Does 40k need new rules for Tournaments? - Page 8 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
General 40k This is the place to talk about everything related to Warhammer 40k.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #71 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-14-13, 03:16 AM
Senior Member
 
Wusword77's Avatar
Wusword77's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 1,624
Reputation: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Aaron View Post
I totally agree. ;)
That's why I suggested 0-1 everything except troops. Your at the bottom of the slope, and it's "fair" to each army.
It doesn't solve everything, and there are other problems with it, but I'm still working on it ;)
Restricting any unit for a game like 40K doesn't work because, unlike something like MTG, you have a very limited amount of resources to make an army out of. Restricting cards in MTG doesn't mean asmuch because there are thousands of cards you can still construct a deck from, in 40K and FB you a limited to the 20 or so units presented in the codex. Restricting that one unit could hurt your codex quite a bit.

Units are "balanced" (a loose term in this case) based off the rules presented in the codex. To modify those rules reduces the effectiveness of said units to the point where they may not really be worth it to even play.

Think about it. A trio of Heldrakes are a badass team that will ruin another players day. Making a rule that the player can only take one makes his Heldrake a much bigger risk, as it will still be a huge target but can't produce the same results without it's team. The question then becomes is it worth the points or am I better off running an additional unit of X.
Wusword77 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #72 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-14-13, 05:37 AM
Senior Member
 
Lord_Aaron's Avatar
Lord_Aaron's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 108
Reputation: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wusword77 View Post
Restricting any unit for a game like 40K doesn't work because, unlike something like MTG, you have a very limited amount of resources to make an army out of. Restricting cards in MTG doesn't mean asmuch because there are thousands of cards you can still construct a deck from, in 40K and FB you a limited to the 20 or so units presented in the codex. Restricting that one unit could hurt your codex quite a bit.

Units are "balanced" (a loose term in this case) based off the rules presented in the codex. To modify those rules reduces the effectiveness of said units to the point where they may not really be worth it to even play.

Think about it. A trio of Heldrakes are a badass team that will ruin another players day. Making a rule that the player can only take one makes his Heldrake a much bigger risk, as it will still be a huge target but can't produce the same results without it's team. The question then becomes is it worth the points or am I better off running an additional unit of X.
Actually, there is no "balance" - no matter how loosely you use the term.

Yes, the heldrake is badass. Yes, one will probably get shot down. But it's /so/ badass that, as MidnightSun said, the fast attack slot is "the heldrake slot". There are 5 fast attack choices in the chaos codex, all relatively good. But the heldrake is miles above the other 4. The other 4 don't get used in the highest levels of tournament play.

On top of that, the existence of the Heldrake with baleflamers basically maked some armies unsuitable for tournament play. Just ask Sethis.

Edit: in hindsight, I might be getting my threads mixed up. :p
There's another similar thread

Last edited by Lord_Aaron; 12-14-13 at 06:29 AM.
Lord_Aaron is offline  
post #73 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-14-13, 06:58 AM
Junior Member
 
Kecyre's Avatar
Kecyre's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 17
Reputation: 1
Default

Someone said Microsoft and Apple don't have forums? They in fact do. You can get to Apple forums via support and Microsoft has always had Technet.

My only complaint is the prices of digital codex. They should have really passed off the money they save from printing.

Last edited by Kecyre; 12-14-13 at 07:15 AM.
Kecyre is offline  
 
post #74 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-14-13, 12:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Ryu_Niimura's Avatar
Ryu_Niimura's Flag is: Netherlands
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 379
Reputation: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kecyre View Post
Someone said Microsoft and Apple don't have forums? They in fact do. You can get to Apple forums via support and Microsoft has always had Technet.

My only complaint is the prices of digital codex. They should have really passed off the money they save from printing.
Wow mate, what have you been smoking? I think you took a wrong turn somewhere along the way.

Also with the new FW release I don't think 3 Helldrakes are going to be a problem, or Screamer star for that matter

Ryu_Niimura is offline  
post #75 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-14-13, 03:05 PM Thread Starter
Token Trans Mod
 
Zion's Avatar
Zion's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: On the internet.
Posts: 6,385
Reputation: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kecyre View Post
Someone said Microsoft and Apple don't have forums? They in fact do. You can get to Apple forums via support and Microsoft has always had Technet.

My only complaint is the prices of digital codex. They should have really passed off the money they save from printing.
Tech support forums are not the same as the kind of fan forums people want GW to have.

Also, the digital codexes include the cost of the continued support (IT for the server, cost of server upkeep, the free updates they do instead of charging you for a new one when something changes, ect).

It's all packaged into the costs and thus GW can afford to do it.
Zion is offline  
post #76 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-15-13, 01:53 AM
Junior Member
 
Kecyre's Avatar
Kecyre's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 17
Reputation: 1
Default

No, those are Apple servers hosting it. Even with a cut apple takes it's far more than it should be.
Kecyre is offline  
post #77 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-15-13, 04:16 AM
Senior Member
 
Lord_Aaron's Avatar
Lord_Aaron's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 108
Reputation: 3
Default

Let's try to leave the price complaints for another thread please.
Lord_Aaron is offline  
post #78 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-15-13, 07:59 AM Thread Starter
Token Trans Mod
 
Zion's Avatar
Zion's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: On the internet.
Posts: 6,385
Reputation: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kecyre View Post
No, those are Apple servers hosting it. Even with a cut apple takes it's far more than it should be.
You're talking about iTunes, but GW also hosts them on the Black Library site with the .mobi and .epub versions. That's why they're only a little cheaper than the interactive ones from iTunes (which need a lot more work to setup and make sure it's all cross linked correctly and the like).
Zion is offline  
post #79 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-15-13, 09:26 AM
Senior Member
 
Sethis's Avatar
Sethis's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alston, Cumbria
Posts: 4,190
Reputation: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wusword77 View Post
Restricting any unit for a game like 40K doesn't work because, unlike something like MTG, you have a very limited amount of resources to make an army out of. Restricting cards in MTG doesn't mean asmuch because there are thousands of cards you can still construct a deck from, in 40K and FB you a limited to the 20 or so units presented in the codex. Restricting that one unit could hurt your codex quite a bit.
Well given that the ally matrix allows everyone to ally with at least two other armies barring Tyranids, that might not be entirely correct. Consider:

In any given MTG tournament, you are restricted to a selection of cards from the many thousands available (let's assume you're playing Standard Constructed). Some of those may be banned. Most of them will not work in your deck archetype (almost all aggro cards are useless for a control deck, for example), and anywhere between half and two thirds will not fit in because of colour restrictions (with tri-colour being the most you can realistically build a tournament worthy deck from). Of those cards that match both colour and archetype that are currently in Standard, something in the region of 60% of those will be jank that have no place in a tournament deck.

Thus your pool of "potentially useful" cards that you can consider adding to your deck is often in the low tens, rather than hundreds range.

Compare that to the Space Marine codex, which has (at last count) 54 individual units in it, and suddenly the comparison doesn't look so wildly different, especially when you add in the fact that they are Battle Brothers with Blood Angels (41), Space Wolves (33), Dark Angels (34), Imperial Guard (45) and Tau (25) to give a grand total of 232 seperate units (not including upgrade characters like Telion) and that's not even considering Allies of Convenience/Desperation.

Obviously there is some overlap between codices (Tac squads are basically the same, no matter which book they come from) and there are also some terrible units in each codex, but we haven't even looked at Fortifications, Forgeworld or Apocalypse yet.

Therefore, even if some tournaments end up banning certain units (so far we've got a list of, what, 3-4 units and a wargear item?) there are *plenty* still left to choose from.

90% of people think they are above average.

Statistically Improbable. Psychologically Inevitable.
Sethis is offline  
post #80 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-15-13, 03:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Wusword77's Avatar
Wusword77's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 1,624
Reputation: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethis View Post
Well given that the ally matrix allows everyone to ally with at least two other armies barring Tyranids, that might not be entirely correct. Consider:

In any given MTG tournament, you are restricted to a selection of cards from the many thousands available (let's assume you're playing Standard Constructed). Some of those may be banned. Most of them will not work in your deck archetype (almost all aggro cards are useless for a control deck, for example), and anywhere between half and two thirds will not fit in because of colour restrictions (with tri-colour being the most you can realistically build a tournament worthy deck from). Of those cards that match both colour and archetype that are currently in Standard, something in the region of 60% of those will be jank that have no place in a tournament deck.

Thus your pool of "potentially useful" cards that you can consider adding to your deck is often in the low tens, rather than hundreds range.
The same idea can be applied to 40K however. If you want to play a specific type of army (say bikes) you will be limiting your self to specific types of units, much like how you be limited by the deck type you wanna play in MTG. Allies function as colors, as you will be looking for the units in the allied books to complement your deck, and you are limited by the number of "good" units that will be used in a dex as some units are just bad. Of course you can still take whatever units you want in 40K, just like you can run 5 colors in MtG, but it would reduce the overall effectiveness of your list (at least depending on MtG block or rule set).

Your actual choices for your list are just a limited, if not more so, then in Magic.

Quote:
Obviously there is some overlap between codices (Tac squads are basically the same, no matter which book they come from) and there are also some terrible units in each codex, but we haven't even looked at Fortifications, Forgeworld or Apocalypse yet.

Therefore, even if some tournaments end up banning certain units (so far we've got a list of, what, 3-4 units and a wargear item?) there are *plenty* still left to choose from.
Many tournaments already ban Forgeworld/Apoc and have imposed restrictions on Fortifications. Imposing more restrictions on players just further limits options and what lists will show up at any given Tournament.

Last edited by Wusword77; 12-15-13 at 03:26 PM.
Wusword77 is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > General 40k

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome