan creatures should strictly be the realm of Apocalypse (same with Str D) as they just imbalance the game. The whole writing of escalation and stronghold assault was going to be assumed to be a NON-TOURNAMENT supplement. I'm frankly iffy on even basic fortifications being in tournaments, most things besides the Aegis line are just too big to effectively place on most well arranged tables.

    4) Datasheets – Should be out entirely, I bought the Tau one, messed with it for a bit and made a pretty disgusting list and basically relegated them to only for use in fun games where they can add in a neat bit of narrative play (i.e. a guard/sisters army fighting off a Tyranid swarm with space marine air support). The point is they were never balanced to be competitive and anything that is effectively slot-less is a huge problem for any type of balance play (command squads are HQ choices as far as I'm concerned, same for suit bodyguards or Nid guards).

    5) Limiting Psyker levels – This one kinda thumbs it's nose at Tzeench chaos (and maybe Grey Knights) as their troop choice limits the effectiveness of their HQ. You should never make a situation where a player has to ask himself "Do I put in two more units of troops or should I save them so my HQ can get the ML he really needs to support my army?" It's an arbitrary restriction that really seems to knee jerk against Seer council and Screamer council where a revision to 2++ saves with re-rolls would fix the issue just as well.

    • Shadar_Logoth says:

      Good post, Ian, and I agree with most of this. Datasheets aren't really that big of a thing, for me, for many of the same reasons that the 0-1 restrictions aren't a attractive to you. I really don't see it breaking the FOC as adding to it, and I have yet to see an army that employed one that was worth being concerned about. Not great, not awful, just another option.

  101. guest says:

    You should consider all army combinations open for allies as allies of convenience, no other allies level… gives tyrannids some more love but shuts down some really iffy combo's. I'm also in agreement with the no allies between codex and supplement, it negates all the supplements inbuilt tradeoffs while keeping all the new goodies.

    • A.P. says:

      if your going to eliminate alliying with suppliments shouldnt allying with ones own Codex (Space marines) be eliminated as well?

  102. artemi7 says:

    I understand why your doing this, but I REALLY need to point this out.

    Weren't were railing and ridiculing the European-style Comp tournaments this time last year?

  103. Toby says:

    "Codices" is the correct plural of codex.

  104. Ghost of Past says:

    Of Codex Tau Empire and of its imbalance. The real problem is not in Riptide or in its armament nor is it in HYMP Broadsides. Its in the fact that you can have both. Would Riptide be a heavy choice, Tau would loose a lot of its "spammability". Any combination of Riptides and Broadsides with total unit count of 3(or even 4) can be taken out and, albeit being a tough nut to crack, is still something most codices can mach. My 2 cents

  105. hippo says:

    Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation

    4 Gallery Images
    Gallery Votes: 0
    Posts: 310

    Joined: 2012/04/30 09:17:32
    Location: MI
    Online
    Filter Thread

    Vote with your dollars, people. I didn't go back to this tournament last year because I had a terrible time the year prior.

    What kind of a ban list ruins all Chaos armies out there and presumably a big portion of Necron builds, but doesn't do a damn thing to stop Buffmanders, Serpents, Riptides, BATTLE BROTHERS, etc.

    Seriously, all because you cant figure out how to kill a Deathstar that has to get into tarpit range to be effective?

    Someone must have a major hard on for the Imperium.

    P.S. I told you TOs would never agree on anything. No way Frontline/Nova/Adepticon support this bulldookie.

  106. 1. Simply get rid of the 2+ re-rolls… make is a 2+/4+. You go from ~130 bolter shots to kill a model to ~30 bolter shots. This is just a Demon nerf and doesn't address the real problem. Other armies will have this figured out as new supplements and releases come along and the problem will still exist.

    2. I see 0-1 as too low. I could be on board with 0-2 possibly. If the core tyranid rulebook has it set that you can do doubles of most 'big' models as rumored, this basically just nullifies the core codex. It is nice to have at least backup for a model as well. 0-1 seems too heavy handed.

    3. Really? These are other factions, splinter factions, groups that generally wouldn't be with the main army. Think of it like your cousin you only see every 10 years comes by for xmas, but he can't come by your house to hang out and is only allowed to go to your next door neighbors house.

    4. I think Dataslates are going to be interesting and I see forcing them into the ally slot as too heavy handed as well. Why not just have them count towards 1 of the other slots in the FoC? This would limit taking 3 HQs (2 from main codex, 1 from dataslate) whereas what you suggest wouldn't.

    5. Take more anti psy units in your army, just like you need stuff to combat AV14/flyers/etc.

    6. Good decision. The D is too much!

    7. Good decision. AV15 isn't for normal play.

    8. Seems like this just targets specific armies. Why not just build a balanced army list that has a couple of anti air models? If you put this change it it will just allow people to build dumbed down non-balanced lists IMO.

  107. mk2_ID says:

    The players who can't hack playing the game at a tournament level should stck to casual play . Any 40k player worth his salt can potentially defeat screamer star in a tournament setting by out playing it .

    Limiting actual core codex units is mind boggling . FOB is branding itself as a casual player extravaganza , maybe that's what they are shooing for .

  108. Shadar_Logoth says:

    Holy crap, 2 pages of comments. While I guess you hit a hot button, Matt.

    I completely empathize with your desire to create as fun and interesting event as possible. I think you are on the right track with some of your limitations. The bottom line is, its your tournament (or at least your in charge of this portion of the tournament) and its up to you to craft it in the manner you seem fit.

    A couple of things, though.

    Please, please stop passing your subjective opinion of things as objective fact. You're generally pretty careful about being even handed in this, but phrases like "IS fun, IS not fun, IS competitive, IS NOT competitive" are 100% subjective and come across as condescending crap.

    Some people enjoy playing, and playing against, "power" or "gimmick" builds. Some people don't. The great thing is for most of them? Beating them, as well as playing them well, is LARGELY BASED ON SKILL. Well designed ones minimize the luck involved (just like any good build) and the game comes down to the "power units" ability to maintain the board versus the opponents ability to minimize the "power units" effect and either take away its support structures or just focus on winning the mission. That's a FUN game to ME.

    Let me repeat that. I, ME, PERSONALLY, have FUN playing with, and against, "powerful" units. I also think calling them a "gimmick" as some sort of pejorative is incredibly weak, selfish, and myopic. How are any of these any more of a "gimmick" then flooding the board with cheap vehicles and super efficient MSU units that basically overpower an average army's ability to deal with that many threats? That's FUN, LEGITIMATE, and COMPETITIVE game play for some. In fact, I have no problem playing against those particularly builds, I enjoy a plethora of different challenges, but I think the entire lot of 5th edition cling ons are full of complete shit when they try to pass that style of play off as some how definitively more competitive or fair or….FUN.

    Anyway, I believe everyone is entitled to play the game however they want. What ever edition you want. With friends, whether or not you wish to attend tournaments, which tournaments you wish to attend, or not at all. But don't sit there and try to sell me on your completely subjective and limited perspective as THE perspective. It stinks of hubris and I find incredibly it silly and insulting.

    Carefully limiting Super Heavies and attachments is something that makes sense from MY perspective. Limiting anything that exist in a core codex in anyway, from 0-1, to banning pieces of war gear (grimm), to limitingt ML levels, is unfair CRAP from MY perspective. You are banning entire ways to play the game, commonly used by players right now, because your PERSONAL OPINION is that they aren't dun. I've played against 3+ Helldrake/Riptide and Grimm lists, and there is absolutely nothing "unbeatable" about any of them. In fact, generally speaking, the 3+ lists are shitty. They're just really mediocre lists with easy to use (and individually quite good) units, but generally are lacking in easily exploitable ways.

    • Matt-Shadowlord says:

      "Holy crap, 2 pages of comments. While I guess you hit a hot button, Matt. "
      – Sir Buscuit wrote this.

      The moment it mentioned a ban on only one item from one codex it was obviously going to get a lot of comments. I can't blame the commenters either; the usual concern is that decisions made at a high profile event like FOB may be copied by other TOs or be seen as the "new truth".

      Personally I have been very vocally against Comp for years. I've always been in favour of RAW pure predictable unadulterated 40K straight from the horse's mouth, warts and all.

      If it weren't for the releases of the last month or so I wouldn't even give a post like this where a TO says they can fix the Ks the time of day – but here we are.

      My best contribution to the conversation is advice to anyone who thinks they can improve/fix/salvage the game for tournaments is change as little as possible, change it by as small an amount as possible, don't fix anything that aint well and truly broke – and even then, fix it by the smallest possible amount.

      • Shadar_Logoth says:

        Sorry Matt, I'm normally quite careful in checking the by lines. Perspective, and properly qualifying that perspective, is very important to me.

        I completely, 100%, agree with this comment though.

      • _Garnet_ says:

        I think your last point is why the Grimoire issue is so incredibly contentious; even if you accept that screamerstar is a problem that absolutely has to be dealt with by changing the rules (which a lot of players don't), the solution presented is so incredibly blunt, and does so much collateral damage to every other non-screamerstar unit that might want to have a Grimoire around in case they need a little extra staying power. It'd be like complaining about a Tau support Commander with all the bells and whistles joined to a Riptide, and deciding the only solution is to ban Commanders.

    • _Garnet_ says:

      "Holy crap, 2 pages of comments. While I guess you hit a hot button, Matt."

      Before this, I didn't even know the comment section for 3++ -had- pages!

    • sirbiscuit says:

      I would hope that my opinion would be obvious, but I don't feel the need to couch my articles in "I think" "I believe" etc. In this case, what is "fact" is largely a matter of opinion, and it's always been my stance that if you're reading what I'm writing, you're innately hearing my opinion, and you don't need to be *told* that. You already know.

      I'm sorry it made you uncomfortable, though.

      • Shadar_Logoth says:

        SB, its a general pet peeve of mine on the 40k blogging community, and while you tend to be pretty even handed (which I pointed out), there are most certainly SOME members of this community (or former members) who actually mistake their opinion as objective fact. I'm just asking you (and everyone) to keep things in perspective, which for the most part I think you do. It might seem like a waist of energy to qualify those statements thusly, it will go a long way in distinguishing you from the idiotic, hubristic, dicktards like Stelek (of course, you do plenty of other things to distinguish yourself from that waist of space, but still…)

        That being said, don't ban specific things from core codexes. Sorry, "my advice to you is…" Seriously, just look at these comments. That's not a road you want to go down.

      • Shadar_Logoth says:

        Also, your subjective opinion happens to be owned by the TO of a major tournament. For that reason alone there is a hope that you keep all of that in perspective. Do you want the best tournament for everyone, or the best tournament for yourself and your TauDar player friends?

        Every other article you've ever written implied you were in the former camp, but I think you can gather from the comments section that you at least accidentally forecasted you were in the latter camp. I don't think that is really the case, but it just further amplifies why precision of language, context, and properly qualifying once stance and perspective are so vitally important.

  109. Shadar_Logoth says:

    Also, I would love the hear your "source" on the GW has stopped play testing entirely comment. That sounds like 100% fabricated asshurt to me.

    • Fulcrum says:

      I have heard it from former corporate employees that upper management see it as a waste of time & $, also that it has been in effect for quite awhile.

      • Shadar_Logoth says:

        Oh yeah, well I was talking to old Kirby just yesterday and he was detailing the multi-million dollar play testing facility they are put the final works on.

        So, I guess my random anonymous internet banter says differently then your random anonymous internet banter.

    • sirbiscuit says:

      You can ask GW themselves, they're not hard to contact, but I don't care to put in a direct quote, as you'd still probably think it's made up and I don't particularly want to put someone out there who wasn't expecting to be part of this conversation. A lot of the stuff we hear from studio direct sounds pretty mean out of context, and I don't need to sour any relationship we have with them.

      • Shadar_Logoth says:

        Cool. My email is ryan.d.erwin@gmail.com. I would love to hear these sources of yours, or at least what they are saying.

        Are you telling me if I contact GW and ask if they have any play testing, or at the very least some proxy for it (via public feedback loop or something), as part of their product development, they are going to tell me no?

        Also, did this high ranking, double top secret, swear you to secrecy official bother explaining why they even have a point system if competitive play meant nothing to them? Why they even bother FAQing anything? And I'm sure mister double top secret as spoken directly with Ward, and Kelly, and Crudace and they have confirmed that they give zero shits about how things actually interact on the table top and quite literally pull points directly from their anus, right?

        • LoT says:

          For criticizing sirbiscuit for being a condescending ass, you come across to me as ten times the condescending ass that he is.

  110. Shadar_Logoth says:

    One more thing, there is no such thing as an "auto lose" and an "auto win." Dark Angels, the worst codex in the history of existence that sucks so bad the colors "green, black, and white" are likely to banned from the universe if worn in any combination, are still winning over 35% of their games. So, pretending that all possible builds from that dex with ally combinations have been exhausted (the reality is no where close to that) and only the best players in the world are playing with them (again, the reality is no where close to that) the DA's still managed to pull out 35% of the games in a tournament setting.

    Now, if you think DA's struggles, or any codex or builds struggles, imply that the game isn't "truly competitive", you are, quite frankly, a Fucking Moron. I think most human beings would consider both Baseball and American Armored Wanker Ball ( 😛 )to be "competitive" games. My Houston Astros over the last 3 years would KILL for the DA's win record. My Texans are likely going to win less the 20% of their games. You don't see Bob McNair or Jim Crain begging the league office to nerf the better teams, do you? "Oh, but Shadar, that's different because in EVERY SINGLE OTHER COMPETITIVE VENUE IN EXISTENCE we accept that both sides aren't going to be on 100% even footing, we just live in magical fairy farting rainbow land where GW is SUPPOSE TO BE the only company in existence that can make a dynamic, characterful, fun game based off a very fascinating IP and EVERYTHING IS EQUAL TO EVERYTHING ALL THE TIMES!"

    • Shadar_Logoth says:

      And, again, the above all being said, I have zero problems with statements like "this isn't my kind of competition" or "I'm not playing this game simply because of (any reason what so ever) has made me rather do other things."

      In fact, "I'm not having fun with this game because of X, Y, and Z, and if a tournament could fix that, I would have fun and attend the tournament" is a wonderful and valid perspective. Perspectives like this are what created Feast and Nova in the first place. Just, have enough self awareness to be able to identify where your subjective perspective ends and the reality and existence all of us share begins.

    • Chozo says:

      "are still winning over 35% of their games."

      Is this counting draws? Because in a game with a binary outcome (win/loss) an army probably shouldn't be losing nearly twice as often as it wins, and vice versa. That's not Glass Joe bad, granted, but it's not exactly a sterling example of things being fine either.

      "You don't see Bob McNair or Jim Crain begging the league office to nerf the better teams, do you? "

      I'm pretty sure salary caps are a thing, at least in some sports. Part of it is to stop a race to the bottom, but it's also an acknowledgement that watching unmitigated curb stomps only has so much appeal.

      "we just live in magical fairy farting rainbow land where GW is SUPPOSE TO BE the only company in existence that can make a dynamic, characterful, fun game based off a very fascinating IP and EVERYTHING IS EQUAL TO EVERYTHING ALL THE TIMES!" "

      1. Balance is not a binary: a game can still be imbalanced but not to the same degree as another game. I don't think anyone advocating for bans/comp is expecting 40k to become the next Chess, but I can kind of see where "yo dawg we heard u like allies so we made new formations so you can ally while you ally while you ally" might have been the breaking point.

      2. You can have (and there are) "dynamic, characterful, fun game(s) based off a very fascinating IP" that are relatively balanced. I'm not sure if it's worth listing examples (since I'm afraid it'll become a standard fanboy pissing match), but the X-Wing article above this one is probably at least one to consider.

      • Shadar_Logoth says:

        >>but it's not exactly a sterling example of things being fine either.

        50% is the ideal. 35% is really not that far off. And this is the "worst of the worst" codexes. Seriously, compare that to some of the "worsts" from other games (any popular sport, like I just outlined) and it's really not all that bad. Needs improvement, but nowhere near the vitriol we see on the interwebs.

        >> but it's also an acknowledgement that watching unmitigated curb stomps only has so much appeal.

        You completely missed the point. Nobody tries to claim Baseball or Football aren't competitve. That's the point.

        >> "yo dawg we heard u like allies so we made new formations so you can ally while you ally while you ally" might have been the breaking point.

        Sure, some people subjective perspective of this is its now how they want to play the game. That subjective perspective has absolutely nothing to do with how competitive a game is, or isn't.

        >> 2.

        I'm a Fanboy of gaming, I have no dog in this fight. X-wing is a pretty cool system, and tons of fun. It also offers the player 1/1,000,000th of the aggregate choices and decisions 40k has. It's all those choices and decisions that make balance so difficult to maintain. The same can be said for every single miniature game on the market. Some might have tighter, more restricted, rulesets then others. But that "tightness" and "restrictiveness" always comes at the expense of player choice. 40k, largely because its the oldest and had the most time to expand and grow, is at the opposite end of that spectrum. I find the whole spectrum interesting, personally, but I think anyone who arbitrarily points to one area of that spectrum is tries to argue that this point, objectively, is the "best"…is a hubris filled idiot. Everyone is entitled to their personal preference, but don't mistake yours for something that's lacking in mine.

        • Chozo says:

          "35% is really not that far off."

          If we're talking percentages, it actually kind of is. Doing better than the Houston Texans isn't exactly a grand accomplishment.

          "You completely missed the point. Nobody tries to claim Baseball or Football aren't competitve. That's the point."

          Yeah, but there's also some effort to ensure that teams don't become overwhelmingly dominant, such as through salary caps and the drafts granting first picks to teams with worse records overall. In any event, the imbalances between teams comes from the skill (or lack thereof) of the players and coaches: you probably wouldn't exactly be gung-ho for (say) the New York Yankees to be allowed to use aluminum bats while everybody else is using wooden bats just because.

          "It also offers the player 1/1,000,000th of the aggregate choices and decisions 40k has. It's all those choices and decisions that make balance so difficult to maintain. The same can be said for every single miniature game on the market. Some might have tighter, more restricted, rulesets then others. But that "tightness" and "restrictiveness" always comes at the expense of player choice."

          Choices only matter from a competitive perspective if they're meaningful. The Sirlin-related example is Marvel vs. Capcom 2, which has 56 playable characters but only 7-8 which are played with any consistency in a competitive environment. There's an argument to be made for that customizability from a fluff/narrative standpoint, but from a tourney perspective it doesn't mean much if you keep seeing the same narrow selection of wargear in the same 1-2 configurations on a particular model.

    • Hammerdal says:

      I like how you quote "auto lose" and "auto win" and "truly competitive" as if SirBiscuit actually used those terms in his article, which he didn't. Let me show you how it's done. SirBiscuit did say "Can these lists be beaten? Yes. Definitely" which seems somewhat the opposite of calling something "auto win."

      These changes are being proposed not because the lists behind them are unbeatable (no army in a game with this much randomness can be "unbeatable." No army), but because they fundamentally change the dynamic of the game by forcing very specific builds to compete with them. And because you probably don't have the points to viably deal with Screamerstar AND mass MCs AND mass flyers AND mass waveserpents, you end up picking one or two to counter and the game turns into a rock-paper-scissors (lizard-spock?) of list building, where the game is 90% won or lost before rolling for table halves.

      • Shadar_Logoth says:

        Is this comment serious? Did you really think I was quoting, or attempting to quote Sir Biscuit? Later, when I put "tightness" and "restrictiveness" and "best" in quotes did you think I was trying to misquote SB there, as well?

        >> where the game is 90% won or lost before rolling for table halves.

        And that's completely stupid. There's no such thing in this game. There is no competently put together and competently played army that is at a 90% disadvantage against another competently put together and competently played army. This, quite simply, doesn't exist.

        So, we are getting our internet nerd rage on, and making vast and sweeping changes to a major tournament, to protect ourselves from a potentiality that doesn't exist?

        • Hammerdal says:

          Well, you did reply directly to his blog post, and used quotations. That's how quotations work. When you used "tightness" and "restrictiveness" and "best," that followed the previous two sentences where you said "The same can be said for every single miniature game on the market. Some might have tighter, more restricted, rulesets then others." So in that case you were clearly referring to the key words you had just used yourself, talking about miniature games in general. Also that was in reply to another commenter, so no, you clearly weren't quoting SB there. It's ok, English is hard, and not all schools teach it effectively.

          >> where the game is 90% won or lost before rolling for table halves.

          This one is certainly debatable, and 90% is probably an exaggeration, but the point is that a lot of people make lists that heavily use one type of difficult to counter unit, and to counter it you need to go heavy on the things that counter it. But there's several different lists that do this with different units that have different counters, and it's impossible (well maybe not impossible, but there's at least very few lists that do) to make a list that has a good shot against all of them. So people just don't have many options in list building, as they need to go all out on trying to counter these extreme builds. So they end up being able to deal with certain lists and not others, and depending on who you get randomly matched with, there's a good chance one of you will have a very strong advantage over the other, and you end up with a very one-sided game.

    • LoT says:

      There actually are rules that "nerf the better teams" in both football and baseball – drafting in reverse order of standings. There's also the salary cap/luxury tax.

  111. Fulcrum says:

    Looks great guys! Congrats for putting yourselves out there. I have no idea why so many people are married to using the exact rules GW writes. You guys that want to do that are lemmings. They don't care or desire to make a balanced set of rules that is fun to play in a competitive environment. When will you get it through your heads that GW doesn't care about us, nor to they write rules intended for anything other than "fun narrative gameplay".

    • Holding a Mirror says:

      "I have no idea why so many people are married to using the exact rules GW writes."

      Because they are the rules from the company that makes the game?

      Seems like a good reason to me….

  112. Rawrgyle says:

    “2.) A few units will receive 0-1 status — These are all units whose mass inclusion limits the potential lists in the game”

    0-1 is overrestriction, even by your own words, it is their MASS inclusion that throws off things, please look into 0-2, IF this is even needed…

    “3.) Supplemental Codecies will no longer be able to ally to their base codex”

    Sure, fine, JUST HOLD THE REGULAR SPACE MARINE CODEX TO THE SAME. No enclaves/Empire? fine, No White scars/Ultramarines either then. It is not the supplement’s fault, it is the FoC shenanigans that are.

    Now moving crisis to scoring or sternguard to scoring is fine, shifts like that in the FOC are not fundamentally wrong. What IS wrong is things like “codex”:Inquistion completely ignoring it. Or things like escalation just adding to it.

    Restricting units just doesn’t seem viable when you can just re-enforce the Force organization chart in several easier ways than throwing out all the other crap.

    HQ 1-2, trooops 2-6, fort 0-1, etc… the BASIC force org needs to be filled before anything else can be taken, for example.

  113. Tervigon says:

    I'm not sure if this will get buried in comments, but if the admin reads this:
    As a tournament player who plays Daemons it seems you are focusing on killing screamerstar. I understand this. But you also seem determined to kill flying circus. In other words, I didn't see much that would restrict a Jetlock council(except maybe them taking fewer warlocks to comply with the mastery-level restriction), but alot of the things hurt daemons.

    Please be kind to daemons…there is a reason why we don't win many tournaments. We are random as hell! The only real thing needed to "fix" daemons is to state that a 2+ reroll becomes a 4+. that reduces screamerstar alot.

    Also, please do NOT make dataslates use an ally chart! That seems silly and arbitrary. Formations yes. They allow you to bring several powerful units that have free special rules. Nasty. But a single special character? Using an entire allies chart? That just doesn't make sense.

    In short, my caution to you guys is to keep ensuring that you are not being vindictive towards a particular army, which in this case it seems you are trying to obliterate any chance any daemons player would have.

    • sirbiscuit says:

      You're not buried, I'm reading all the comments. While it's true that I don't particularly place a lot of importance on blog comments, a lot of people make very good points, even if they're sometimes couched in a lot of emotion.

      I would like to say that we're not particularly looking to "nerf daemons" or "nerf xenos" as some suggest, but that rather the fact that the Grimoire is specifically mentioned combined with some other changes makes it look like we're just picking on daemons. We're not. It's hitting a lot of builds from quite a few books.

      It's also important to note that once some of the more meta-warping lists are restricted or removed from tournament play, what constitutes a "good" list will shift significantly. Are any of the codecies we limit really going to have "no chance" when there's a forced meta shift? I wonder.

      • That is not how you handle balance. In similar concept to fighting games like UMvC3, SFIV, or Injustice, "Meta-warping lists" being "restricted or removed from tournament play" is the equivalent to banning A & S tier characters in fighting games leaving the others to pick up the slack for them. Banning things like D weapons and Formations taking up an allied slot I can understand. But banning a piece of wargear that only seems broken when combined with forewarning?

        I'd make the comparison to Morrigan in UMvC3 being able to use one move to spam bullets everywhere. Does it annoy people? Yes! Was it banned from being used on EVO 2013? Hell no! Was it strong enough in the meta? Yes, but people still found ways around it! You look at any competitive game and you should be able to see consistency in what's actually working. Outright banning is going to put a meta-shift alright. Except the meta-shift is now influenced by "What could have beens…"

        "If they didn't ban x, I would have survived that list."
        "I bet your list wouldn't have won in a 'real' no holds-barred beatdown."
        "I was extremely limited in what I could even use."

        And so on and so forth.

        There will be nigh rock-paper-scissors matchups. But the same can be said for any competitive game. Fighting games being my forte, it's the reason why there are tier lists and most importantly, matchup charts. You don't just ban the tools of top tiers because you feel like you can't beat them with a D tier character. Eg: You're a Tager in Blazblue? Sucks to be you if you're fighting Nu but the crowd will cheer for you and be ecstatic if you win.

        • Shadar_Logoth says:

          I didn't get most of your allusions as I only have passively played fighting games since 1992, but excellent post.

          I just spent the last 15 minutes reading a Justin Wong's tier list for UMvC3. That's pretty fascinating stuff. Us fucking nerds. Is there a spec or endeavor on this earth we haven't gone balls deep on 😉 ?

        • craig88 says:

          Think you might be onto something with a tier system. Not sure how you could categorise each army/ally combo/dataslate/formation into a tier, I'll leave that for people much smarter and nerd-core than me but there's definitely potential here for ideas.

  114. Valek says:

    Most of this solutions will make CRAPTAU so dominant you can start nerfing them, as a well played lists of them only gets beaten by Deamons or Eldar. Seriously most of the games against Tau is him rolling dice and you removing models.

    so for me:
    Dataslates are in no problem, Escalation/Stronghold out, and just make Grimoire unrerollable, 2+ with rerolls are 4+ and overwatch rule from Tau only allows one extra unit to overwatch.

    That should do it by far!!

  115. Fulcrum says:

    Ban the Tau buff commander systems or at least ban them on independent characters!

  116. Peter says:

    Love it. Great initiatives.

    Cheers,
    Sword

  117. asmo says:

    Haven't played since start of 6th and the game has gotten even worse?

  118. Tomguycot says:

    Still not sure why the focus is on banning pieces of war-gear and restricting numbers of psykers when instead you could just say “2++ rerollables are bad so we’re banning/changing them”. Seems like that fixes the problem with whole lot less collateral damage.

    It’s also worth noting that these type of things in big tournaments have far reaching consequences even to those who don’t have a dog in the fight. A few years back the INAT FAQ pretty much destroyed our 40k group despite none of us playing in Adepticon because some people insisted on using it locally and others (like me) refused to be a part of any game involving it. Those people opposed all drifted off to other game systems and the local 40k scene has never totally recovered (even I only came back a few months ago).

  119. LoT says:

    Banlists are not fun, but they are a necessary evil when the company that develops the game doesn't care about balance. The same thing happened in Urza-block era Magic (except Wizards did actually accept their mistakes and banned cards themselves).

    Until GW decides playtesting and balancing the game is worth their time, bravo to FoB for doing the work and taking the heat that GW won't.

  120. Lysere says:

    I like the fact that your stepping up and trying to make the game more fun, but rather than ban the book and make it hard to take more than a few psykers, just make a rule that units consisting of more than a single model are not allowed to re-roll 2+ Saves unless they are armor saves. No re-rolling cover unless it's a single model, no re-rolling invulnerable unless it's a single model.

    Bam problem solved. Also rather than randomly making some units 0-1 just make non troop choices 0-2 by default, and no allying between supplements and codex. So no marine allied with marine.

  121. Malisteen says:

    presumably riptides and heldrakes will be among those getting the 0-1 treatment. If so, why bother with the ban on self-allying supplements? I can't think of any other problems they've caused? How is Black Legion allying with CSMs in any way more abusive or less appropriate than Space Marines allying with Dark Angels?

    Also, the grimoire ban seems excessive. Just restrict the bonus to daemon saves, rather than invulnerable saves in general, and its fine.

    I like the D weapon adjustment. I'm excited to play 40k games against stompas or baneblades, but the current D weapon rules a terrible to the point of sucking the fun even out of Apocalypse. In 40k, against something like the eldar titan… that's just not even a game anymore. Consider letting your replacement D weapon rules deal more wounds to gargantuan/superheavy stuff, though.

    The dataslate restriction should apply only to formations, not dataslates that simply add a unit or character to a given book. I'd love to see Cypher or Be'lakor at an event, but that probably won't happen if they have to be fielded as an entire allied detachment in and of themselves.

    • Malisteen says:

      The psyker restriction also feels excessive, particularly when multiple armies are based around having several or even all of their units and characters be psykers, like grey knights or tzeentch daemons. I'd rather that be dropped entirely, I'm just not seeing where its necessary, particularly if you're already banning the grimoire (or even if you simply reduce its effect as above).

  122. MadmanMSU says:

    Interesting to see that the Las Vegas Open is also restricting some things. No escalation, no Stronghold Assault, nerf to re-rollable 2++

  123. Angelofblades says:

    As someone who regularly plays against Daemons, I'm actually against Banning the GoTN. I believe it simply needs a little reworking or a FAQ.

    My suggestion would be this:

    Make the GoTN a 24" shooting attack. This makes it a risk for those heralds to GoTN whatever target they wish to target. As the rest of the unit would be prevented from shooting anything else – unless the herald has Split Fire. It also forces the GoTN holder to follow the rules of shooting attacks IE LOS – range, etc

    This leaves players with only one of 2 other choices on which to put a GoTN on, DP's or GD's. Which, by now, people shouldn't have that tough of a time focsing to kill a single FMC, which will also end up being the primary choice if they seek to GoTN a freindly FMC or flier (aka hellturkey). However since it is a shooting attack – it will allow Interceptor weapons a chance to still deal damage, unlike the current way, where Interceptor weapons have less of a chance to do jack.

    Additionally – if the unit misses the shot, then the intended target suffers the consequences of the GoTN- IE -1Sv

  124. guest says:

    I think the Vegas Open's approach to 2++ saves (it's not the components that are the problem but the result), would work better than banning the gotn. It's an important part of almost any good build, and isn't abusive (unless you get to 2++ re-rollable).

    No being able to grim a dp, flesh hounds, seekers, etc to give them a little more staying power will weaken the entire codex, without adding any more "diversity" (Flesh hounds having a 3+ save (or 2+ with the warp storm results) don't invalid builds the way three baleflamers do.

    Any changes which kill screamerstar (which deserves to die) but doesn't kill baron council are just punishing daemon players.

    I think adjusting how buffs work with allies would do a better job of limiting psyker problems without making certain army build (Non wave serpant eldar, Any fluffy tzeentch list, any grey knight list) impossible. If allies (battle brother or not) had to take a 5+ dtw witch roll (or if all allies are treated as if they are only degree less friendly to each other than the brb allies chart) you would limit most builds which are frustrating, without losing army choice in the process.

    However, the larger point of these changes: removing players ability to take 3 heldrakes gives more diversity to the table because other players aren't in fear of 3 heldrakes (or 4 riptides, of 4 landraiders, etc) is great idea, you just need to make sure the changes proposed always add more diversity than they remove (I think removing the grim makes many daemon builds much worse, while not enabling any new builds from other players.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress
`