feast of blades TO taking a stand over the OP'ness that is 40k atm.

this was taken from a post @ kirby 3++

This is not going to be a short post. I will do my very best to explain what Feast of Blades as a tournament is doing, and to give you some insight into the thoughts going around at the high-level organizational level. For those of you who are unaware, I am the head 40k Tournament Organizer for Feast of Blades, an annual major 40k event.

With the recent release of Stronghold Assault and Escalation, 40k is, to put it bluntly, no longer suitable as a tournament game. The inclusion of Strength D into the game, following months and months of “power combo” lists taking top tables at tournaments has made it more than evident that this game as written simply isn't designed for or appropriate for ANY sort of high-level competitive play.

Some people think that's a good thing, or may simply say “no duh”. Believe me, none of us are blind to this fact, it's something we've all been aware of for the few decades 40k has existed. But up until this point, we've still pushed for competitive play and organized tournaments because they're fun. It's great to be able to go to a tournament for a weekend, drink beers and play games against strangers. It's awesome to see the variety of lists, the master-level paintjobs, and the crazy conversions that people come up with. And there's nothing in the hobby quite like seeing one of those big-event Apocalypse tables, with more Baneblades, Titans, and Thunderhawks than you've ever seen, flying around and fighting on the same board.

There's no doubt that 5th edition was the closest this game has ever been to a “tournament” rule set, but 6th has turned things the other way around. This isn't due to 6th being an innately terrible rule set, (yes, it definitely has problems, but it's not awful) but rather due to the rapid-fire codex release scheduled creating very powerful builds and combos.

Recently, we've been hearing from several very reliable sources that GW has stopped their playtesting, or has at least reduced it to a very minimal amount. This jives with the releases and units we've been seeing show up all across the country. You'll find mass Wraithknights, quad-Riptide, Necron Airforce, and Screamerstar as common contenders in many major (and not so major) tournaments across the country.

Can these lists be beaten? Yes. Definitely. We see top players beat them all the time. But are they fair? Do they create a fun tournament environment? To address that I'm going to take a very long quote from an article by Sirlin, a man who has designed several of his own games and rebalanced several more. I believe it cuts to the heart of the issue:


“…While I think the earlier arguments that good balance leads to problems in Chess and Starcraft make no sense at all, the argument about the metagame is much more subtle. I believed this same argument for a long time, but I don't any more. The argument goes like this: it's ok for a character to be too powerful because then players will try to find ways to beat that character with otherwise weaker characters who happen to be good against that particular strong character. Extra Credits further says that you explore more strategy in a game with this property than with a game with actually fair characters because with fair characters you'd be locked into doing the same kind of thing and not looking for counter-characters.”You could make that same argument about decks in Magic: the Gathering. I think this is an illusion, and I was caught in it for years because it's kind of “conventional wisdom” and never even really questioned or talked about. I only really started to realize why this doesn't add up when I was working on my own customizable card game. A “rich metagame” means there are lots of decks that counter other decks, and you get to sit around thinking about which deck will be common at a tournament and which you should choose in response. For example, if you discovered an unusual deck that could win 9-1 against the most of the field and lose 1-9 against part of the field, that could be a very, very strong deck. This is metagaming at its finest, yet it also leads to 100% of your games having terrible gameplay. (emphasis mine -Biscuit)

“And there's the rub. The kind of metagame under discussion is one where global imbalance is assumed to be “good.” The assumption is that sitting down to play another player and having a advantage or disadvantage before the game even starts is a great thing. Well, it kind of sucks actually, and violates the concepts of basic fairness. You could define “the game” to be the larger thing that involves “picking a deck/character + playing it” but that's hardly an answer. It's just admitting that the part where you actually play is kind of sucky and unfair.

“I'll tell you the key moment of discovery I had about this issue. I had several decks mocked up for my CCG. You would expect a variety of decks to happen to have several really unfair matchups, and for that to cause a metagame to form. The thing is, I didn't design these decks to win a tournament, I designed them to test out how the game plays, so I used a few rules of thumb in deckbuilding that actually prevented any really unfair matches like 8-2 from happening. I figured that later when we thought about how players would really build their decks (not according to my personal rules), we'd have to figure out how to deal with those inevitable 8-2 matchups. The CCG community often assumes they are great (“it's the metagame!”) but I think the emphasis should be on the part where you actually playing the game and making decisions. Deckbuilding is great, but not if it wrecks the fairness of individual games you will actually have to play.

“Anyway, allowing players complete freedom in deckbuilding in my game absolutely would lead to 8-2 matchups (like in any customizable card game) AND it would actually lead to worse strategy than my playtest decks! When metagaming and trying to win, you really want to take out all the “strategy” you can, and make sure you just stomp as many opposing decks as possible, even if you have pretty bad matches in there somewhere.

“You probably already see the revelation. Why not codify the rules of thumb of deckbuilding I was using into real rules of the game? Put limits on deckbuilding in such a way that still allow it, but that prevent the majority of unfair matches from happening. This seemed so obvious in hindsight.

“Now, unrelated to that, I also went to great lengths to give the player more strategic choices during a game than is usual in the genre. Tricky to do without being too complicated, but that's another story. The bottom line is so far this game is shaping up to be a game with more strategic choices during gameplay than other similar games I've played AND with fewer unfair matchups. This is possible by REDUCING the importance of the metagame. It's just more fun to have the GAME, the part where you actually sit down and play give you a) a lot of strategic options and b) as fair a match as we can give you.

“We shouldn't dwell on this particular in-development card game though. It's a general principle that you get more strategic depth during a game session by, well, focusing on making that as good as possible. As good as possible means putting more strategic decisions in and taking unfairness out. That's the opposite of the intentional imbalance glorified in the Extra Credits video. It's the opposite of making the decisions made before the game even starts become more important (necessarily making in-game decisions that much less important.)

“Making a bunch of unfair matches intentionally is just a poor man's solution to the problem of strategic variety. In the end, that poor man's solution constrains your strategic choices anyway, rather than opens them up. You're constrained to playing the overpowered characters or the counters, rather than having free choice of all characters. Having a set of characters who ALL have fair matches and who ALL have a lot of strategy options makes you wonder what the point of intentionally having unfair matchups ever was in the first place.”

Obviously, there's no way for us to make 40k into a “perfectly balanced” game without rewriting it from the ground up- no amount of banning or small rewrite is going to significantly alter the game to the point where listbuilding isn't a major part of the game that provides a major advantage to those who do it well. To be honest, I'm not even sure such a game would be fun- to make it work, much of the character of 40k would be stripped away in the process. And even if we did, no game is perfect. (I suppose it's another Sirlin reference, but the discussion of Chess' evolution and current state is what I'm more interested in with that article.)

Right now top level tournament lists are incredibly polarizing, much more than they have been in a long time, and playing these lists simply isn't any fun. No one is having a great time playing against Screamerstar, even most of the Screamerstar players I talk to aren't having a great time playing it. The mere existence of 3+ Heldrake builds has an extreme effect on the meta, annihilating hundreds of possible builds through it's ability to simply obliterate them. (So why even bring them?) I could go on, but I think you all know what I'm talking about.

It's past time for tournament organizers to step up and start taking some stewardship of the game. The top lists in 40k are, as a rule, simply no fun to play or play against, and limit much of the field by being so overwhelmingly powerful against so many reasonable builds. Really, the fact of the matter is that games in 6th edition between what we would consider mid-tier lists are a heck of a lot of fun, and what most players are requesting to play.

Feast of Blades is not the only tournament who is thinking this way. I would be extremely surprised if there is a major tournament from this point forward that does not use some form of restrictions and bannings in order to create a better game. GW has made it extremely clear that they do not care to balance the game for tournament level play, or create a fun top-tier metagame, so that architecture falls to us.

We are interested in running a tournament who's results fall more to player tabletop skill than listbuilding skill. We are interested in running an event where many builds are possible, not just a few power-and-counter builds. To that end, Feast of Blades will be enacting limits and bans.

The exact nature of these restrictions are already well into discussion and development, and will be available in their discrete form VERY soon. We know what the problem builds and combos are, now we are giving them the axe. Below, I will preview some of our changes:

———————————————————————————————————-

1.) The Grimoire of True Names from Codex: Daemons is banned
As of right now, this is the only true banning. We feel there is too much potential for abuse, and disagree with the effect it has on the army and the game.

2.) A few units will receive 0-1 status
For those of you who weren't around when 0-1 was a thing in codecies, means that a maximum of 1 of that unit may be taken per army. These are all units whose mass inclusion limits the potential lists in the game, and will thus be restricted. (As none of them are a problem on their own.) Rest assured that this will be a very short list, we are not interested in creating very restricted armies.

3.) Supplemental Codecies will no longer be able to ally to their base codex
There will be no more self-allying, no more cherry picking the best parts of a supplement while paying none of the costs, and no more force-org bloat from doing so.

4.) Dataslates will take an ally slot
Taking units from many, many different books and ignoring the force organization chart is too much. This change will make dataslates an interesting addition to the game, without allowing for truly bizzare armies.

5.) The number of psychic mastery levels in an army will be limited
This change will eliminate a great many power combos from the game, and will stop a player from making a lot of lucky rolls on the psychic power tables to effectively win the game before it begins.

6.) Strength D is out, Lords of Battle are in
We feel the the Lords of Battle are not overpowered on their own, the fact that they give the opponent some advantages (bonus to seize, and especially victory points) balances out their fearsome firepower and powerful endurance. Strength D, however, is too powerful. This is well-known by every apoc player (and I am one of them), and has been the case for the past two editions. (Yes, it was even overpowered back in 5th, and it was much worse then.) There is some debate still going on, but it looks like S:D will become S:10, ordinance, ignores cover. That still makes it very powerful, but more in line with the price paid for the superheavy as well as it's other weapon options. In addition, superheavies will have to start on the table.

7.) Super-forts are gone, or at least downsized
No AV15, it will be AV14 instead. Every individual fortification from Stronghold Assault is allowed, but the “network” choices are simply too big and unwieldy to allow for tournament play. (As a consolation, they're pretty terrible, so I think it's OK.)

8.) Dedicated transport flyers will be limited
Flyers are not the be-all end-all of this edition, but all-flyer and mostly-flyer armies change the meta in uncomfortable ways and are notoriously unfun to play against.

———————————————————————————————————-

For the vast majority of players, this list of changes will have little, and frequently no effect on their army build. Many of the games power builds, however, will become quite different.

We are aware that limitations such as these also create “new” power lists- after all, what was once second-tier must now be first. Perhaps. In the new environment there will certainly be builds better than others, and some that are extremely powerful. We expect that, but we also expect there to be a much greater variety of competitive options and lists vying for those spots. We also expect the game to be much more fun.

This is obviously a living document, and will be updated as time goes on. Not necessarily when a codex is released, but when we have had time to evaluate whether a certain unit, combination, item, etc. is actually very limiting to the field or not.

Our goal is to limit the game at the top end in ways that will be very small to most players in order to create a more balanced and fun tournament scene. We do not want to rewrite unit rules or entries or do things like adjust point costs, nor do we want to create massive documents that preside over army composition and limit force creation in detailed ways. We believe simple changes are for the best.

Obviously there are some who will cry foul at our attempt, or disagree with some of the things we have done. That's fine. They can always choose to play in different events, or create their own! But I think it is worth noting that Feast is simply the first of many events that will be instituting policies like these in one form or another, so you should be prepared. It's worth remembering that the 2013 Feast event was one of the the most by-the-book events ever run- it even used straight book missions with no modifications. If we're the first to do this, we certainly won't be the last.

GW is no longer creating a fun tournament environment, so it falls to us. In the same way that casual gamers are adults who can agree on how they would like to play, the tournament scene will adjust itself so that it creates fun, memorable, and challenging games of 40k. Anything else would be a failure on our parts.

I like where this is going. I'd love a tournament standard to be out there on the net and mass quantity of TO's using it. You'd really be able to see where you stand as far as creating lists/strategies/playstyles of your own. Unlike now, where you are forced to predict the metagame and either dominate it or counter the hell out of it to victory.


As someone who loves playing 40k than running 40k, I'd vote to have TOs deciede what's good for the game and what isn't. That's why I only playtest BAO missions and why I only play BAO missions at my house/FLGS. They are better than just running a book mission. They do make the game more strategic. Both without changing the rules of 6th edition. Quick story, I played in a tourament last year, the mission had special rules where you couldn't reserve at all. I had to deploy all on the table with my Dark Eldar and got seized by Coteaz and his pack of TL-psybacks in a kill point mission. It was over turn one. I was soooo fucking pissed that I have refused to play there again. (and haven't so far). I just don't think it was fair. There wasn't even any fluff to support the special rule...

What do you guys think? Personally, I think if it has a 40k approved stamp on it, then it should be legal in a tournament. But I'm also not a fan of metagame in which I either take a titan, take a 2++ deathstar, or take a counter-titan list to stay on the top tables during the rock/paper/scissors game. I haven't had a chance to post about this perception of the meta but I'd be willing to bet my collection on it, that those three themes would be the only lists winning any tournament of 40k if anything that was legal, was legal 24/7.

I like their take on this. Seriously, there are several lists out there that my little girl could win with. (And she does not play). The game is getting away from the skill aspect of the players and their armies. I have not had a great desire lately to go to many tournies. I have been gaming with several new players and it is very refreshing just to play a game, and not have to try to spam it up to do so. I have been using a bunch of units and tactics that I would not consider for tourney play, and this reminds me of what I enjoy about this hobby. The game!!!

So, because GW doesn't playtest, we're going to institute changes that haven't been playtested either?

Crawling Chaos wrote:

Quote :

we're going to institute changes that haven't been playtested either?

Maybe they have play tested these, maybe going from previous experience, don't know but think it should be done in more progressive approach than what he stated. I don't think anything in the codex' themselves should be messed with at this time. Eliminate the expansion/supplement BS to begin with. Run multitudes of tourney's, look at dataslates and e-codex'. With player input not just what a group of TO's think make any adjustments. Run a multitude of tourney's and with player input make any adjustments to standard codex' for tournament play. Something along these lines since GW can't be trusted anymore to put out anything that is remotely balanced.

Crawling Chaos wrote:

So, because GW doesn't playtest, we're going to institute changes that haven't been playtested either?  

That depends on who they are, and how long they've been doing this.
From an experienced TO perspective, I could implement numerous stops/balances/composition-scoring elements that would not only be fair but also follow BOTH the intent behind the current design trends (more on that later) and the previous editions' (all of them) trends/design philosophies.

The design team (and GW central) are currently doing something with intent.
This is not a 'wash my hands of it, and throw shit at the wall'...
this is a 'flush'.
This is a core group that wants to return to its roots. Those roots have very little to do with what we, mostly in the US...but others as well, consider competitive play.
This is not just evidenced by the current trends, it showed when the let Chris W go from head of GWTS in the US (I said it back then, too), and flushed 'Ard Boyz. He's the one that really got the tourney ball rolling in the US, and pushed it hard during 5e...and was the mover behind 'Ard Boyz, and a great deal of the 'black box' mentality AND the more competitive event support structure (inclusive of dropping the last of the restrictions/requirements to qualify for 'formal' event status/support, tying it directly into product vs trophy etc).
Tournaments, from as far back as 2e, were intended to be EVENTS...not true competitive tests.
GW events (games day, formal RTT's...etc) were supposed to be ALL INCLUSIVE experiences.
These things scored all aspects of the HOBBY, not just 'who had the most money/greatest access to competitive meta/most amount of spare time to hone that bloodthirsty combo'.
Painting, Sportsmanship, COMP...and also Battle Points...figured into this.

I said early on w/6th (with the advent of allies, flyers and other things) that the 'old style' was being pushed to come back (and frankly needed to).
Yes, that means Comp (of some sort).
Yes, that means sometimes deviation from any perceived 'scenario' norm (I could pull up some old RTT packets, or the first 'ard boyz scenarios, to give you an idea).
Yes, that means soft scores AND points reductions (I still say the game has returned to greatest balance being at 1500 in 6th).

Whilst I think there may be some arbitrary digs they are taking, the overall tone is one of relatively deep thought and insight.
In a completely arsey, and frankly cocky/arrogant tone, I could do better...yeah, I'm an ass sometimes...but it's far from the worst thing I've seen to try to standardize a baseline that can appeal to the broadest base, and ENCOURAGE NEW BLOOD(which our current environment does NOT do).

That is all

Wayno wrote:

I like their take on this. Seriously, there are several lists out there that my little girl could win with. (And she does not play). The game is getting away from the skill aspect of the players and their armies.

Hence why I walked away from my GK after only two events in 5e (and others).

Wayno wrote:

I have not had a great desire lately to go to many tournies. I have been gaming with several new players and it is very refreshing just to play a game, and not have to try to spam it up to do so. I have been using a bunch of units and tactics that I would not consider for tourney play, and this reminds me of what I enjoy about this hobby. The game!!!

I need to do the same, but nearly impossible to find anyone that isn't 'tuning' anymore...I kinda stopped trying.

This is interesting but I feel this is a serious knee jerk reaction. So while I am not against comp I am not overly fond of these specific nerfs. The grimoire being killed and the pychic powers being limited kills both the current Demon builds. I don't know if you guys have actually played these armies but I will tell you that the WD demon power build was actually stronger than these two builds and we didn't nerf that? The screamer star is harder to win with than you think, it isn't a auto win by any means, and the FMC list is top tier but has very hard match ups with Tau and Eldar. Now the Screamer star is morale killing to play against if you don't have a plan I will give you that, just as paladins was in the last edition, and again we didn't nerf that why do we nerf these lists now? To date I don't believe the screamer star has won any major GT.. It is in the top tables on a regular basis but always tends to lose to something.

The Helldrake single handed removed almost all marine meta from the game. Due to its cost and ability to shoot 360 degree's.. We didn't nerf it, in fact we still haven't in this rules set we may limit it to one per table which is still devastating to several lists.

The Jet Council is arguably the most powerful army in the game, if they roll right I don't think it's possible to beat them, and with these rules you can still run this list.

Cherry picking who gets to put units in flyers sounds like your throwing a fit, you cripple one of Necrons main strengths in this edition.. Even if you allow that who else gets to be special and put things in a flyer?

No supplements with the core codex? Is someone out there honestly thinking that these are killing the game? Oh no you took another riptide? riptide spam has been dominating no wait it hasn't... You took a fourth helldrake!! the madness, wait that isn't dominating either?

I like the idea of comp and I can understand the need at this point.. I have no problem with banning datasheets, or saying they take an ally slot.. I have no problem not using either new book that has just come out. D weapons and armor 15 doesn't really work in low point games, although don't cherry pick the things you don't like out of the books just remove them from the standard game.

The game always goes in waves, if you look at the data from last year SW, GK's, and maybe IG? dominated the circuit... Now its Eldar, Tau, and Demons. I am sure a year before it was something else.

I say leave the core rule books alone, you can easily change allies rules, or limit supplements and expansions. Also you can change the meta vastly with some missions.

Having said that which are basically just my initial thoughts reading this.. I normally will play whatever a TO wants to do. I enjoy competing and as the format changes I feel it's part of the fun of the hobby to adapt to it and see how I can do under these new X conditions. That is me personally I respect if others are annoyed by this.. I also want to agree with this

EAP wrote:

GW events (games day, formal RTT's...etc) were supposed to be ALL INCLUSIVE experiences.

These are my favorite events.. I love that Nova, and Adepticon judge you on Painting, display board, army fluff, and then battle points as well to get a Best overall winner. That is the prize I always drool over and think "someday I am going to come serious to get that shit" That is a bragable achievement to me.. I have just missed top 16 at several large events for best general. which is cool it let's me know I don't suck, but clearly don't practice enough. However I have only made top 16 over all one time. lmao.. That is actually the place I am most proud of.

I do want to end with you don't need to playtest everything if you truly understand the game. That comes with talent, or AGE, or experience..(see AGE), running events? I don't know.. I talk to EAP often off the forums. We bounce thoughts and concepts off each other all the time. (Translated to we argue, bicker, and yell about game mechanics, lists, and rules) I will back him on this though he has time and time again surprised me by his ability to predict the impact of rules or changes on the game and meta. I would say he has been right 4 out of 5 times when we talk about game impact. I am sure there are other TO's out there who could also tweak without major testing is my point.. Mike Brandt also is very good at this when I talk to him although he uses a council to make decisions for the Nova.

Also this seems relevant. To this topic..

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/12/where-were-going-in-midst-of-current.html

Throne of Skulls Bans: Will Escalation and Stronghold Assault Be Allowed?

We are expecting an official word from Warhammer World regarding both of the latest codex supplements, Escalation and Stronghold Assault possibly tomorrow (Friday according to rumors). Well lucky for us, we have a little information on how this might be going down, so take a look.

Please remember that this is not an official statement, and is a rumor.

via an anonymous source from the Faeit 212 inbox

I can confirm 100% that escalation is NOT being used at throne of skulls, but stronghold is being used. GW is releasing a statement soon saying that escalation is to be an expansion ("like planet strike") and that Stronghold is an update to the main rule book.

No word yet on whether they will ban the two Aquila Strongpoints (the str D cannon and missile ones) from their tournaments, but like previously said I am 100% that escalation is NOT being used, whereas Stronghold IS.

This is from Whiskey and 40k, and also seems relevant to this talk here.


Note: this thread intentionally includes unvarnished opinion, and to prove the overarching and still-resonant "keep calm and roll dice" intent, take it with a grain of salt!

Just so people are aware, b/c I keep getting asked, NO we are probably not going to be following the big small wave of OMG MAKE MANY CHANGES that seems to be the rave right about now.

There are a couple of things in 40k that present consternation, and a couple of things only:

1) Formations, or really, the Tau formation. The only reason this presents a problem is there will be / are people already hovering over the order button to build 19 interceptor missile broadside armies supported by tons of scoring kroot and riptides, merrily ready to roll a million dice at you and clear you off the table. These should probably be looked at to avoid the ridiculosity of it. That doesn't mean they should be removed or banned or anything conclusive at present. Just ... looked at.

2) The newest supplements to standard 40k (To go alongside existing supplements to standard 40k like Forgeworld, Planetstrike, Cities of Death and Apocalypse). Just b/c a few blogs with their own agendas reported them with a massive spin of THIS IS MEANT TO BE PLAYED BY ALL PEOPLE WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT IN EVERY 40K GAME ... doesn't make them any different than any other supplement to the core rulebook + codices. They're official, they're supplements, that's that. Whether to allow them or not is at the discretion of any given player and any given tournament.

In terms of expectation setting, while it won't be our guiding line, adding Escalation and then immediately banning a portion of it seems about as bass-ackwards as one can imagine (I'm talking about the people going ... well it's OK but ban D weapons!). If the supplement is an untested copy paste bunch of BS ... why are you using it at all? Further, if you're banning D weapons, all you're doing is adding something to the game where more casual gamers will take their awesome expensive models and be yet again disappointed that they aren't any good. If you ARE going to legalize it, legalize it all the way. You might as well legalize FW but ban individual units, as legalize any other supplement then ban certain parts of it. Cherrypicking it into the game is asking to upset everyone - purists will be angry at the internal comp to the legalization, people who realize it's an untested piece of crap cash grab will be upset you're legalizing it at all, people who want to use their fun D-weapon Thunderhawks and Revenants will be upset at you, casual gamers will be upset when they realize their expensive toys aren't any good, etc. etc. etc. Or you just say "hey we don't use that supplement in some of our events" and magically you've got a simple resolution. Alternately, say "hey we do use that supplement in some of our events" and there you go, also simple.

Voidshield Assault is similarly problematic, maybe in part b/c it's just inviting power gamers to ... well ... power game even more. The more untested potentially powerful variables you add to the game, the wider the gap becomes between those who are willing to invest the time and money into it and those who aren't. This worsens experiences. Since it is written explicitly as a SUPPLEMENT to the game and not as a formal modification to the extant rules ... why legalize it at all? Are people really going to miss getting to scratchbuild models for which there isn't even a designed template yet? I don't get it.

3) Fast moving kill-all units with 2+ saves that can be re-rolled. If Shadows in the Warp hasn't changed (TBD, but actually seems it might not have been) and Tyranid are powerful/popular (some rumors seem to indicate they might be!) ... you don't need to do anything about this. Even the closest major event, Las Vegas Open, will have the Tyranid rules legal for it ... which means no major event needs to make a rash judgment on 2+ re-rolls right now. We can just all acknowledge unkillable super fast units that can kill anything are really annoying for most players to deal with, and generally aren't very engaging.

To the person out there thinking "oh come on there are like 5 hard counters to each of those!" Stop it. We don't design tournaments for you. We design them for the 200 people who DON'T spend hours problem solving every possible combination. This is also why you want to keep it simple for those players, and not add even more crazy combinations to the game IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO. If GW releases a new Codex, you kinda have to add it to your tournament. If GW releases a supplement that tells you how to play with apoc units in a regular game if you want to ... you actually DON'T have to add it to your tournament. You're free to, even encouraged to if it suits you and your attendees, but you don't HAVE to. You'll also find with a little critical thinking ... doing so might actually hurt more people (especially laid back gamers) than it enriches.

Also, just b/c a lot of people take Trick Commanders doesn't mean you should ban them or try to nullify where they can be taken. The same can be said of Riptides and other things. These are powerful models in the game of 40k and are themselves fairly killable. This jives with the game as it's been for A VERY LONG TIME. 35/36 save odds and hit and run and 48"/turn movement is NOT precedented at any time since Rogue Trader. Really mean shooty units that lots of people can and will take ... ARE precedented. Deal for a bit on those, please.

So do I have a firm opinion on these? No. Do I have an opinion on these? Yes. Will I be making any kneejerk rulings? OF COURSE NOT. Will I be making any rulings on my own as a random guy? Nopers! I'm looking forward to a telecon with a ton of TOs in January, and to keeping an eye on the evolving situation while LOL'ing at the wig-outs. But since I keep getting asked today "ARE YOU GOING TO FOLLOW SUIT AND START BANNING TONS OF THINGS AND TWEAKING THE RULES AND ADDING 0-1'S AND STUFF?" NO, probably not. We might do some things, but we want to do them in unison with a broader range of events (hey, wouldn't it be cool if like a half dozen or a dozen major GT's all had the same ban/legal list instead of every event doing it differently?), and we want to do them under the lens of critical thinking, group-think that isn't just internal-to-the-GT-yes-men, and with a little more patience than THE INITIAL REPORTERS SAID THEY HAD TO BE USED IN STANDARD 40K SO I GUESS WE HAVE TO???

Additionally, we'll be sending out a very carefully-crafted survey to our 1500+ newsletter distro in January, and we'll be running all of our initial ideas (even if they are "no changes at all!") by same attendees once decided upon, so that we're making decisions in a way that isn't just "some smart people brainstorming" but is also reflective of what our paying players actually want.

Yes, I totally abused my caps lock in the creation of this post.


Long story short btw - if you folks with tournaments right around the corner losing your minds just say: "No Escalation, Voidshield Assault, Formations" + "TBD on 2+ re-rolls" you'll save yourselves a lot of headache. Jumping from "omg these just came out what do we do?!" to "FULL ON COMP AND BANS EVERYWHERE" is probably needless. This isn't even because it isn't necessary, who knows but that it is, but when you do it so aggressively and everywhere ... it SMACKS of reckless abandon instead of reasoned TO'ship, and that's a disservice both to the PR of your event and consideration for your attendees.

Also as we discuss this I want to point out something dumb but possibly true that has come up in my talks with friends.. If you remove the divination chart from the game... you now solve several problems currently in the meta and with list/combo abuse..

Just a thought to ponder...

I really don't get why there is this wave of chicken little.

Play with the codices and brb, that's it.
[don't know much about dataslates, but why not use them?]

Supplements are additional shit you can use casually.

Formations are additional shit you can use casually.

Tournaments are there for the participants to strive for competitive 'number 1'.
If some opponents need to use the 'steroids' of 40k, let them, they will learn by insight or getting smashed, it doesn't last and then they are left with saggy tits and small balls.

Bring your shit to the table and roll dice.

YUP!!!

Hell Yes!