Author Topic: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes  (Read 19494 times)

AstartesXXVI

  • Heroic Tier Level 4
  • **
  • Posts: 150
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #45 on: February 27, 2014, 03:25:18 PM »
Reading the first few posts of a thread and hitting reply FTW.
"Really, the entire game is 'Opponent's Permission' if you think about it..."

Chase

  • Global Moderator
  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 5433
    • Email
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #46 on: February 27, 2014, 03:49:25 PM »
Reading the first few posts of a thread and hitting reply FTW.

To his credit, it only took the first few posts...

  :-\
"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it."
- Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Thefallen

  • Heroic Tier Level 4
  • **
  • Posts: 159
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #47 on: February 27, 2014, 05:19:37 PM »
Let's get back on topic guys. Please...
Fleet,  ATSKNF,  Heavy vehicles, and FNP (more stuff ignored FNP, not the 4+ part.5+ is better) all more balanced. in 5th edition.
Small rule changes can give some life to unplayed units and armies with out hurting existing units and armies.

Mike_k

  • Heroic Tier Level 3
  • **
  • Posts: 134
    • Dark Star Wargaming
    • Email
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #48 on: February 27, 2014, 05:29:32 PM »
Guys while the spirit is appreciated the entire point of this thread and the request is being missed ( not by everyone plenty of the feedback is great).  This is not a thread looking for you approval, your buy in, willingness to try, your version, or anything of that nature.  We simply want to gather additional input as to what negatives these changes have on armies and units that are already weak.

Without changing rules or writing many new ones it is VERY hard to raise very weak books to the level of Tau, SM, Daemons.  Without nerfs you cannot dial the broken stuff like 2++ rerollables down into balance.  We are starting with examining some general rules changes that effect what is making the game unbalanced and separates the top armies from the bottom feeders.

This is also not MY comp its a group of us who discuss this daily.  We see friends no longer playing or having fun while playing.  We see our store that used to have to cap events at 40+ players getting many many fewer attendees.  We see the same 3 or 4 units and the same 3 or 4 armies always winning every tournament.  Thursday 40k and Saturdays used to be packed and thriving hubs for fun, meaningful, and spirited games.  Prepping for tournaments and to stay in the hunt for the invitational etc.

We dont want to fix 40k and we dont want to change 40k.  We only want to keep the competitive tournament scene balanced and fun for all armies and all participants.  If you want super heavies there is a place for that, if you want broken rules there is also a place for that.  If you want to play shenanigan combos of Godstars there is a place for that.  That place is not in a balanced competitive environment.

These changes may seem to hurt some armies more than others and thats the point when 1 army is broken, and a few others are significantly better than everything else.  These changes are not solid or set in stone or even in use anywhere other than theory and testing.  We are not asking for debates or your version of comp or even your overall opinion at this time.

We are simply looking at how these changes will hurt armies that are already weak and if the net gains to balance are worth that trade.

Feel free to participate and provide that feedback or not but please respect the topic and the request being made.  Keep your petty personal bickering out of our thread please.  We are only trying to help and we are not trying to dictate how YOU chose to play the game. We will be releasing a full write up of all the modifications our research indicates "fix" tournament army composition and rules imbalance.  That is when the debating and testing and name calling can begin =).
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 05:33:12 PM by Mike_k »
Kingergarten Class Best Costume 1983
5th Grade Spelling Bee Spring Circuit Champion
6th Grade CYO Basketball Playoffs Semifinals Game
MVP
Lead Alter Boy Threepeat 88, 89, 90
8th Grade CYO Basketball State Champ Benchwarmer
Club Dark Star, Just 2 Bro's, Murda Bidness, Founding Bro
Eagle Scout 1996

Thefallen

  • Heroic Tier Level 4
  • **
  • Posts: 159
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #49 on: February 27, 2014, 07:08:58 PM »
So you don't want to fix the game. You just want to nerf a few units and codexes and call that Balanced. Sorry I wasted our time.

AstartesXXVI

  • Heroic Tier Level 4
  • **
  • Posts: 150
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2014, 07:27:21 PM »
It seemed obvious to me that was the case, since the original suggested rules were just a big F-U to Tau and Daemons.

As for the actual rules themselves, they are very broad. 40k has hundreds of combos of abilities and units, and this game is the sort that changing something even slightly can have HUGE implications. Playing with fire to change core rules, in other words. The twin-linking thing, for example, is going to cripple some ork armies, and makes some expensive weapons start to be very much not worth their costs. Also, most notably, the twin-linked anti air weapon of choice on most Aegis Lines would be affected, making a primary way of dealing with flyers not work as well.

Still. I see the same examples being referenced all over this board as being the "issue" with 40k (Riptides, Wave Serpents, 2++ re-rollable daemons, etc.). Why deal with the whole game when there are only a handful of things you lot seem to feel are the problem?

My opinion, honestly, is that no change to the rules are going to make a lick of difference here. These are problems with community, not mechanics. But if you are going to institute something, implement it with conviction. Leaderless hordes of players with no sense of community rarely if ever will come to a consensus.
"Really, the entire game is 'Opponent's Permission' if you think about it..."

Sir_Prometheus

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
    • Email
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #51 on: February 27, 2014, 07:33:29 PM »
I am in favor of writing some overarching rules to rebalance things, preferably the simpler the better.

I am not in favor of these specific changes suggested, no. 

Benjamin

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2610
    • Email
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #52 on: February 27, 2014, 10:00:33 PM »
So you don't want to fix the game. You just want to nerf a few units and codexes and call that Balanced. Sorry I wasted our time.
+1.

Here's the problem with 40k competitively. The most effective options currently either offer no resistance (Strength D) or near-infinite resistance (2++ re-rollable). There is no give-and-take.

I've been thinking the current approach toward comp is incorrect..... Rather than scale things back, we start small and work our way up. Allow just the print codices for awhile, see how that goes. No allies, until we understand the issues in the core books fully. Feed in supplements incrementally after that, and so on. You know, we can realize that 6th Edition has been out less than 18 months and undergone changes so quickly and radically, that stripping the game to its core is the only place to logically start. And that's pretty much all I'll say about that, because no one will listen anyhow.

steelforge

  • Heroic Tier Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 97
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #53 on: February 28, 2014, 12:30:01 AM »
Drop the default point value from 1850.
With unit price deflation 1850 in 6e is more like 5e 2200.
Make the default tournament 1500.

This Ends The Common Sense Point; please return to your regularly scheduled whining.

Benjamin

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2610
    • Email
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #54 on: February 28, 2014, 08:16:43 AM »
At the 1000 Attacker/Defender event, I still ran into two Librarians (one SM and one DA) attached to three Centurions with a grav-amp behind an Aegis line. So they had a 4++, re-rolls to hit and wound, on (IIRC) 12 AP 2 shots.

There is one upside to lower point values that can't be overlooked. Shorter games often means more games, and more games better determines the best general, which is what competitive players are after.

Grimwulfe

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
  • Dark Star Founding Member
    • Email
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #55 on: February 28, 2014, 08:31:03 AM »
I dont have alot of experience with other armies and so on.  But as for the IC rule.

This would hinder SW armies since they have the ability to get 4 HQ choices.  The book is designed to have these HQ choices rolling together.  There isnt a combo in the SW that makes having more then 1 IC over powering so I dont see this rule change helping them.

SW in general are not an over powered army so this change would indeed nerf them.

Twin linking and Preferred enemy are similar mechanics but different for a reason.  Changing twin linking to reroll only 1's would hinder a wide variety of lower end armies.  Orcs come to mind with their 2 BS hell SM razorbacks and anti air guns would be severely hindered. Which in turn would bring about the return of the unstoppable flyers.  While this would bring Tau back to earth I think the negatives accross the other armies would make it a negative.

As for the rerolls on Invul saves.  I think you have the right idea but as a blanket rule I think it should always be +2 to the reroll.  So a 2++ becomes a 4++ and a 3++ becomes a 5++ this way it has a set number and still has the potential to be powerful.  because there should be powerful stuff just not god mode stuff.
Dark Star Founding Member
NOVA 2011 Trios Team Champions
NOVA 2012 Trios Team Champions
WGC 2013 Doubles Best Sportman
NOVA 2013 Trios Team Champions
DaBoyz GT 2013 Best Theme 1st Place
Adepticon Champ 2014 Best Imperial Showing
Adepticon Team 2014 Best Imperial Showing

Benjamin

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2610
    • Email
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #56 on: February 28, 2014, 08:55:13 AM »
As for the rerolls on Invul saves.  I think you have the right idea but as a blanket rule I think it should always be +2 to the reroll.  So a 2++ becomes a 4++ and a 3++ becomes a 5++ this way it has a set number and still has the potential to be powerful.  because there should be powerful stuff just not god mode stuff.
What becomes of a re-rollable 5++ or 6++?

Sir_Prometheus

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
    • Email
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #57 on: February 28, 2014, 09:07:45 AM »
Oh, the twin linking adjustment was about Tau?  I will admit that 6e appears to be all about twinlinking and bikes. 

But Tau don't really need your twinlinking, if they want, they can just make their missilesides BS 5. 

Grimwulfe

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
  • Dark Star Founding Member
    • Email
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #58 on: February 28, 2014, 09:10:51 AM »
As for the rerolls on Invul saves.  I think you have the right idea but as a blanket rule I think it should always be +2 to the reroll.  So a 2++ becomes a 4++ and a 3++ becomes a 5++ this way it has a set number and still has the potential to be powerful.  because there should be powerful stuff just not god mode stuff.
What becomes of a re-rollable 5++ or 6++?

5++ to 6++
6++ to 6++

Common sense since no roll can go over a 6.

Matt you just proved the point about twin linking.  Tau have ways to get around it.  Add in twin linking and it makes it that much more broken.  However I think the blanket reduction in turning it to basically preferred enemy hurts to many other armies.
Dark Star Founding Member
NOVA 2011 Trios Team Champions
NOVA 2012 Trios Team Champions
WGC 2013 Doubles Best Sportman
NOVA 2013 Trios Team Champions
DaBoyz GT 2013 Best Theme 1st Place
Adepticon Champ 2014 Best Imperial Showing
Adepticon Team 2014 Best Imperial Showing

Tharcil

  • Guest
Re: Working on some possible comp/rules fixes
« Reply #59 on: February 28, 2014, 10:52:40 AM »
The independet character restriction also affects Blood Angels poorly (or any other codex that has independents in non-HQ slots).  Not allowing for a sanguinary priest to join the same unit an HQ does, pretty much ruins one of the major bonus of Blood Angels.