[Plainville MA] Onslaught GT Primer Tournament (TempleCon) - 1/18/2014

[keithb]

The only thing that is arbitrary is which armies get to do the 2+ reroll gimick and which dont

But it is not arbitrary which players can play those lists. A competitive player who really wants to win would either take that list or bring a counter-list.

Believe me, I understand it well enough. But I don't understand the desire to fight the GW tide. They'll win. And in the process, you risk alienating players because you don't like their lists.

There is also the issue of how Long a book should stay competetive after release, and how mamy ebooks should be competetive.  For players WHO just seso armies and pay someone to paint it for them,  I guess gw is fine, but this is like 4% of gamers.

Alternatively, Look at fantasy and etc. You see all but the two worst books used.

[Benjamin]

Alternatively, Look at fantasy and etc. You see all but the two worst books used

I wouldn't hold Fantasy up as an example of a healthy game.

[Sir_Prometheus]

I understand the math well enough, but that's justifying what is still arbitrary, regardless of how many players agree with you.

Taking appropriate armies and playing them well are the keys to winning, as it always has been. Mike D laid out how to beat his list, standard anti-Deathstar strategy really.

I fail to see what is arbitrary about this, except to extent that all choices, rules, etc can be considered "arbitrary".

[shwnlyns]

People seem to really like what fantasy tournaments are doing, setting restrictions on units and stuff for each Mary and even giving some armies more points to try to be competitive. This seems to be a much smaller scale of the same thing and I think if 40k wants to stay competitive, it's going to have to do the same. All but two of the worst fantasy armies are played because they are made to be equal in strength, not by GW but by the community.

[keithb]

Alternatively, Look at fantasy and etc. You see all but the two worst books used

I wouldn't hold Fantasy up as an example of a healthy game.

Right, people in this area don't play so it must suck right?

In europe large fantasy events outdraw 40k events, and large fantasy events in the states are still large.  But right, as goes plainville, so goes the world.

[keithb]

People left fantasy because of GW's rules.  Nothing else.

I used to be able to go to a 14-20 player fantasy event almost EVERY weekend prior to 8th edition, without more than a 1.5 hour drive.

Fantasy is coming back because of players taking the initiative.

40k is showing all the signs that fantasy was in late 7th edition.

[Mike D]

The point in my post was 2 fold.  Firstly taking the nerf bat to the current winning combinations sets a bad precedent, means that as the meta shifts and new winning power army's appear the nerf bat will get bigger and include more and more restrictions.  Secondly I was attempting to point out the difference between a re rolling 2+ armor save and a 2+ invul/cover save, now put that save on units that can cover the entire table in one round and you have a massive advantage.  However both the screamer star and warlock council rely on psychic powers to achieve this.  The new tyranid codex will return "shadows of the warp" to a much more common sight on the table.  This will instantly balance out those units relying on psychic powers for there effectiveness.  GW has constantly fixed broken combinations with the next codex, remember  when Necrons came out?, all the super mech army's disappeared, or flyer spam? Raven Wing? I am sure there are more but these are the three I remember best.  There are lots of broken combinations in the game that will fix themselves as new releases counter them, see Tau in my last post.  Taking a nerf bat to certain aspects of the game rules that people don't like is a horrible president to set.  Before to long the bat will be huge and we will all be running lists that require 4 full size troop choices and a commander that does not exceed 150 points, Mabee limit all non troops to 1 per selection and give extra vps based on army composition.  Once again only my 2 cents

[andalucien]

Hey Mike, so, I'm curious, would you prefer that Escalation and Stronghold Assault be allowed in their entirety then?

[Sir_Prometheus]

means that as the meta shifts and new winning power army's appear the nerf bat will get bigger and include more and more restrictions.

So the truth is the game probably requires a fairly liberal rewriting of rules in order to be playable in any sort of competitive format at this point.  Yeah, maybe that's sorta like a "a bigger and bigger nerf bat".

Your points on 2+ versus 2++ rerollable are completely valid, but I have always completely hated GW's "system" of correcting past mistakes by building some counter into the next book...it's an evolving system of rock-paper-scissors at best and outright power creep at worst.

[Chase]

Back in the day Tekken had community written rules / restriction for tournaments.

StarCraft (all of them) has always had patches that tweak balance and adjust whatever they feel is "too good" every so often.

World of Warcraft had patches that significantly changed balance, I'm not sure what they do now.

I don't know how they handle League of Legends, but I'd probably bet they patch in balance tweaks every so often.

These are some of the most successful competitively played franchises ever and they tweak the rules to make competition more fun.  Almost all of them take the "top down" approach as well.



Unplugging, some of the more prominent example of game companies (or affiliates) adjusting for balance include Privateer Press releasing semi-frequent "patches" or FAQs / errata that straight-up CHANGE things.  Magic the Gathering has a banned list that's updated 4 times a year.  Sometimes the updates contains no changes, sometimes they unban a card, sometimes they ban what they feel is the "broken piece of the puzzle."  Some people cry, some people cheer.  /shrug



Do these changes sometimes have a substantial effect on the metagame?  Sure.  Unfortunately all of these companies (except Privateer Press) have TONS of data to base their decisions on.  Do these balance related changes upset some people?  Sure.  Do some people stop playing?  Sure.  Is it usually for the better?  Debatable.  Does it "fix" what's "wrong?"  Sometimes.  Is it okay?  I think so.

Does it set precedent?  I guess so, but people tweak the rules for their local events all the time, right?  Comp stuff and all that, 2x FoC or not, etc.  Might it start a period of community re-writes a la WHFB?  Probably.  Is that going to happen anyways?  I think so.

At the higher levels it seems that 40k is in an odd place right now.  GW (rightfully or not) doesn't seem to give a fuck about the vocal 10% and is sticking to their mantra.  It's strange.  Do we as the community sit there, smile, and hope... Or do we try to change it?  The "hope" route is an interesting option due to the rate they're putting out content / product.  The "change it" option is tricky because GW might fix it on their own next month.  Do you take the chance and spark this kind of debate, which clearly creates some kind of rift, or do you just continue to let it go?

[Mike D]

I have read escalation and stronghold assault several times and read battle reports involving super heavies.  My answer in a yes or no format is, Yes.  That being said I do think that the meta shift they bring is massive.  Void shield generators become necessary, and death stars and small elite armys become extinct.  Only four super heavies in the book have a D-weapon and only the Revenant is gross.  The thunderhawk has to start in reserve and you could get unlucky leaving your 775 point investment off the table til round 4.  The shadowsword is a single shot.  The transcendent C'tan can have 2 huge templates but has to expose itself to your medium range fire to use them.  Only the the thunderhawk can defend itself against flyers.  Overall I believe the points cost to include such a massive unit helps ballance there effectivness in a game.

[keithb]

The point in my post was 2 fold.  Firstly taking the nerf bat to the current winning combinations sets a bad precedent, means that as the meta shifts and new winning power army's appear the nerf bat will get bigger and include more and more restrictions.  Secondly I was attempting to point out the difference between a re rolling 2+ armor save and a 2+ invul/cover save, now put that save on units that can cover the entire table in one round and you have a massive advantage.  However both the screamer star and warlock council rely on psychic powers to achieve this.  The new tyranid codex will return "shadows of the warp" to a much more common sight on the table.  This will instantly balance out those units relying on psychic powers for there effectiveness.  GW has constantly fixed broken combinations with the next codex, remember  when Necrons came out?, all the super mech army's disappeared, or flyer spam? Raven Wing? I am sure there are more but these are the three I remember best.  There are lots of broken combinations in the game that will fix themselves as new releases counter them, see Tau in my last post.  Taking a nerf bat to certain aspects of the game rules that people don't like is a horrible president to set.  Before to long the bat will be huge and we will all be running lists that require 4 full size troop choices and a commander that does not exceed 150 points, Mabee limit all non troops to 1 per selection and give extra vps based on army composition.  Once again only my 2 cents

Your entire post just makes my point about invalidating books at an unprecedented rate.  Your whole argument is "don't worry about X, Book Y will solve it!"   Meanwhile X is still really, really good, and my army can do fuck all against it.  Great solution.

This isn't nerfing something just because it is good, it is because of how much better it is.   

Obviously, I am not going to convince you of anything, but you could do a double check and realize that the build hit by this nerf are still..... really really good.  They just don't get to save 35 of 36 wounds, now they save 33 of 36 wounds.   boo hoo.

[andalucien]

is in an odd place right now.  GW (rightfully or not) doesn't seem to give a fuck about the vocal 10% and is sticking to their mantra. 

In a weird sort of way, this has become a self-solving problem now that GW has legitimate up-and-coming competition.   Eventually the "vocal 10%" who demand good rules becomes "happy warmachine or malifaux players" and GW doesn't have to worry about them anymore.

[shwnlyns]

Waiting for Tyranid to fix currently broken builds solves practically nothing. We don't all play Tyranid and don't want to spend $1000 on a new army to be competitive. Balancing is required so that any army should be able to beat any other army. The "nerf bat" doesn't exist to make a good build not worth playing anymore while, it's meant to balance the game. Assomeone already said, re-rolling 2+ as 4+ is still very good and seems to me nothing to complain about, but I do agree that there are other builds that also requiring some balance.

[Chancetragedy]

Will the new tyranid codex be in play for this event? I know it's legal for templecon but it's only a week out for this event so I was just curious if I should prepare for that as it would be good practice to see them in competitive play before temple.  And if I missed it in the thread I'm sorry, I read through and didn't see it.