Working on some possible comp/rules fixes

[Mike D]

My blood boils when I read this self righteous crap.  A loud group of whiners want to change rules that they loose to.  Then I pay the price.  Escalation and Stronghold are core rules, I buy both books 70ish dollars and no one allows them so flush.  I build and convert a beautiful eldar army and my 2+ armor save reroll gets the nerf bat so 300ish dollars flush.  I am in the middle of painting up farsight enclave and now 1 IC per unit is a potential nerf, let's flush another 300ish.  Get rid of allies, IG value 400ish flush, Salamander marines value 200ish flush.  Forge world is core rules but is only sometimes allowed so partial flush of 600 dollars.  Now a Swedish comp that makes every army I have played in 6th edition all unplayable at a 3comp point limit.  At least the moronic comp system effects all army's not just one or two.  I made a sarcastic comment about a month ago about limiting commanders to 150points, requiring 2 full troop choices, not allowing more elite heavy and fast attack choices combined then total troop choices.  Seems that is where we are headed.  Let's make it so we all just play vanilla lists and fool ourselves into thinking that if all is equal the best tactics win.  Tactics help but luck with dice will always be the true game decider.  Just stop whining and moaning and play the game, weak army's get a new codex and become strong so the imbalance will fix itself as 6th edition progresses.  Even better GW is releasing a new core rule book this summer(supposedly) that will address many balance issues.

[PhoenixFire]

My blood boils when I read this self righteous crap.  A loud group of whiners want to change rules that they loose to.  Then I pay the price.  Escalation and Stronghold are core rules, I buy both books 70ish dollars and no one allows them so flush.  I build and convert a beautiful eldar army and my 2+ armor save reroll gets the nerf bat so 300ish dollars flush.  I am in the middle of painting up farsight enclave and now 1 IC per unit is a potential nerf, let's flush another 300ish.  Get rid of allies, IG value 400ish flush, Salamander marines value 200ish flush.  Forge world is core rules but is only sometimes allowed so partial flush of 600 dollars.  Now a Swedish comp that makes every army I have played in 6th edition all unplayable at a 3comp point limit.  At least the moronic comp system effects all army's not just one or two.  I made a sarcastic comment about a month ago about limiting commanders to 150points, requiring 2 full troop choices, not allowing more elite heavy and fast attack choices combined then total troop choices.  Seems that is where we are headed.  Let's make it so we all just play vanilla lists and fool ourselves into thinking that if all is equal the best tactics win.  Tactics help but luck with dice will always be the true game decider.  Just stop whining and moaning and play the game, weak army's get a new codex and become strong so the imbalance will fix itself as 6th edition progresses.  Even better GW is releasing a new core rule book this summer(supposedly) that will address many balance issues.

So you're complaining because every time something new and over powered comes out you run out and get it and now that people are trying to come out with a system that attempts to combat these over powered combos you don't like it?

You talk of forgeworld being "core rules" when it's decidedly not, at best the books are supplements full of units that more often than not are even more broken than some of the normal units (ie thudd guns, ravarna before the nerf, etc)

You call the people on these forums self righteous because of there attempt to fix a broken system and to bring more people and fun back to the tournament scene. Look in a mirror buddy, because you're basicly saying your opinion is the only one that matters because "gw came out with these books, we must use them all!!!"

If you want to use all your toys, apocalypse units, and forgeworld battlegrounds has such events, they also have the apocalypse event, but the tournament community here and at GTs everywhere seem to be going to some form of comp, and nobody is allowing escalation or stronghold. Accept that and become part of the solution or stay out of the way.

I'd apologize to chris for leading this thread even further off the rails but that train left the station awhile ago with all the other nonsense going on here.

[Mike D]

So you don't like my opinion and tell me to go away and if you knew me at all You would know that I have never run the "power army of the month" I have only once in 3 years taken a top table and that was when most of the perennial winners were at a national tournament.  The forge world argument aside for now my point is the I come up with an army concept that is 100% within the rules, I spend 2-5 months of my disposable income purchasing models and 100s of hours painting them.  Then someone decides warlock council and screamer star are so broken they need a nerf.  My Wraith Blade army gets whacked as a side effect. In my opinion a 2+ armor save on a foot slogging squad is nothing like a 2+ invul/cover save on a unit that can cross the entire table in one turn.  Allies are fun, I bought IG to give my SW army air power which for now they are lacking.  I painted up Salamanders to use with my BA because there chapter tactics compliment a drop army perfectly. I bought Tau for 2 reasons, firstly to give my Eldar much needed range and secondly Tau/SM fighting side by side against the tyranids is a fun concept.  I have skipped 3 months of tournament play trying to let things settle down.  It hasnt, people who loose want to nerf people who win.  Any army that they loose to is now over powered.  Grow up and let people who spend there money on legal models use them.

[andalucien]

Mike D's sentiments here are why GW really needs to put a lot of effort into coming out with rules that make people actually want to play with & against all of their models, ASAP.  "Flushing money down the toilet" is not the way you want your customers to perceive having bought their products. 

I guess you could say the fault lies with GW's customers and not GW itself?  I'm not sure what that even means though.

[PhoenixFire]

It hasnt, people who loose want to nerf people who win.

That's just not the case, some of the biggest proponents of comp, sweedish komp, or the ban/change of certain rules for 40k on these forums ARE the guys who consistently win or place highly in tournaments. These guys who attend multiple GTs a year see firsthand more than the guys who just play locally that there are MANY things broken with 40k right now and something needs to be done to fix it.

Grow up and let people who spend there money on legal models use them.

what you don't seem to realize is GW does not give a damn about tournament play, they haven't for a long time. They care about making models and they do make some beautiful ones, but ever since 6th edition hit it has progressively gotten worse rules wise with every codex, supplement, dataslate and anything else they try to cram down our throats.

your definition of "legal" seems to be anything GW sells, and while that is fine for casual play it doesn't work for tournaments, in 5th edition we had cities of death and all those supplements and they were only ever used for campaigns and such.

Mike D's sentiments here are why GW really needs to put a lot of effort into coming out with rules that make people actually want to play with & against all of their models, ASAP.  "Flushing money down the toilet" is not the way you want your customers to perceive having bought their products. 

I guess you could say the fault lies with GW's customers and not GW itself?  I'm not sure what that even means though.

I get that Matt, i own half a dozen super-heavies myself that get out once a year but i just don't think they are appropriate for regular tournament play. Like i just said above, GW makes fantastic models... but their rules seem to be made up by a room full of 12yr olds.


As i said before Battlegrounds DOES have events where they let in "everything but the kitchen sink", without going back and looking i can tell you there were probably 5 or 6 last year that allowed Forgeworld. They even had the Escalation/Stronghold Assault one in Abington two months ago that unfortunately only brought in 11 people.

People can yell and stomp their feet as much as they want, BG and local tournaments in general tend to follow how things are done at the big GTs. It's abundantly clear that the major GTs will not be allowing Escalation and Stronghold Assault. Forgeworld? sure, some have been allowing Forgeworld in certain events for years.

Comp is coming, it's the only way the 40k tournament scene is going to survive. Mike D, you've had exactly 6 posts on these forums and you're off to a really negative start. If you are serious about fixing what is broke i would urge you to become a positive and constructive presence here instead of a negative one complaining about people who are searching for a way to fix 40k.

[Mike D]

I did say forge world was allowed about 50% of the time.  It is true that I don't post much.  I don't like the drama.  That should tell you all how much the nerf bat bothers me.  Any rules change will upset someone.  I hate the nerf to the 2+ reroll, I get it, I just don't like it.  So I start to build any army less effected by it.  Reducing points to 1500 will hurt more then help.  Death Stars will be harder to kill with less firepower on the table.  My one tournament win is at the 1500 point level.  Altering battle brothers will nerf some army's that need them to be competitive just to reign in one or two overpowered combinations.  Getting rid of allies all together gets rid of a lot of perceived problems while creating others.  Limiting IC's to one per unit will once again get rid of a couple nasty combinations at the expense of breaking 4 of the existing codex's.  BA, SW, SM, IG.  I understand that the intent is full of good intentions but so is the road to hell.  I have one suggestion, make army comp score as graded by someone's opponent be worth a third or even half the points a person can earn and have the army's graded before deployment to prevent sour grapes.  Allow 5min before deployment for this.  Someone brings a dirtbag army the community punishes them without restricting there choice on what legal combinations to play.

[PhoenixFire]

I did say forge world was allowed about 50% of the time.  It is true that I don't post much.  I don't like the drama.  That should tell you all how much the nerf bat bothers me.  Any rules change will upset someone.  I hate the nerf to the 2+ reroll, I get it, I just don't like it.  So I start to build any army less effected by it.  Reducing points to 1500 will hurt more then help.  Death Stars will be harder to kill with less firepower on the table.  My one tournament win is at the 1500 point level.  Altering battle brothers will nerf some army's that need them to be competitive just to reign in one or two overpowered combinations.  Getting rid of allies all together gets rid of a lot of perceived problems while creating others.  Limiting IC's to one per unit will once again get rid of a couple nasty combinations at the expense of breaking 4 of the existing codex's.  BA, SW, SM, IG.  I understand that the intent is full of good intentions but so is the road to hell.  I have one suggestion, make army comp score as graded by someone's opponent be worth a third or even half the points a person can earn and have the army's graded before deployment to prevent sour grapes.  Allow 5min before deployment for this.  Someone brings a dirtbag army the community punishes them without restricting there choice on what legal combinations to play.

I completely agree about the 1500 point thing.  I'm a fan of large point values, you lower things too much and it feels more like a skirmish game.

And your right about the multiple ICs, it would just cause more harm than good. If you want to limit "power combos" outlawing battle brother ICs joining units is may be the way to go. I love allies and using them allows you to "fill the holes" in your codex. Sure they are part of the power combo problem but 40k has a lot of problems right now. It's too bad the cheese combos of battle brother allies are so much better than the fluffy combos lol

[AstartesXXVI]

As an outsider, I still have a hard time figuring what all this uproar is, frankly.

We posted a list of things that is Core and a list of things that are considered Expanded, and allow them all but tell people to ask the other guy first before using the Expanded stuff. I don't know why, with the community you have of players at both BGs with such differing opinions, you wouldn't just do something similar and be done with it, and leave it up to individual players to decide what they want in their games.

[Chase]

...leave it up to individual players to decide what they want in their games.

This is exactly what happens on Thursdays.

When we're hosting an event, this sort of thing isn't really an option... so we have to do it beforehand.  We set rules for what's allows and people decide if they want to play or not.

Unfortunately, not a lot of people seem to want to play 40k in a competitive setting lately.  This is probably because of what they've heard on the internet, experienced at GTs, seen by running the numbers, heard stories from friends / other players, or heard / read about what GW seems to be doing with the game.

I still think 8 or 9 of every 10 games that gets played at BG are just as fun as they've been for the life of 6th edition, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Benjamin]

Happy to report that Thursday 40ks are still as fun as they've ever been.

[keithb]

My blood boils when I read this self righteous crap.  A loud group of whiners want to change rules that they loose to.  Then I pay the price.

This has 0% to do with why people want to change the game.  The game right now is bad, and it is getting worse.  People who enjoy a tactical wargame don't want "yatzee" mechanics or single expensive models to dominate the game.  If I want to create a narrative and fight a "boss" enemy once in a while, cool!  Every game forever, Hell No!

People like to have a hard fought game where generally the person who makes the least mistakes(or gets a few lucky rolls) wins the game.  Not when a single model just runs right the fuck through everything in less time than it took to deploy my troops.  Also, guess what, to me, neither side(winning or losing) seems fun in the slightest.

People like you are the worst.  Always assume that people want change because they can't "win" as if winning is the only thing.  All I want is a reasonable chance of winning, GW says NO!  So I say Fuck GW, keep making sweet models, and put out novels about said models, leave the rule writing to adults.

Go read the Draigo fluff, it is basically a nine year old describing his fantasy about being a power ranger set in GW fluff.  Do you really want these people writing your rules?

[keithb]

Happy to report that Thursday 40ks are still as fun as they've ever been.

I have no doubt that the game is plenty fun in a "lets play a game" settings.

In any sort of competitive setting.  I would rather play sarcastiball.

[Mike_k]

My blood boils when I read this self righteous crap.  A loud group of whiners want to change rules that they loose to.  Then I pay the price.  Escalation and Stronghold are core rules, I buy both books 70ish dollars and no one allows them so flush.  I build and convert a beautiful eldar army and my 2+ armor save reroll gets the nerf bat so 300ish dollars flush.  I am in the middle of painting up farsight enclave and now 1 IC per unit is a potential nerf, let's flush another 300ish.  Get rid of allies, IG value 400ish flush, Salamander marines value 200ish flush.  Forge world is core rules but is only sometimes allowed so partial flush of 600 dollars.  Now a Swedish comp that makes every army I have played in 6th edition all unplayable at a 3comp point limit.  At least the moronic comp system effects all army's not just one or two.  I made a sarcastic comment about a month ago about limiting commanders to 150points, requiring 2 full troop choices, not allowing more elite heavy and fast attack choices combined then total troop choices.  Seems that is where we are headed.  Let's make it so we all just play vanilla lists and fool ourselves into thinking that if all is equal the best tactics win.  Tactics help but luck with dice will always be the true game decider.  Just stop whining and moaning and play the game, weak army's get a new codex and become strong so the imbalance will fix itself as 6th edition progresses.  Even better GW is releasing a new core rule book this summer(supposedly) that will address many balance issues.

Mike for one this response is uncalled for, needlessly insulting, and way off base.  First these are simply some concept rules tweaks to fix some clearly blatant balance holes.  These are NOT the rules that are in place anywhere, house rules, forcing you to play with etc just some ideas.  So my first response is dial it back a notch, calm the hell down and relax, step off the ledge, and save the insults it is not necessary.  Lastly read the actual thread and the responses before you spout off in a rage infusing a thread needlessly with more angst and derailment than it has already had.  Your response is driving more wedges in the BG community that it doesn't need.

Lets do a comparative approach for your argument of time and money spent and put the shoe on the other foot.  I spent several hundred dollars building a Ravenwing army.  It is fun to play, I like the models, the concept, and the fast and mobile style it plays.  Is it fair to have my model(s), units, or entire army invalidated because GW has made some clearly imbalanced rules?  Living in your world my only solution as build power unit "X" if I want to play at tournaments?  So how is that fair, or fun, or smart in a community driven game?

Unfortunately and as expected (since its "your" investment) the natural reaction is always revolved around a "how does this effect me" directly mentality.  Have you tried thinking about it when the shoes on the other foot?  Since you "haven't" played a power of the month army ever you should know that when your forced to face nothing but the power armies with no chance of winning it sucks.  It is not what competition is about, its not good for the game, the hobby, the community, or the store.

Yet if that is what you want then I am sure you can establish a group to play under those circumstances.  Clearly though the majority of this stores tournament community want some form of balance restored to the game.

I really hope that you can start to see that we are doing this because we care about the state of the competitive scene.  If you think this is because we can't win that is both a very funny joke, and a sad and needless insult.  This is also not a Dark Star endeavor.  Those of us trying to find a working comp system, while supported by our brothers in geek warfare, is something the few of us decided to do of our own intent.

[Mike_k]

I did say forge world was allowed about 50% of the time.  It is true that I don't post much.  I don't like the drama.  That should tell you all how much the nerf bat bothers me.  Any rules change will upset someone.  I hate the nerf to the 2+ reroll, I get it, I just don't like it.  So I start to build any army less effected by it.  Reducing points to 1500 will hurt more then help.  Death Stars will be harder to kill with less firepower on the table.  My one tournament win is at the 1500 point level.  Altering battle brothers will nerf some army's that need them to be competitive just to reign in one or two overpowered combinations.  Getting rid of allies all together gets rid of a lot of perceived problems while creating others.  Limiting IC's to one per unit will once again get rid of a couple nasty combinations at the expense of breaking 4 of the existing codex's.  BA, SW, SM, IG.  I understand that the intent is full of good intentions but so is the road to hell.  I have one suggestion, make army comp score as graded by someone's opponent be worth a third or even half the points a person can earn and have the army's graded before deployment to prevent sour grapes.  Allow 5min before deployment for this.  Someone brings a dirtbag army the community punishes them without restricting there choice on what legal combinations to play.

Clearly the multiple IC thing has hindrances that is why we STATED earlier maybe it is targeted at a few codex's, or there is an exemption list.  Again its JUST A CONCEPT idea with the goal of a NET GAIN in balance across the entire game.

I dont think any comp system will disallow allies and ours surely won't.  Altering BB rules is probably a must though to maintain consistency and limit blatant shenanigans.

Relying on players to comp each other fairly and honestly will never work.  You need a controlled logical method to eliminate personal emotion.  No matter when you do it people will influence their score with personal opinion, anger, emotion, frustration etc.

I know I like 40k because of the scale of the armies, lots of models/bodies.  Cutting points you start to tread closer to more skirmish based games and start to cut down some of the "epic" nature of the warhammer systems.

[AstartesXXVI]

...leave it up to individual players to decide what they want in their games.

This is exactly what happens on Thursdays.

When we're hosting an event, this sort of thing isn't really an option... so we have to do it beforehand.  We set rules for what's allows and people decide if they want to play or not.

Unfortunately, not a lot of people seem to want to play 40k in a competitive setting lately.  This is probably because of what they've heard on the internet, experienced at GTs, seen by running the numbers, heard stories from friends / other players, or heard / read about what GW seems to be doing with the game.

I still think 8 or 9 of every 10 games that gets played at BG are just as fun as they've been for the life of 6th edition, but maybe I'm wrong.

I tried to give some perspective on this in that Swedish Komp thread and got lynched for it, so I won't bother to go into it again. But I still think there are simpler solutions from the game side, and some important community-building solutions from the player side. BG events don't have lower attendance because the game is somehow worsening.

I think you could be using this to be more creative with your events, rather than trying to blandify them down, but that is just me. A player once said to me, "When 40k gives us lemons, we make Lemon Titans."