Working on some possible comp/rules fixes

[steelforge]

1) 1500 points is the new default.
2) Rerolls incur a -2 penalty but do not exceed 6+
3) Battle Brothers may not join each other's units.

*Drops Mic*

You're welcome.

[robpro]

1) 1500 points is the new default.
2) Rerolls incur a -2 penalty but do not exceed 6+
3) Battle Brothers may not join each other's units.

*Drops Mic*

You're welcome.

So Escalation, Stronghold Assault, Forge World units/armies, Dataslate characters/formations, etc are all fine too?\, we just play 1500 points now?

[Dan Bunker]

I think the opposite approach of allowing more  things would balance out the broken units. we wouldn't see so many deathstars relying on a rerollable save if units that didn't allow them to save in the first place would exist in the game(D weapons). picking and choosing what to nerf causes unbalance in other units that gain power by nerfing their weaknesses.
my 2 cents; allow more FW or escalation or create missions to compensate.

[Sir_Prometheus]

1) 1500 points is the new default.
2) Rerolls incur a -2 penalty but do not exceed 6+
3) Battle Brothers may not join each other's units.

*Drops Mic*

You're welcome.

So Escalation, Stronghold Assault, Forge World units/armies, Dataslate characters/formations, etc are all fine too?\, we just play 1500 points now?

You realize most people just assume those are banned, right? 

I think the opposite approach of allowing more  things would balance out the broken units. we wouldn't see so many deathstars relying on a rerollable save if units that didn't allow them to save in the first place would exist in the game(D weapons). picking and choosing what to nerf causes unbalance in other units that gain power by nerfing their weaknesses.
my 2 cents; allow more FW or escalation or create missions to compensate.

I really don't think the path is allow more broken things.  The game needs to reigned in, significantly, at the point. No, that doesn't just mean different things are broken.  I mean, it may, but the "magnitude" how much an OP thing is dominant compared to a more moderate thing matters a great deal.   

Also, str D is a pretty horrible thing, for reasons that have been stated previously. 

[Grimwulfe]

Actually its exactly what some of you have been asking for. Some say the community cant do this because of differing opinions and so on.  Were not asking the community what they think are the problems what we are doing here or what Mike is doing here for that matter is looking for feedback on things he or we haven't thought about. 

The problems with the game have already been discussed in our inner circle what we are trying to do is put together fixes.  Then take those fixes and see if people thought of something we didn't and why they are bad or good etc. 

The idea here is not to debate what the issues are but to debate how a POTENTIAL fix effects others armies etc. Or to find out if a POTENTIAL fix causes more problems then it helps.

I think the reason the discussion isn't going the way you guys may have expected it to is because your process isn't entirely open. Your "inner circle" may have discussed it but its seems a little dictatorial to privately decide what the problems with the game are, determine solutions, and then ask the community at large to jump in the process without getting to participate in the entirety.

I think you'd get better results sharing a complete draft of fixes or going 100% community based. Half and half seems like worst of both worlds.

Ian while I do appreciate your view on this no way will that happen.  This community has already proven what a shit show it is trying do this .  Our goal here is to just get opinions on the 3 changes mentioned.  No way would we want to open that can of worms.  When things are hashed out sure but overall people dont know what is good for the game from a COMPETITIVE stand point. 

[Tharcil]

Actually its exactly what some of you have been asking for. Some say the community cant do this because of differing opinions and so on.  Were not asking the community what they think are the problems what we are doing here or what Mike is doing here for that matter is looking for feedback on things he or we haven't thought about. 

The problems with the game have already been discussed in our inner circle what we are trying to do is put together fixes.  Then take those fixes and see if people thought of something we didn't and why they are bad or good etc. 

The idea here is not to debate what the issues are but to debate how a POTENTIAL fix effects others armies etc. Or to find out if a POTENTIAL fix causes more problems then it helps.

I think the reason the discussion isn't going the way you guys may have expected it to is because your process isn't entirely open. Your "inner circle" may have discussed it but its seems a little dictatorial to privately decide what the problems with the game are, determine solutions, and then ask the community at large to jump in the process without getting to participate in the entirety.

I think you'd get better results sharing a complete draft of fixes or going 100% community based. Half and half seems like worst of both worlds.

Ian while I do appreciate your view on this no way will that happen.  This community has already proven what a shit show it is trying do this .  Our goal here is to just get opinions on the 3 changes mentioned.  No way would we want to open that can of worms.  When things are hashed out sure but overall people dont know what is good for the game from a COMPETITIVE stand point.

Troy, what you guys are trying to do is great, but there are a lot of other competitive people in this community that care about the direction your taking this, who aren't going to like anything you guys come up with just on the basis they'll feel like they didn't have a say in it.  There has been a lot of discussion in the forums that I agree have been a total cluster F, but there has not been an attempt by anyone to organize it here.  I'll take that challenge.  I made another thread about compiling what we think is wrong.  From there I'm hoping we can pick the top topics to discuss further and go from there.

You guys have already taken the first few steps so by all means share with the rest of us what the pain points are and how you got to proposing these rule changes openly.  Will my experiment fail, probably, after two replies I'll wager it will be off topic and pointless, but at least there will have been an attempt at a total BG organized conversation before we look for an alternate route.  If we don't attempt at least to do this together now club or outside model is likely to succeed.

[steelforge]

Considering all Rob and Prometheus could quibble about was Escalation/Stronghold I must be right.
So Amended:

1) 1500 points is the new default.
2) Rerolls incur a -2 penalty but do not exceed 6+
3) Battle Brothers may not join each other's units.
4) Escalation/Stronghold are banned

@Sir_Pro if you think 40K needs a giant rewrite or major tweaks, do it.  Draft it, present it, and show the community.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Seriously,

"Fortune is a 4+ FNP, Grimoire only goes to 3++, No Joining Riptides, and you can't use both multispectrum and C&C at the same time",

that's my prescription. 

Simplest is best, I think. That doesn't solve everything but it solves A LOT of it, and it's short and sweet. 

Banning mixing ICs does solve a lot of things, too, but it also sorta rips out the heart of the whole allies idea, I'd rather not do that if it wasn't required. 

[AstartesXXVI]

Actually its exactly what some of you have been asking for. Some say the community cant do this because of differing opinions and so on.  Were not asking the community what they think are the problems what we are doing here or what Mike is doing here for that matter is looking for feedback on things he or we haven't thought about. 

The problems with the game have already been discussed in our inner circle what we are trying to do is put together fixes.  Then take those fixes and see if people thought of something we didn't and why they are bad or good etc. 

The idea here is not to debate what the issues are but to debate how a POTENTIAL fix effects others armies etc. Or to find out if a POTENTIAL fix causes more problems then it helps.

I think the reason the discussion isn't going the way you guys may have expected it to is because your process isn't entirely open. Your "inner circle" may have discussed it but its seems a little dictatorial to privately decide what the problems with the game are, determine solutions, and then ask the community at large to jump in the process without getting to participate in the entirety.

I think you'd get better results sharing a complete draft of fixes or going 100% community based. Half and half seems like worst of both worlds.

This, x1000.

Also, I mean, I don't want to sound pedantic here (I know half you guys don't like me in the first place), but...how did you decide these fixes if you aren't even sure how they affect the vast majority of the game? That seems to me like it would be a red flag for a lot of these seasoned players here that you would alter something as fundamental as twin linking and then confess you have no idea how widespread the change is.

I know you wanted a narrow focus but it was obvious from this thread that many people feel that, unsurprisignly, changing independent character rules affects people who want to run multiple ICs, and changing twin linking affects all the units in the game which carry twin linked weapons and are costed appropriately (for example...wow, Centurions, ruined by that one bit...Razorbacks and Land Raider Crusaders also pretty ruined by it, none of which are known for their game-breaking awesomeness).

I mean, it's not rocket science to figure out that the changes posted here are going to affect WAY more than just the most powerful/common issues that people keep complaining about. I agree with the others who say this should be simple and highly targeted at the particular issues.

[Benjamin]

IC's can never carry the relic ever

Please explain the reasoning behind this rule.

[Mike_k]

Actually its exactly what some of you have been asking for. Some say the community cant do this because of differing opinions and so on.  Were not asking the community what they think are the problems what we are doing here or what Mike is doing here for that matter is looking for feedback on things he or we haven't thought about. 

The problems with the game have already been discussed in our inner circle what we are trying to do is put together fixes.  Then take those fixes and see if people thought of something we didn't and why they are bad or good etc. 

The idea here is not to debate what the issues are but to debate how a POTENTIAL fix effects others armies etc. Or to find out if a POTENTIAL fix causes more problems then it helps.

I think the reason the discussion isn't going the way you guys may have expected it to is because your process isn't entirely open. Your "inner circle" may have discussed it but its seems a little dictatorial to privately decide what the problems with the game are, determine solutions, and then ask the community at large to jump in the process without getting to participate in the entirety.

I think you'd get better results sharing a complete draft of fixes or going 100% community based. Half and half seems like worst of both worlds.

This is why we vote for people in office and not just have the entire population show up and speak their mind.  =)  This is simply a few rules modification concepts put out to increase the volume of feedback.  Take one look at the thread and see why it is almost certainly a requirement to privately decide on criteria, set goals, find pain points etc. 

Then we get some feedback on ideas we have compiled and go back to the drawing board. 

You can't please all of the people all of the time.  To get something you have to give something.  Too many cooks in the kitchen.  Insert random cliche v0.4....

This is why we are defining things within a set and confined group with criteria and focus.  Yet we also know that community feedback is needed and we can't account for every aspect, every situation, and every variable.  So we come up with a few things we are still debating and decide "hey lets ask the BG guys".

Also you can't have a purely open forum and expect as a group to get to the finish line.  Its why since early in humanities history we formed tribes, structure, hierarchy, organization, etc.  We decided to set out and work on a system we believe and hope will benefit those who play 40k competitively.  We are taking that step and investing our time and we are setting the boundaries we believe give us the best chance to accomplish that goal.  We haven't even asked or included 75% of our own club because we know those discussions get derailed.

Our ideas and system may totally bomb, never see the light of day, suck, blow, ruin the game even more etc yada etc.  We also know we wont even get to that point if we do not set a goal, define our work space, and assemble a dedicated team with clearly defined criteria.

Many of the responses in this thread are precisely reasons to confine those involved at the core to a limited group.  Discussing army balance and changes the majority of peoples instincts turn to "how does this effect me" and thus prompts a response of I don't like this because it hurts me.  We are trying to take a strictly high level approach to restore balance and remove all personal bias.  To do this a few of us decided to keep a small group of people with diverse play styles and preferences.

[Mike_k]

IC's can never carry the relic ever

Please explain the reasoning behind this rule.

Too easy to stick a super durable IC with a unit and take the relic and hold it.  Certain armies in relic missions this is almost an auto win for them and incredibly difficult for other armies to do anything about it.  Goes along with the goal of needing balance so people dont lose/win in army builder or simply off who goes first.

[robpro]

IC's can never carry the relic ever

Please explain the reasoning behind this rule.

Too easy to stick a super durable IC with a unit and take the relic and hold it.  Certain armies in relic missions this is almost an auto win for them and incredibly difficult for other armies to do anything about it.  Goes along with the goal of needing balance so people dont lose/win in army builder or simply off who goes first.

How about saying single model units can't grab the relic? It's silly when a Wraithknight is somebody's warlord and becomes scoring.

[Tharcil]

I stand corrected. My idealism has smacked me in the face. Doing anything open here is not the way to go and not worth tithe effort. I hope you guys figure it out and continue To come up with some other new ideas to change the competitive scene.

[Ian Mulligan]

Yeah, definitely sounds like you guys might want to finish this up in your club, then.