Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Sir_Prometheus on December 04, 2013, 02:39:38 PM
-
I kinda had an epiphany last night. For years there's been a perennial argument about what GW considers "official", mostly revolving around Forgeworld. GW answers, if any, usually boil down to some form of "anything is legal if you want it to be". But for competitive players, for the tournament goers, "official" usually matters, we want to have a "standard" definition of what a "typical" 40k game can or cannot include.
Thoughts like this made me fret about the Inquisition codex. Despite being a horrible slap-dash copy and paste hack job, it did seem to be "official", and that seemed to mean we were stuck with it. (I say all this as GK player with a lot of Inquisition models ready to go) (I will also say while I think it's more than a little lame you can just slap inquisitors wherever you want, it's not horribly broken. It just lacks in the usual opportunity costs.)
But the dataslates appear to be "official" too, right? Which made me realise I suddenly feel no need to care about what GW considers "official".
Which means, as a community, we need to have a talk about what should and should not be allowed -- we can't just assume because GW released it it's legit anymore.
I think it's pretty clear none of think these Dataslates or "formations" should be allowed, I didn't see a lot of dissent in Matt Forsyth's post.
But what about Inquisition? Is that something we want? DO we want Coteaz's everywhere? (hey man, I have one ready to go)
Personally, I like the supplements, I think they're fun and fluffy without being broken (that little O'vesa problem aside) but since some of them are digital only, I think it's fair to involve them in the discussion. (all of them, I believe, are slated to be physical books eventually, I understand it is mostly a printer backlog).
So, poll. I think this should be moved more for the "competitive" tournaments, not the one's where we allow FW. (that would be a different poll)
-
Nice usage of poll :)
-
I went with "You people are whiners!" However, I like the trend for BG of running tournaments mixing up what is allowed. I enjoy occasionally allowing Forgeworld, double force org, just bring a tank, and 1850 (codex and supplement only. I would willingly take in dataslates into the mix.
I would not enjoy any of these being the standard all of the time, I'm one of those "variety is the spice of life," people.
-
I went with "You people are whiners!" However, I like the trend for BG of running tournaments mixing up what is allowed. I enjoy occasionally allowing Forgeworld, double force org, just bring a tank, and 1850 (codex and supplement only. I would willingly take in dataslates into the mix.
I would not enjoy any of these being the standard all of the time, I'm one of those "variety is the spice of life," people.
I think this should be moved more for the "competitive" tournaments, not the one's where we allow FW. (that would be a different poll)
Just sayin'. I like that we have both "competitive" and "fluffy" tournaments too, and I enjoy both, but this was meaning more for the former.
-
I don't see any major tournaments banning the Inquisition codex, yes its ridiculous that now you can have 3 different codexs in an army list but i think we're stuck with it.
As far as the dataslates ts going to be up to the TOs to either allow them all or deny them all, i don't see anyone cherry picking which one is and isn't legal.
Belkator or whatever his name is doesn't seem very broken
Tau firebase cadre took some of the best units in the Tau codex and made them OP for no additional point cost
I still think it's a bit to early to judge, we may as well wait and see what they ALL are before we cry "witch! burn her!"
Dataslates could be a great way to add spice to a subpar codex without having to do a whole supplement. for example rumor is DA are getting a Cypher dataslate... and DA is without question the weakest 6E codex
-
I don't see any major tournaments banning the Inquisition codex, yes its ridiculous that now you can have 3 different codexs in an army list but i think we're stuck with it.
Well, Mike Brandt and Reecius (2 of the 3 most prominent TO's in the USA) have both posted open questions on their blogs recently, asking people for ideas about what to do to maintain a positive competitive environment. They both seem to be open to ignoring or changing rules published by GW, and have both been openly critical of the nature Codex: Inquisition. So I wouldn't say this is off the table.
-
I'm psyched the poll feature finally works!
-
I don't see any major tournaments banning the Inquisition codex, yes its ridiculous that now you can have 3 different codexs in an army list but i think we're stuck with it.
Well, Mike Brandt and Reecius (2 of the 3 most prominent TO's in the USA) have both posted open questions on their blogs recently, asking people for ideas about what to do to maintain a positive competitive environment. They both seem to be open to ignoring or changing rules published by GW, and have both been openly critical of the nature Codex: Inquisition. So I wouldn't say this is off the table.
They understand the game is heading in a bad and unfun direction. It isn't fun to start a game and basically be helpless. Just like it wasn't fun in fantasy when you can coin flip to see whose super spell crushed the other guy first.
-
It isn't fun to start a game and basically be helpless.
Fact.
-
They understand the game is heading in a bad and unfun direction. It isn't fun to start a game and basically be helpless. Just like it wasn't fun in fantasy when you can coin flip to see whose super spell crushed the other guy first.
Oh, I guess that is the reason my Orks get no play time anymore...
-
Tau firebase cadre took some of the best units in the Tau codex and made them OP for no additional point cost
But they are not OP because they have a totally balancing rule that lets SM hit them better in melee....
But even though SM have the hatred rule, they still have no problem working with a Tau formation. What was it, Kill the alien, Burn the witch, purge the heretic. Seems like now give everyone a big huge and a cupcake...unless you are a bug.
-
I think any codex(IAs included) or supplements that have a physical book that can be purchased by or through Battlegrounds should be allowed. I also think a data sheet character/unit would be fine as it is only a single unit of rules and a model that can be purchased or ordered through BG. if it were up to me I wouldn't allow any digi only codex supplements. I think they are a big FU to players and local gaming stores. I suppose the special character data sheets are also, just to a smaller degree but its 1 unit and 1 page of rules. Now if a player wanted to play a digi only codex/supplement and they printed it out and gave that copy to battlegrounds for TO review and to have as a public copy for players to review in store only(not for sale as that would violate copy right laws) just so everyone curious about them can understand what it means to the game. I personally would be ok with it's inclusion to competitive play.
-
The dataslates, Escalation and Stronghold assault are all intended for use in 'standard games of 40k', just like Forgeworld models and units.
GW itself has not generally allowed FW units into tournaments - ArdBoyz, Throne of Skulls, and this can be seen in the latest version of 'The Warrior's Code' from Warhammer World.
Why? Because 'Tournament 40k' is not 'Standard 40k'. What is great and cool from a narrative point of view can be used and exploited in a min/maxed tournament list. That isn't what GW designs all these rules for - their repeated description of the game is as a 'beer and preztels' type casual game.
If the new rulebooks make sense for tournament play, they should be used.
If they introduce rules which make tournament play less fun, less balanced, then they should be excluded.
'Official' rules are not necessarily tournament rules. GW does this themselves so independent TO's should not take flak for doing the same.
-
Karvala I have no idea who you are but well said.
-
(he's from the 11th company forums, I linked to here)
It was well said. Problem is we're working off different definitions of "official", and many people think if you're not willing to use dataslates, FW, whatever, really, you're essentially instituting a form of comp.
I have to say I am very surprised by the results of this poll. I kinda assuming several people picked the "dataslates" option because they liked the line "you're all a bunch of whiners", but still, for those who advocate this, are just not familiar with what these dataslates do and will entail? Why should anyone who wants to do be able to cherry pick riptides and SM flyers, and why should these units get additional rules for free?
I am also a little surprised that one ONE person who didn't support the dataslates supported the inquisition Codex, though I agree, they're mostly the same level of silly.
After this goes on for a little while longer, I think the poll may have to be redone, but with trimmed options. (namely #'s 2 &4)
-
I'm glad I have two friends up in the "Only full codexes" option. Let's go start our own island nation somewhere.
-
One comment I have is that it's possible that Escalation and Stronghold will be more high-quality material (maybe even more tournament-suitable) than these recent digital releases. So it's possible that some folks (maybe even me) would want them included without the digital stuff.
-
Hey, yeah, and maybe it'll have unicorns.
Something we NEED is clarification of the fortification rules, which are not only unclear in some places, but actually have huge gaping holes. Also, I think all Xenos players would like to see non-imperial buildings of some form.
But yeah, Unicorns.
-
Newest rumors are saying escalation is not nerfing D weapons for regular 40k games. They are also saying it's NOT an expansion like the old planet strike or cities of death but is just for any and all 40k games
Not like it's up to GW though, as always it's up to the TOs and I dont see super heavies in 40k being the norm
-
Old quote from I forget who:
"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg"
-
For what it's worth, my convo with the GW rep last week seemed to make a couple things pretty clear.
Str D was a thing and not changed. He went out of his way to tell me that when players mention that they don't have access to Str D weapons that they can always take that big fortification thing.
Also, he said 3 times that Escalation is "an expansion and not a supplement, meaning that it's intended to be part of the normal 40k rules as soon as it's released."
-
They can intend it to be part of the main rules. That doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. We're at the point where we all realize that now, right?
-
Yup, but I'm not at the point where I feel that it's automatically a bad idea.
I can promise that there will be events at Battleground that allow superheavies very soon. We had plans for 1 (2 if you include the Megabattle) planned before this book was announced. Another 1 will likely get added sometime in Jan / Feb.
-
Hmm, obviously way to early to draw any conclusions, but this post from someone who claims to already have Escalation makes it sound like it suffers from a bit of "Inquisition-itis":
----------
Anyway, have had a flick through Escalation and I was frankly disappointed. As far as I can tell it's a cut-and-paste of the rules for Superheavies, Gargantuan Creatures, D Weapons and the 'Big Template Weapons' rules, straight from the Apocalypse rulebook, with a £30 price sticker slapped on.
There were copies of the data sheets for all Baneblade variants, Thunderhawks, Stompas, Lord Of Skulls, Harridan, Tessaract Vault, Obelisk, Transcendant C'tan, Tau Flying thing (Didn't get a good look at this one) and the Eldar (and Dark Eldar, apparently...) Revenant Titan. I don't recognise the Tau flyer from the Apocalypse book, but all of the others are cut-and-paste from Apocalypse.
There were two new missions and that seems to be about it.
K.
-------------------------------
-
Strength D in regular games is a bad idea, from both hobby and competitive perspectives. It improves an army, but it doesn't improve the game.
-
Its going to be tough to do consistent comp because no matter what some people get turned away, shunned, shut down etc.
Also its very hard to judge what direction things are going half way through an edition cycle that has bucked and broken every GW trend and rule from all previous editions. Supposedly the edition cycle will be updated by the start of 2015. Who knows whats powerful now and if it will still be powerful then.
At no point in 5th edition did you routinely see the top tables at every major tourney or event littered so consistently with the same 4 armies as you do now. In that same token never did we see 4 consistently powerful armies routinely taking down victories either like we do now with Tau, Eldar, Daemons, and SM. the 5th edition GT scene clearly showed the effects of codex creep s every new release started winning a lot up to GK and then GK split pretty evenly with Crons through the remainder of 5th.
A year + is a long time to wait to start implementing and designing comp as literally another entire GT season and ETC cycle will have passed before the expected update cycle is complete. Yet with new content rolling out so rapidly maintaining and updating a viable and meaningful comp system would also be very hard. Especially for an entity like BG that typically runs events monthly or at worst bi monthly.
I voted to keep it all in play lets use this year as OUR beta test to see where GW takes us for 2015 and beyond. I have always believed this release model would be better for the hobby. More viable armies for longer periods with easier fixes (mini releases, WD updates, new units etc.) Its easier to pinpoint if a mini release is broken vs an entire codex. Screamer star didnt even start to show itself until like 3 months after the codex release (not that screamer star is broken, its debatable) but its an example of how tough it is to determine whats good/bad/broken in each codex without months of the entire community pouring over it.
-
Solid post.
-
Yeah mike... seems like a very constructive approach there. Nice post.
-
Why does battlegrounds have to run our own personal beta test? Why can't the community as a whole come together? You know, pool our resources?
Does anybody know how the "generally accepted comp" system actually came about in fantasy? I don't actually know much about it at all, other than having heard people say that the community eventually fixed a totally broken ruleset and the game eventually rebounded a bit after a year or so. That's what we're looking at here I think.
-
Well, Mike Brandt and Reecius (2 of the 3 most prominent TO's in the USA) have both posted open questions on their blogs recently, asking people for ideas about what to do to maintain a positive competitive environment. They both seem to be open to ignoring or changing rules published by GW, and have both been openly critical of the nature Codex: Inquisition. So I wouldn't say this is off the table.
Do those guys even play 40k? I thought they only played Fantasy. Fantasy has always had a comped system, right now you're comparing apples to tomatoes
-
Well, Mike Brandt and Reecius (2 of the 3 most prominent TO's in the USA) have both posted open questions on their blogs recently, asking people for ideas about what to do to maintain a positive competitive environment. They both seem to be open to ignoring or changing rules published by GW, and have both been openly critical of the nature Codex: Inquisition. So I wouldn't say this is off the table.
Do those guys even play 40k? I thought they only played Fantasy. Fantasy has always had a comped system, right now you're comparing apples to tomatoes
Not sure where you're getting that? Mike Brandt runs the Nova Open and Reecius runs a bunch of big 40k events on the West Coast (and now, the upcoming Las Vegas open). I don't think either of them has played much fantasy except to dabble a bit.
-
Not sure where you're getting that? Mike Brandt runs the Nova Open and Reecius runs a bunch of big 40k events on the West Coast (and now, the upcoming Las Vegas open). I don't think either of them has played much fantasy except to dabble a bit.
Ah sorry yes of course.. I though for some reson you were talking about someone else. Reecius actually painted my daemon army :D
Does anybody know how the "generally accepted comp" system actually came about in fantasy? I don't actually know much about it at all, other than having heard people say that the community eventually fixed a totally broken ruleset and the game eventually rebounded a bit after a year or so. That's what we're looking at here I think.
I don't know how it came about but I can tell you that 7th ed Fantasy Daemons broke the game far worse then any edition of 40k. Players refered to "The Big 3", referring to how insanely powerful Daemons, Dark Elves, and Vampires were.. while armies like Beastmen, Tomb Kings, Wood Elves, and Orcs/Goblin got to start the game with 200-300 points more then everyone else because they were so bad. We have never seen, and I don't anticipate ANY 40k army starting with more points then anyone else, but if you want to test it out, try playing a game with 1500 points Tau vs 1700 Dark Angels and let us know what you think.
-
Now that Escalation and Stronghold is out, I would like some additional input before I make a new, less option-ed poll.
-
After giving it some more thought. Im changing my mind and vote. Allow everything. All IA s, all supplements, all data sheets, codexes, escalation, and stronghold. If you look at the big picture it will probably balance things out better. As it stands with standard 40k, the game is overall poorly balanced. especially for competitive play. All the new add-ons bring variety to the game and level the playing field for those substandard armies that either need an update or got a crappy update(DA, Chaos). Will some players try to abuse the stuff? Yes but they already do that with standard 40k so thats not gonna change. most players ive seen at tournaments bring fun or fluffy lists and I dont think that would change either.
-
I will tender that if you say, triple the available rules/codexes/whatever available, but 1 or 2 of those things are monstrously overpowered, then everyone plays that one or two things, and you have reduced diversity, not increased it.
-
The generally accepted comp system for fantasy is a bit like this -
Every game is 2400 points. Weaker armies get more points (I think wood elves get 2700).
Limit of X number shooting units, no special characters, lots of changes to the magic system
Then it goes codex by codex telling you maybe 3-5 bullets for each on what items are different and if they're allowed more shooty guys or war machines than the general limit.
If you Google 2013 fantasy etc rules you should find them. They also have a 15 page pdf with diagrams on movement abuse that tell you what you're not allowed to do or it breaks the game (ie makes it impossible to charge or even move your units in some cases).
-
See, that seems like exactly what I would like to see for 40k, see?
-
Whatever happens, I would hope to keep a much lighter hand than that.
-
found the 2012 rules, anyway.
http://thegamestable.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=1043
-
GIVE D A CHANCE!!
-
We should ban the Harry Potter books... And BURN the twilight books.