Hey everyone, Reecius here to talk shop a little about what goes into the decision making process with the ITC, why we use polls, and a little of the philosophy behind everything!
This is an apt occasion to discuss all of this as we have a poll out and in process! Be sure to vote if you play in ITC events. Whenever we do these polls, it stirs up some controversy, as can be expected. Thanks to everyone that is participating, and thanks to everyone that has provided feedback! We appreciate it, even the folks that may be expressing themselves in less than polite terms, haha. We don’t get mad because we understand the motivating emotions are that folks care about this silly hobby of ours, and are acting out of that love for what we do.
As always, we get a certain set of questions/reactions in response to what we do with the ITC: democratically determined policy. As I don’t have the time to respond to everyone personally (as much as I’d like to), I will touch on some of the key points that we always get.
Why vote? First of all, why do we run polls at all and not just dictate terms? Because we believe that everyone that plays in ITC events should have a voice, and a degree of self-determination in choosing the game they want to play. Is it tempting to simply dictate terms based on what we believe to be the “best,” or “right” way to play 40k? Sure it is, we have out own personal biases and desires, but we do not believe that that is the right way to do things. We typically don’t even play in our own events (and when I say we, I mean the FLG staff) and as such, we are willing to accept rulings from the majority that may go against what we personally want to see or how we may want to play every rule.
We determine which issues to address based on our interactions with the community. We are constantly keeping our ear to the ground for what is going on, what needs to be addressed, what issues are being brought up the most frequently, etc. We also use our personal experiences and play testing to help determine what is or is not something that is worth looking at. It is a combination of art and science as we can’t look at everything that gets brought up, and have to choose which issues appear to be most prevalent. Is the polling process perfect? Are we perfect in our application of it? No, of course not. We strive to do it as well as we can, and work with an imperfect system, but it does allow us to directly respond to community desires. And while not perfect, it works and we’ve yet to find a better system.
We are here to help facilitate community, and a standardized tournament format to make it easier for players to travel to events. The ITC is about growing the hobby, growing community, helping to make it easier for existing and aspiring TOs to organize events in the face of the increasing complexity of 40k, and by providing resources to help get the word out about their events. It’s about creating excitement, fun, and camaraderie.
Don’t change the rules! If you change any of the rules, you aren’t playing “real” 40k…right? This is one of the most common reactions we hear. However, if you think about it, when was the last time you played 40k without changing the rules? 7th ed 40k is all about playing in a sandbox environment. The game designers have given us an open rule-set to allow us to play the way we want, which is rad! You can literally put any models you want on the table.
However, for organized play where you walk to the table against an opponent you have never played before, with no time to determine how you want to play, you have to have pre-set guidelines in order to play. So, event organizers must choose what type of 40k is going to be played. Do you use Unbound lists? No? You are not playing “By the Book 40K.” Do you have a points limit pre-determined? That is not by the book, which states you do not actually have to use a points limit at all. Do you use custom missions? Yes? Then you have changed the rules. Do you not use Lords of War? Don’t use Forge World? Then you are changing the rules. Do you have an FAQ to answer ambiguous rules issues? Yes? You have changed the rules. In my 20 years of playing 40k, I have literally never been to a tournament or league that didn’t alter the rules to some degree. It is never a matter of if, but how much these changes occurred. It’s actually a fundamental part of 40k, and one which the game developers have repeatedly told us they expect and encourage us to do.
Some folks get upset when they feel that some rules are OK to change, but others not. However, this is an artificial differentiation based on personal opinion. We hear terms like, “core rules,” to somehow show that one rule is more or less important, or not OK to change. The fact is, it comes down to personal perspective as to what is OK, or not OK to alter. There is no objective determination without taking the book as it is, in entirety, which no one does. Objecting to a proposed rule change on the grounds that that singularly makes a system no longer “Real 40K” has no basis in reality.
Similarly with an FAQ for the community, such as the ITC FAQ, you have contentious rulings but rulings that have to be made. I will often hear a small number of folks say they dislike an FAQ for one ruling they may not agree with when they appreciate the other 99% of it. That always makes me laugh, as the root of it is typically them not being able to do something they want to do and focusing on a perceived negative while ignoring the vast majority of positives. While you may not like every ruling in an FAQ (I personally don’t like all of them, either!) it is better to have it than not. GW is not answering the questions we have about the rules, so that leaves us as a community to do it for ourselves. Without it, we have no common ground for us to all come to an event and play without having to debate every other rule. Or, we end up with situations where there is no FAQ and you can have multiple judges at an event making different calls on the same rules at different tables and you end up with chaos. Compromise is the name of the game in order for all of us to come together and play. You give ground on some rulings, you gain it on others. They key is to roll with community driven decisions with maturity, and accept that it is impossible for everyone to get every ruling they want. It just doesn’t work that way.
So when should rules be looked at for alteration in organized play? FLG’s philosophy has always been: a rule should only be considered for alteration when changing it will cause less harm than not changing it. We do not want to ever alter rules, ever. It inevitably causes a small number of folks to get upset and we’d rather not deal with the headache, honestly. But, if we believe based on community feedback, personal opinion, and experience, that a certain rule will actually hurt the organized play community, we feel it is our responsibility to address it, present it to the community for consideration for change. For example, altering the 2+ rerollable save as we have done for the ITC to stop the incredibly resilient units that were essentially invincible was met with the usual protests form a few folks, but now has an over 90% approval rating among ITC community members. It made the game more fun, and fair for more people. While yes, it did come with a bit of controversy out of the gates, it has proven to be positive change.
But, what’s to stop you from changing all the rules?! This is the next most common reaction we get. If you start altering some rules, what’s to stop you from altering them all? The slippery slope argument is a fallacy. Simply because we do one thing, does not mean we will inevitably do another. For one, look at the past. Have we indiscriminately altered rules for no reason? No. We’ve been in this game for a long time. It’s bad for business to change anything for no good reason, and we have no desire to do it. As stated, we only consider a rules alteration when we feel it is the lesser of two evils. If not altering something is–in our opinion–worse than not addressing it, we take action. However, we only ever implement policy for the ITC if it is what the majority of community members want.
It’s not smart to make snap decisions! Frequently we get folks making the argument to not make hasty decisions without really testing things out over a few months. While I agree with this in principle–it seems logical–in practice it doesn’t work as cleanly as one would think. For one, there are ITC events every weekend. We have TO’s that are waiting for answers to give to their communities, and we have a responsibility to help them. We at FLG also are always rolling from one event we host to another, and have the very real responsibility of getting event guidelines and tickets up for sale, or to answer questions to customers that may have bought a ticket and want to know what rules they will be playing with. There is money, vacation time, hobby time, etc. all on the line. In many instances we simply cannot tell customers, friends and ITC TO’s to hang in there for 30-60 days for answers as they need them sooner than that.
Secondly, folks can get upset when you tell them, hey, we as a group are deciding to tone some things down a bit in order to make everything more fun and fair for everyone else, relatively quickly after something new comes out. But if you want to see folks get really upset, tell them that after they have bought, built, painted and gotten used to playing with said models/rules. In most cases, it is actually worse in practice to do this as now folks have invested time and money into something and then having it taken away, than to simply put a stop to it before it becomes entrenched. Again, lesser of two evils.
Lastly, some basic math can often be applied to see that something is too efficient for the points. Experience and a calculator is often enough to see things at a far extreme of the power curve. If you let these things into an event knowing what will occur in order to “test” it out, what happens is you often simply ruin some other people’s experience when they get hit with it.
So what if something is too powerful? My opponent should just toughen up and get over it! This is another common response we get. And while many of us may agree with a “suck it up” mentality philosophically, and even live our lives that way outside of 40k, the reality of the fact is that this is a game that is inherently rooted in social interaction. You play it with another person who came to the table to have a fun, challenging game. In the case of tournaments, they’ve taken time away form family and work, spent money and often traveled to a location for a fun weekend of gaming.
When you allow the balance to be thrown off too much, there are those folks that will simply say: this isn’t worth my time and money. While yes, they could simply “suck it up,” and deal with it, so to speak, when you factor in the human considerations of what it takes to participate in an event: why would someone pay for the opportunity to play a bunch of games against an army or combo they do not enjoy playing against? Playing 40k in an organized setting is not a test of character or an obligation, it is a luxury. The playing field needs to be relatively level in order for it to be a worthwhile experience. If not, the community as a whole suffers and events shrink. We’ve seen it happen, many times.
But I have a list I want to play! I totally get it. For the average player, they look at things like rules alterations in terms of how they impact their play experience, their list. That is logical. However, remember, you are not having ideas about how to use powerful new things in a vacuum. Everyone else is thinking the same things! And if you think you will be the only person to show up to an event with the mega-powerful new army, you are wrong. You will show up to an event being yet another guy with “that” army. Largely with the exact same units, too. The field at an event will be swarmed with the same armies when there is true imbalance, which is not good for the game.
Perfect example: let’s go back in time to Adepticon 2012, when we had Grey Knights dominating the scene, the most powerful codex we’d seen until this new Eldar book. Finals at the event: 50% Grey Knights. The event itself had 25% Grey Knights in the field in a game with 15 factions, some factions had NO REPRESENTATION at all. Do you want to go to an event and potentially play the same army in half of your games? If you bring the powerhouse, do you want to play mirror matches all weekend? Do you want to be yet another player with the same army as everyone else? Because you will be. This has hapenned many times in the past, and any veteran of the game can attest to it.
2012 Adepticon Finals: 50% Grey Knights
Game 5 (Sunday Round 1)
Alexander Fennell (Necrons – Winner) vs. Tim Gorham (Grey Knights)
Tony Grippando (Grey Knights) vs. Reece Robbins (Eldar – Winner)
Mike Mutscheller (Space Wolves) vs. Nick Nanavati (Grey Knights – Winner)
Justin Cook (Grey Knights) vs. Brad Chester (Grey Knights – Winner)
Bill Kim (Chaos Daemons) vs. Dave Ankarlo (Grey Knights – Winner)
Jose Mendez (Dark Angels) vs. Tony Kopach (Space Wolves – Winner)
Joakim Engstrom (Grey Knights) vs. Paul Murphy (Grey Knights – Winner)
Doug Johnson (Orks – Winner) vs. Brett Perkins (Imperial Guard)
Game 6 Winner Brackets (Sunday Round 2)
Reece Robbins (Eldar) vs. Paul Murphy (Grey Knights – WINNER)
Alexander Fennell (Necrons – WINNER) vs. Doug Johnson (Orks)
Brad Chester (Grey Knights – WINNER) vs. Dave Ankarlo (Grey Knights)
Tony Kopach (Space Wolves – WINNER) vs. Nick Nanavati (Grey Knights)
Game 7 Winner Brackets – (Sunday Round 3)
Alexander Fennell (Necrons) vs. Brad Chester (Grey Knights – WINNER)
Tony Kopach (Space Wolves – WINNER) vs. Paul Murphy (Grey Knights)
Game 8 (Sunday Round 4)
Tony Kopach (Space Wolves) vs. Brad Chester (Grey Knights – WINNER)
Final Results: Warhammer 40K Championships Warmaster – Brad Chester (Grey Knights)
We don’t simply have to allow things to happen. We have the legitimate right, and responsibility, to create the game we want to play together. We’ve seen many times in the past where things that throw off game balance are introduced into the game and it creates a less enjoyable environment for most gamers to play in. These situations could be easily avoided by simply coming together to say, no thanks. There will always be those who will disagree with changes such as those we propose. The simple fact that you have groups of people that want to see opposite sides of the same issue come to be means this is unavoidable.
However, through our polls, and real world experience, we have seen that most folks agree with these changes. The ITC format has spread like wildfire, and the 2015 LVO 40k Championships had 256 players (with well over 300 registered), the largest 40k singles event ever held. We also had an incredibly diverse finals with a championship match of a Scout army vs. a Lichtor Nid army! This isn’t to say be any means that we’re the best or what have you, but compare that to the Deathstar on Deathstar (or similar style lists) Championships we typically see in other formats and the changes become telling. Again, that is no put down of other events, we offer only support and encouragement to our fellow tournaments. But does lead you to ask, what type of 40k do you want to play? We want to see variety, and a playing field where players do not feel compelled to bring the most extreme units/combos/rules in order to compete and have fun. So far, it has worked. And, the ITC is a flexible system! We built to be able to react to changes as they come, so nothing is set in stone, too. We can adapt as we go.
In closing, my challenge to all of you that are impacted by the ITC is to vote with your conscious first, but after consideration for not only how a ruling impacts you personally and your list, but how it impacts the community of gamers you are a part of and without whom we would not be able to play organized 40k at all.
Thanks to everyone that has participated so far! We look forward to another great ITC season.
Well said good sir!
Thank you, my friend!
“The slippery slope argument is a fallacy.”
It’s only a fallacy if the person doesn’t establish why A will to B. Saying A leads to B with no explicit connector is fallacious.
But if one has a plausible explanation for why A leads to B, for example changing the expectations of tournament goers which then increases pressure on TOs to make similar changes in other circumstances, then it’s a completely legitimate argument.
Not really, Slippery slopes are stupid in general because it assumes to much
Yes. Because logic and reasoning are stupid…
one can always draw a connection from A to B, what makes a slippery slope argument fallacious is the position that most often those connections are extremely unlikely.
But if we stop believing in the slipper slope we could lose the straw man next.
The slippery slope argument is a fallacy by definition. That’s english brother. If you disagree you would say that changing one rule leading to rampant rule changes is NOT a slippery slope, but an inevitability. Of course if you said that you would need to furnish evidence, historical or otherwise. Saying one action leads to another because that’s how it feels is the definition of a slippery slope slope argument, which again, is by definition a fallacy.
Nope, not true at all. a slippery slope argument is a perfectly reasonable argument which is often used unreasonably. But in principle if you can establish a reasonable causal chain from a minor event to a major outcome, you are correctly using the slippery slope argument.
From Wikipedia:
“…A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect…”
A real fallacy is simply never correct to use, such as If A then B. B, therefore A.
Sometimes people have to come to terms that they cant getwhat they want
I really want to run the D-99 detachment for my IG in an event, bring something Diff, but I cant.
I also want to run a hellhammer, but people will get pissy.
I also was a pony, but the dorms dont allow pets.
What makes this worse is it’s picking on a specific army in such an unprecedented way.
Everything before may have had more/less impact on a particular army, but the change technically applied to everyone equally.
Changing the weapon options for one army’s units is truly unprecedented and a bad sign of things to come.
It will divide the community and create more disparate tournament formats than having just let it be.
I’m really on the fence about it because of what you said. But removing the 2+ re-rollable was essentially an army-wide nerf to demons and then picked out a handful of units(2? I don’t know all the armies that have the option). I would say that was far more intrusive even if it could be a phrased in such a way that seemed fair.
Would you be more in favor of the rule if it was
“All trroop choices can only have 1 in 3 special weapons on models”
As far as I know, it would only affect eldar. I can’t think of any others that can do it but I’m not an encyclopedia so I could be completely wrong.
If there were equivalent rulings for things like Wraith whip coils, Flyrant devourers, or any other no brainer max it out style upgrade than I don’t think people would feel as picked on (which they’re right to feel in this case).
Although if you keep reading (I’ve written a lot on this stuff today :0P) I think all the home brewed stuff is bad for major events. It fractures the formats which makes it hard or impossible for people to take the same army to many events, even events a few hours apart.
It is picking on a particular army in an unprecedented way, but that’s because this particular army has some unprecedented power creep in its book. Look at other changes, like the modification to re-rollable 2+ saves. While that wasn’t just one army, it was only a very precious few impacted. Most armies still can’t get that kind of capability out there yet there was enough to get many tournaments to change those.
Tournaments cost organizers money to put on so they have to sell enough tickets to offset the costs. If an army is powerful enough that people don’t buy tickets because they’re expecting most of the field to be playing it and winning most of the time, what’s the tournament organizer supposed to do?
The power creep isn’t unprecedented. There are A LOT of things in the game that rank in close to EJBs. Maybe EJB are the best, but something is going to be. It doesn’t mean its substantially ahead of the pack.
And again, I’m all for doing what is best for the event, particularly because they TOs put up a lot of their own time and money.
What I’m saying is these kinds of changes, in the long run, are actually not what’s best for the event.
GKs were totally broken and 40% of the field for over a year and tournament attendance didn’t suffer.
Lowering the barriers to tournament play is a far bigger issue IMO than the dominance of one army (and there is NO evidence so far than a few internet videos to show that Eldar will even be dominant). Fracturing the tournament scene the way homebrew nerfs do increases barriers and is to me far more damaging to events than the dominance of any one army.
One has three options:
1) Leave it alone: make most people miserable.
2) Change a general rule to fix a specific problem: often horribly breaks something else in the game which you did not intend and unevenly causes negative impacts on armies which are NOT broken.
3) Change a specific thing to fix a specific problem: a small group of people don’t get to use something that makes everyone else miserable.
Option 3. Every time.
Haha, people in Hell want ice water, I just want a pony
Good post.
I fully support ITC and than you Reece for spearheading the effort to take ownership of the hobby, not just accept what ever GW throws at the community.
Great write up and why I really like what you guys are doing. I wish we had more ITC events near Boston.
There have been many similar struggles in rowing actually to make it more it more fair. You would think lining up boats and racing them would be a straight forward event but currents and winds and wealth of teams to afford better boats all make a difference. You get used to differences that can’t be helped. These differences were sometimes huge, nearly a length over the course of 2000 meters. That wouldn’t stop regatta organizers from agonizingly lining up boats to start within an inch of each other, even though other conditions were far more impacting than traveling 2000 meters exactly.
The difference is we can help one and we can’t help the other. I think the current ITC does a great job of adhering to the policy of doing what you can and letting the rest go.
also, you could’ve said- there are anything goes tournaments out there if you’re into that,(and many of your own events even offer it in the friendly!(of which i’m a huge fan)) and if the next SM dex comes out with heavy weapons and S D everywhere, maybe eldar wont look so bad and you can backpedal on their perceived ‘nerfs’. there was a rumor of Knights coming out with quake cannons for a second and it was almost like the dawning of the age of the D, but no.
i like all the rules changes so far
ps conversion contest!
I totally agree about the variety thing. Last ITC event I was at, I played 3x eldar, 2x necrons, and an ork. In a game with 20 factions, I’d like to play against more than 3 in 6 rounds. If it wasn’t for brave ork guy, it probably would’ve only been 2 factions that I played against, because I saw even more crons and eldar there that I didn’t play against. There were only 30 people there, and something like 30% of the field was crons and eldar! That’s just a bit retarded, and I am totally happy to see some changes to water the flower of diversity rather than letting it get crushed by an overweight book.
Again, thanks for being the hero the 40k community needs, FLG crew.
I hope people refer to me as “that brave ork guy” after tournaments.
I agree with most of this article, but as I mentioned recently on the Frontline FB page, the thing I can’t stand is when an FAQ applies a clear RAW part of the rulebook incorrectly in order to sneak in a change as a “rules interpretation.” Especially when it’s something very impactful. If there’s going to be a big rules change that people didn’t vote on because a TO or a group of TOs thinks it’s for “balance,” it should at least be marked as an intentional and undemocratic change to the RAW, not as a “rules clarification.”
First want to say this is in no way intended to be anything other than objective, informed criticism. I am not trying to bash the poll or the post, just providing some counter points for discussion:
**”Do you use Unbound lists? No? You are not playing “By the Book 40K.” Do you have a points limit pre-determined? That is not by the book, which states you do not actually have to use a points limit at all. Do you use custom missions? Yes? Then you have changed the rules”**
The rulebook gives specific permission and license to make up your own missions and set how you want to select your armies, including points limits.
“Creating Your Own Missions
Warhammer 40,000 is a very flexible game, designed to allow you to recreate any of the
battles that take place in the 41st Millennium. Because of this, when you prepare to fight
a Warhammer 40,000 battle using a mission of your own devising, you and your
opponent will need to discuss how you will set up the battlefield, pick the models you will
use in the game, and decide how to determine the winner.”
“There are many ways you can pick an army, and these are discussed in detail in the
Choosing Your Army section. Both players will need to agree whether they will use a
points limit, and any other restrictions they will place upon their army selection. In some
cases, the mission may also specify certain restrictions or requirements.”
While I get the point you are making, creating new missions and setting army building guidlines are actually allowed and addressed by ‘core’ rules. I’d keep those two things out of the argument in my opinion.
**”Lastly, some basic math can often be applied to see that something is too efficient for the points. Experience and a calculator is often enough to see things at a far extreme of the power curve. If you let these things into an event knowing what will occur in order to “test” it out, what happens is you often simply ruin some other people’s experience when they get hit with it.”**
I think some more analysis was worth doing before deciding to make a direct change to a unit entry
Did you guys do any comparisons with 7ed scatbikes and 6ed wavserpents? There’s a lot of equivalency and many things that favor the 6ed waveserpent despite the additional entry cost of the Dire Avenger (or fire dragon or whatever). The game did not break with serpents and I don’t think they will with scat bikes. Certainly set the pace for the meta but if it is not them then it will remain things that fall through the cracks (like flying MCs getting psuedo invis AND toe in cover saves).
Personally rather face scat bikes then cover ignoring twinlinked S7 shots on more durable platforms that can also put out same density of S6+ shots at 24″ (eg 6ed Waveserpents) — despite the need for DAVU or firedragons to unlock them. Also prefer 1 GC Wraithknight over 3 of the old ones. Maybe that is just me and my maths though.
**”Perfect example: let’s go back in time to Adepticon 2012, when we had Grey Knights dominating the scene, the most powerful codex we’d seen until this new Eldar book. Finals at the event: 50% Grey Knights. The event itself had 25% Grey Knights in the field in a game with 15 factions, some factions had NO REPRESENTATION at all. Do you want to go to an event and potentially play the same army in half of your games? If you bring the powerhouse, do you want to play mirror matches all weekend?”**
That example is of 5ed meta with two codex releases a year and no FW allowed, with Adepticon 4ed era terrain and published missions that favored what GK brough to the table. 7ed is a whole other beast. The minute you try and tweak something there’s a new release that makes it moot in some fashion or other.
What are your thoughts on toning down specific units vs changes to general rules?
I bring it up because changes to main rules effects everyone and thus democracy is a quasi acceptable way to go about it.
But when you vote on a single unit or codex, you are always going to have more people who don’t play the codex than do play the codex. It’s far less impartial.
Even putting it on the ballot casts it in a light that it’s a problem, so you’ve started the whole conversation with a slant.
Thanks Reece. I always shake my head when I listen to podcasts and read forum posts that blast YOU for nerfing things…Reece nerfed invisibility. Reece hates this army. Reece doesent like real 40k.
I play with the ITC rules and format as much as I can because it has made the game more enjoyable for me. But I dont have to. Neither does any other TO. But they can still call their event ITC. Literally no one but the events you run have to use your nerfs and faqs. Yet so many choose to. But somehow you are forcing your brand of 40k down our throats? Good on you for always choosing to remain positive despite the vitriol sometimes thrown your way. The democratic process is not perfect, but what is?
Great post, but…but..”vote with your conscious” smh
Conscience, Reece, conscience.
😛
Technically, you need to vote with your conscious too. Sleep voting does no one any good.
Very true, but I think we all know the RAI of his words. 😀
I think what a lot of people are missing is that an event cost the organizer time, money, sleep, and general health. It takes a hell of a lot to put on an event. And you have to try and make it an event as many people as possible will want to attend. So you have to give the majority what they want and alter things to meet those needs. You are not going to please 100% of the people, that’s just impossible. But if you can please 75% then your event is likely to be successful.
Best as I can tell from the few times I have been to the store, Reecius runs a very professional business and does what he feels is best for business (except when they switched systems and almost lost my preorder grrrrr. But it was corrected.) So vote, and understand that sometimes you will lose the vote but you can still have fun. Its just impossible to always please everyone.
I’m all for the guy footing the bill doing whatever he wants with his event.
But is making 75% of the people marginally happier but pissing off 10% of people actually making the event more successful?
How many of the 75% would stop coming because Eldar were unchanged? How many Eldar players will stop coming if they’re army is substantially changed/nerfed in the format?
I’m not saying I have the answers, but a straight majority vote doesn’t hold the answers either.
Plus, its always super easy to say you win some / lose some when you anticipate being on the winning side :0P
I can chime in here and say that I considered giving up on this ITC season if unmodded eldar were in, and my 2 travelling buddies said they’d stay home as well, and we were planning on going to 3 more events, so that’s 3 x 3 thus 9 participations in events out the window right there. And that’s just the players I can speak for. There’s another that has said he won’t go to ANY event, even funsies things, that have unmodded eldar. And he’s never been one of those “this book ruined the game” guys before in all the time I’ve known him.
I don’t know you guys, I assume you mean what you say and aren’t just blustering. But I’m sure with a mild amount of effort you could drudge up an anecdote for the opposing viewpoint.
And I highly suspect that you’re perceptions are based more on internet content than actual game play experience.
They would almost have to be at this point.
I’m with you Mike – I had planned on 3 ITC events until the Eldar codex dropped, I decided not to bother with any big tournaments – and I play Eldar! I took Eldar to the LVO and had a blast with Highlander-only lists.
I’m glad the ITC gang is taking this head-on to reign-in Scat Bikes and the big D.
I’ll continue to support ITC events and trust the ITC gang to have the game communities best interest in mind when they set the new standards.
I’ll vote with my wallet and time and chose not attend any major tournaments that do not adopt the ITC standards.
D weapons, jet bikes, etc are still going to be top tier options. D weapons, even post nerf are on the over powered side of good. You will see plenty of Eldar players competing and placing at ITC.
Eldar players need to stop thinking of this as if they are losing something. A few options are being toned down, and the trade off is you get more varied, and numerous opponents.
It really sucks if you bought 30 scat bikes, but honestly, from rumour day zero everyone has been talking about their nerf. If the only reason you put down a couple of hundred bucks on bikes was the option to take all heavies at 10ptd, what does that tell you about that option?
Of course, everyone will be talking about how they just wanted the fluff of their scatsquadron bike army to remain intact 😉
Did you watch any of the FLG Eldar games?
I watched all of them actually.
Honestly, they’re one of my biggest problems with this whole thing.
The vast majority of opponents, like all but one, were space marines. Space Marines were getting tabled by Eldar in the old book too. Nothing new there.
In my own play testing against some very capable opponents, I’ve found them strong but not obviously the best thing in the game.
The FLG gaming videos have added fuel to the hysteria for no good reason.
The old eldar weren’t tabling space marine armies, not with someone playing as badly as Reece running them. Space marines, as a faction, have been winning tournaments against Eldar opponents. It just smells like you want to discount the games as irrelevant.
This post really is a slippery slope, we really need to slow down and test this out for a few months before posting.
Did you not READ how its worse to not do that?
It’s possible they read and just disagreed with it.
It is possible to read something and come to a different conclusion than you.
Once the tournament scene is dominated by unmagnetised scatbikes?
This isn’t really a “wait and see” thing. This is a “missiles incoming, intercept or let them hit?” thing.
And I don’t think it’s all that pleasant being hit by missiles, so I’m all for intercepting.
Don’t worry, I got the joke 🙂
At last!!
Overall, this is about how ONE set of tournament organizers with their own unique mentality and approach to gaming are trying to make things work. There are many different ways of playing 40k and thinking about 40k and currently there isn’t any “one right way.”
So in the end, Reece and the ITC crew have made it clear that they want to make a FUN and relatively EVEN playing field and that is a good thing as far as I am concerned. How they do this and to what conclusions they arrive to should be something we just need to accept as this is about as democratic of a process as you can probably have in the 40k community.
First, they look at what options are out there, then they choose those options and present them to their “public” to vote. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to play in their events but you have to at least acknowledge the conscious effort to do the right thing for the community as a whole.
Personally, I might think some decisions are too harsh or not harsh enough but in the end, everyone has to play by the same rules at an ITC event and that is something we can all appreciate at the end of the day.
Democracy in and of itself is not enough justification for something.
75% of us may all vote to take your lunch money. It doesn’t mean that it is right or good for the community at large.
Sure but nobody is saying Democracy in and of itself is enough justification for anything here-at least I am not.
I merely pointed out that (1) many options were discussed by the ITC guys; (2) those options were tested out/analyzed; and, (3) those options that seemed best were presented to the public to vote upon.
Incidentally, taking my lunch money was not one of those options voted on so comparing the options voted upon to that of having lunch money taken is an improper analogy. Specifically, in this format, if you don’t like what options they end up going with, you don’t have to go to any of their events.
Anyway, in the ITC format, what is good for the community-which is THEIR community-is for that specific community at large to decide. What is good for competitive 40k or 40k in general is another issue all together and it appears like you are arguing about the latter rather than the former.
I would have also added for people to keep in mind that any changes that happen here are not permanent to the ITC scene. If the new hotness 6 months from now needs an unaltered Eldar army in the meta to bring balance then there will be another poll and it will be corrected. That’s what’s so great about the ITC system is that it’s responsive to the needs of the player base. While I don’t personally agree to everything that’s being proposed for changes (don’t understand why the altered D table isn’t an ID shot at 6 myself), I do believe in the democracy of what’s going on here.
Certainly there are going to be people who are trying to nerf Eldar with their votes and there will be others who are trying to preserve them on top, but a majority of people will be those who care about playing fun games. Those are the people I want to play against in a tournament, and I’m willing to play by their rules if that’s what it takes.
This is exactly what’s NOT good about the system.
Book invisibility is a strong counter to Eldar. Do they want to switch back? No. They won’t ever undo the existing nerfs until an edition changes makes them no longer applicable.
The nerfs beget an unending series of more nerfs.
That’s because book invis is a strong counter to everything ever, which is not good for variety. We would have the same problem, only it would be “every top table has an invis star” instead of “every top table has jet bikes.”
No, the smartest thing to do is to pull the stray cattle back to the herd, not to move the herd to the stray.
It’s the new power level of the game. When every cattle goes astray you’re trying to move the entire heard.
You may not like it, but fighting it on one front (invis. or the 2+ reroll) then necessitates that you fight it on all fronts which is neither possible nor good for the community.
Book invis would just push the new eldar even higher in terms of power, not counter it.
Psychic powers that are randomly selected are not a “hard counter.” They’re a random counter that certain armies may or may not get to use depending on their dice and composition.
Belakor and Loth come with it automatically. Many builds have >90% change of getting it. You can build reliable strategies (anti Eldar strategies for the matter) around it.
So Daemons and Space Marines are the only armies who can reliably count on it and the others have to ally them in. which means that you’ll see tournaments where it’s 33% Eldar, 33% daemons and marines (of which every one of them has Belakor or Loth), and 33% people who have just wasted their money to come to a tournament.
I’m sorry man, while I respect what you’re saying, I just can’t agree with that. If you put people in a position where they have to have particular powers or models or armies in order to have a decent chance at winning then you might as well start putting out required lists and army compositions. People are going to feel compelled to take those and when people are eing compelled they’re less likely to have fun.
You, but not just you, are talking like there was some sort of time when people weren’t compelled to take XYZ to compete.
That’s just not the case. And it’s still not the case with the invis and 2+ reroll nerfs. You’re just compelled to take different things.
All the tireless and never ending nerfing accomplishes is getting the community pissed off at one another and crushing any hope of every having 1 tournament format.
You will NEVER get people to agree to homebrewed nerfs. Even among the people who think something should be nerfed they all have different ideas on how to do it. So now every tournament is going to have different rules on how to use GCs, play invis, play 2+ rerolls, and what guns I can put on my jetbikes and on and on. It’s actually a BAD thing for the tournament scene.
I think it’s far overblown. ITC already deviates from the “accepted norm” and is hugely popular as a result. It fills a gap, and from what I’ve heard, it’s bringing casuals into tournaments. It’s spreading, and most feedback, aside from at voting times, is highly positive!
If it doesn’t suit you, maybe play the events that do, and stay away from ITC. But honestly, I think most people that have tried all the options with an open mind, prefer ITC.
Yes, just about any army can get access to Invisibility if they ally in a source and so on. However, Tau don’t have access to Invisibility for their own units (e.g., can never have Invisibility cast on any of their units). So should Tau be forced to have to have some form of invisibility in their army via allied units to counter something else? Overall, saying X is a counter to Y but they nerfed X so now they have to nerf Y doesn’t address whether or not X or Y are fun to play as or against-which is one major thing ITC is trying to address.
Indeed, this is a discussion about the ITC format and how it is attempting to even the playing field and make it more fun for all those involved. furthermore, there is no one single format for 40k-and I don’t think there really ever was one.
Regarding point one, ITC is free to make the rules as they see fit, which is not arbitrary but based on a reasoned analysis. I may not agree with them but I respect what they are trying to do.
Regarding the second point-40k is now at the point where you can literally house rule anything and everything and so what is wrong with that? Saying “well where does it stop” is largely irrelevant because it doesn’t have to stop anywhere-in the end it will still be 40k and everyone playing in ITC will still be playing by the same rules.
If you disagree with those rules, fine, but whether those changes/rules are good or bad is largely subjective which makes it hard to argue against. I mean, what exactly is the metric for determining what is or is not good or bad for 40k in general?
“Many builds”? – are you smoking something special? Look at it from the other side of the table: Several codex armies cannot get ANY psyker powers at all, let alone Invisibility. GW does not consider things like that when they hand it out like candy.
I’m reasonably certain that lolth will die from perils tossing enough dice to stop the denial from a current codex seer council.
i disagree. more than likely what will happen is bikes will be one in 3 special weapons by poll results, than the new hotness comes out that “needs an unaltered eldar army in the meta to counter it.
nobody but eldar players will want it changed because at that point nobody wants to have to face both the new hotness, and the powerful scat bikes.
GW is in the business of selling the marks a bunch of new plastic toys each month. They have obviously not been in the rules business arguably ever…but definitely not post WD Daemons. Each new weekly release is nothing more than a short term money grab to squeeze as much as possible out of the few remaining players that are left. I think you have a real problem in that the more you try to fix their garbage, the more garbage they will put out. You can’t stop the flow of stupid coming out of their company, because the five people left who still play this game are basically turning their pay checks over to them for the latest LE super duper whatever. As I said, to keep from losing profits as quickly as they have been, they are squeezing and squeezing more money out of the few of you that remain.
The ITC rules packet and FAQ are eventually going to be longer than the bible. Your game died when 6th edition came out…the newest Eldar Codex was the final nail in the coffin…ACCEPT IT AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE! You will be much happier. You are like all the Mage Knight 2.0 players trying to cling to their dead game, simply because of the small fortune you invested in it over the years. At some point you need to accept you made a bad investment and GW was the wrong company to throw in with. In gaming since the mid 90’s, I have watched this cycle several times…can I interest you in some of my Warzone or Chronopia figures…VOR the Maelstorm anyone? Games Workshop is going into the Dungeons an Dragons 4th edition death spiral. Sell your stuff on eBay while you can still get some value out of it.
I am reminded of the Madman’s speech to the crowds in the Parable of the Madman from Nietzche’s Joyful wisdom… “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars — and yet they have done it themselves.” 40K died and we killed it by buying whatever garbage GW produced and not making them accountable to creating decent rules.
I feel like you’re the one who’s taking 40k too seriously here.
Tell’em, John.
Somebody sounds bitter…
“Final nail in the coffin” LOL
We had 8 people show up to a semi-narrative event I ran two weeks ago, including two brand new players and a guy getting back into it. So apparently 150% of “the five people who still play this game” are at the FLGS I go to.
Huh? I’m pretty sure 40k champs at LVO was the largest GT yet. If you don’t like the game, why in God’s green earth would you spend your time commenting on it? Are you trying to save us poor sheep from playing a game we enjoy? Weird.
Yes,
Yes I am. If you support GW and give them money you are an enabler. I played 40k from Nov 1994-June 2014. Nothing will change if you keep giving these ass hats at gw money. The community needs an intervention….sorry but giving gw $ at this point is the same as giving a meth head a big wad of cash.
Also do you honestly enjoy 40k now or are you so invested you have to trick yourself into thinking you were enjoying it. Once I accepted the game is what it is I took a hard look at it and decided I had been just going through the motions telling myself I was having fun…. Much like a victim of abuse you get so used to it what looks ridiculous and outrageous from the outside is normal when you are stuck in it.
Knights are confirmed LoW now. I hope the 1 LoW limit still applies.
Yeah, how about that. Even in their Detachment it seems to list 5 Lords of War. Wonder how that’s going to shake out..
I wonder about people who have taken Imperial Knights as their actual army. Not “ad lance + (insert thing),” but an actual Imperial Knights army. I feel like that needs to be legal, hmm.
Yeah, I agree.
GW :/ It’s like they do it on purpose.
Well said. There is nothing wrong with adjusting or changing the game to make things more fun or fair. It makes things no less competitive.
Is a heavy-weight fighting in a light-weight bracket more or less competitive than sticking to their own bracket? Most people would think that is unfair. That they have an unfair advantage and should fight similarly weighted fighters. It’s just as competitive a sport to not have weight brackets as it is to have weight brackets – in fact, restrictions might make it more competitive when the fighters skill and not size is more at play. The same could be said about “comp” and 40k. Reducing differences due to list or army power will allow for games to be won more by skill.
I feel like that if you’re going to propose army specific nerfs like in this case you should at least also ask the same question about other ridiculous armies in the game currently. Necrons for example, the Decurion detachment with the Everliving rule is overpowered and easily abusable as well as absolutely no fun to play against. Why isn’t there a question about that? I mean, it’s easy to prove its OP:ness with some simple math here as well so…
All though personally I’m not a fan of nerfs overall anyway, if one would to try and balance out 40K I think a comp system is more effective. That of course creates a lot of different challenges, but at least it doesn’t make you have to learn a new game for every tournament.
This is almost the whole point I was trying to make. Canoptek Harvest in a Decurion thats played even marginally well is about the most powerful thing in the game; and EXTREMELY unfun to play against and no one bat a eye at it.
But then oh, something arguably tailor made to counter it comes out, though perhaps poorly implemented on a troop chassis, and everyone can’t swing the hammer fast enough.
Fun is not the goal, never was. People are still going to have their power combos, Eldar is very likely still going to walk all over most people when played half-well. I’m not upset because I don’t think the changes are necessarily justified. I’m upset because it’s a huge middle finger at basically 3 units in one book where there is SO much out there that is powerhouse as hell that no one complains about.
Everyone just has such a bad taste in their mouth from the last few years of Eldar that they can’t help but see the glass half-full.
Ahem. Half empty.
Sooo, eldar are still going to be OP post change, but you are angry because your toys will be slightly different from how they are in the book? Go play ardboys?
That was some quick snark. You misunderstand. I did indeed watch those batreps they did, same as you. I watched a half-assed played Seer Council walk all over an extremely hard and scary SM list.
What’s frustrating is the internet started to explode, and everyone focused on those two things in one book exclusively. My point is, everyone seems to think that needing D some and relegating bikes to their previous role of turn 5 objective grab is going to magically make everything awesome again.
I’m not mad at the CHANGES specifically, they’re probably warranted and Eldar is neither my only enjoyable army nor something I think I need to abuse to do well with.
What IS setting me off is the real motivations behind the assorted screaming, and what it means for the near future. I question people’s motives of “for fun” as opposed to “because I don’t think I can beat this.”
And for reals man, smart assery aside I know you know the game as well as me or anyone else. Do you REALLY think those two things are going to stop people from unfairly slapping someone down with that codex if they really want to? Because I don’t really think so; which to me makes this extremely reactionary and knee jerk. Which of course is my opinion.
Ha ha ha, thanks for the extended response.
I think you are correct. I don’t think the change will magically make everything okay, but what I do think, is that it will make A difference, in who gets to top table. It will make a difference, to who can smack someone else down.
I have lost games big myself. I have been tabled, really quickly. And I had a good game, and walked away from it, learning something. You play a player that is just better than you, and you expect and learn from it.
But watching how Reece played, it was scandalous that he’d win some of those games!
I think the changes are necessary, I doubt they go far enough, but I actually think it would be pretty unfair to come out with all the necessary changes in one go. These changes strike a balance, and I believe it Eldar will still have an advantage, but I think it means they can be beaten. I’m not sure a good eldar player, would be beatable without these changes, no matter who they were against.
I don’t think Reece is going to go all soft, and try and fix 40k to make it fun. It’s a competitive tournament. I think his aim though, is that we don’t want a system where new tournament players get beaten by setups they can’t even interact with. Hence the invisibility change.
Likewise, it’s simple math that if you are unable to shut down the bikes, their output per point is way out of scale with the rest of the game. For comparison, other units often need to be within 12″ to be as effective, and often at a higher cost, and without obsec, and without jink/bike rules.
Don’t worry eldar can still ignore reanimation Protocol and fnp with the itc str d nerf since it’s still str d. So you can still hard counter them.
I play Daemons, not Eldar if you think that matters for whatever reason.
My point is rather that this kind of reaction seems a bit out of hand compared with what’s all ready around anyway. Way too narrow. It doesn’t really fix anything, only shifting around. Balance is still skewed. If you want even games you need a general system that covers everything. Ie comp. People are happy if they get to use what they want – so active comp is cool in that regard. Kind of like handicap works in golf.
I like what the ITC is trying to do. Mainly making the game more fun and approachable to all. I feel sometimes that 40k has almost turned into an arms race. The one thing I would have liked to see instead of the bikes dropping to 1 of 3 get guns would be to see their save dropped from a 3+ to a 4+. The amount of weapons that would force jetbikes to jink increase by a ton with only a 4+ save. And if jetbikes are jinking then they lose a fair amount of deadliness, but they would still remain fairly effective. Also, I never thought they looked like they had the equivalent to power armor anyways =P
I am glad that you guys take the effort that you do. GW is not in the business of making games that are meant for tournament play, which is really unfortunate and utterly silly. In any respect, there is a large community that like competitive play, for more reasons than just being competitive; it’s fun to be around other people that share the same interests. Since the rules as written are only mildly considerate of balance, and tournaments somewhat presume a level playing field (with exception to the talent being tested, such as strategy), tournament organizers have a duty to protect the community from itself. It’s like banning performance enhancing drugs in pro sports. If it doesn’t get done, the only way to stay current will be drugs. The Eldar book is fucked, seriously. I’m glad we at least get a voice in it. Rules that are mostly balanced, and even powerful just not to an extreme, don’t even get called for a vote.
The law is a system where law makers and the public create written law based upon what the community and the politicians want. A lot of times this is done well; a lot of times it is not. The judiciary has to come in and clean up the mess when a rule or law threatens to destroy the system or unnecessarily step on others’ rights. In this case, the ITC is trying to take on the role of the judiciary, and by letting us vote we at least get a say. You might not like the decision that is made, like I hated the invisibility change for the LVO. But people should realize that those issues are rather small in comparison to losing a game that we all love to play because the nature of the players, without some form of checks and balances, will destroy the tournament scene.
In short, the voting is great. I’m glad we get a say.
Devils advocate:
D-weapons are rubbish if you let me have my re-rollable 2++ back.
Just sayin’!
The Devil indeed. If we make sure nobody has fun we can all be miserable together?
That’s a recipe to a successful event.
And that rerollable 2++ against the other 90% of the armies that cannot get D-weapons? Complete rubbish.
Good on the ITC for setting standards GW is too inept to.
Remember the good ol’ days when people were angry at Reece for including Forgeworld into 40k? How it broke the game? How Reece was a crazy WAAC gamer for letting FW sully the pureness of 6th edition with it’s vile resiny cheese.
Reece, do you prefer being hated on for being too inclusive or too exclusive?
Ha ha ha, it’s so true.
Based on the numbers, it sounds like talking to people, listening to people, and not being afraid to make difficult calls has worked well so far for FLG.
Gotta say as well, it’s hilarious that Reece cops the criticism, because he writes the articles and often talks about it. Franky is just as culpable, and might feel a little left out.
Leave some hate in the tank for Frankie, guys. It’s unfair for Reece to hog it all.
Has anyone posted these articles on BOLS. I’m kind of intrigued to see how that would work out!
Gentlemen, we can all hate Reece in our own way.
I was hating reece before it was cool
I was cool before I was hating Reece.
I… I can’t really back that up…
Wow. just wow. How quickly eldar are being nerfed is just amazing and if you think that they arn’t just look at the posts. “I am not attenend the three events that I was going to unless eldar are nerfed” (Not picking on anyone I hear this a lot about eldar atm) . Yet you will go and 75% of players are Running Necrons Decurion detachmen or sky blight nids or Cent stars or 27 warp charge deamon lists ,four riptides or worse…for real before nerfing one thing look at the other. If you are going to kick one codex then why not make sure that you at least look at other things and poll them at the same time so that eldar players are not feeling picked on. If you are trying to make the game more fun then damn look at the dirty lists that are already on the table . Take a beat step back and look at it from all sides. This is one issue in the sea of issues.
Oh by the way I hope eldar bikes and D weapon dont get nerfed I can careless I would still go to events and take great plasure in beating them.They are not unstoppable they are just another challange. I would rather take on the jet bikes then many of the rampant deathstars and so on.
found the masochist!
Nice write up Reece!
I myself am liking that Knights are getting regulated to LoW, hopefully they don’t get anti-nerfed (oh you can still take X because they aren’t so bad…F*** that LoW is LoW let it ride I say, let it ride!)
Reece, this was something that I was happy to read:
“We don’t simply have to allow things to happen. We have the legitimate right, and responsibility, to create the game we want to play together. We’ve seen many times in the past where things that throw off game balance are introduced into the game and it creates a less enjoyable environment for most gamers to play in. These situations could be easily avoided by simply coming together to say, no thanks.”
I strongly support your leadership in the community. You are taking a restrained, firm stance while accepting everyone’s legitimate input. Thank you!
I’m happy with the ITC/FLG nerfs specifically and as a general policy. Targeted nerfs can have a huge impact on the enjoyment of the majority of players.
I don’t buy the “Well look at the top tables! Don’t you see the strong counters??” argument. The most important part about the nerfs isn’t the top tables; it’s the people who face these lists on the way up.
Or middlemen like me. Yeah in playing a death rider list. But I want a chance to win.
Totally agree. Changes should be made that impact the majority of the players positively, not just what makes it to the top tables. The argument that “it won’t win a GT” or “it’ll get stopped on the top-tables” doesn’t mean the unit or option isn’t problematic for the enjoyment of players as a whole.
Great article! More people should just appreciate that a large group of TO’s even try to seek balance in todays crazy maelstrom of new releases. It’s hard to keep track of what’s even out let alone how it effects the game. Haters should know that not seeking balance is as ignorant as banning a codex.
Hmmm….seems like I came late to the party.
Well said, Reece.
One thing I’d like to point it is that an individual usually has one viewpoint he has to consider….his own. That which affects his army or his own self-philosophy towards gaming. People like Reece have thousands of people’s viewpoints that he/they have to consider and there is just no way he/they can satisfy everyone’s requests. So unfortunately, it’s going to be majority rules. While I might feel bad for the guy who wants to run 5 wraithknights in tournament play, but I just have to say, “hey buddy, sorry but everyone voted you down. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.” Unfortunately, in any democratic situation, this type of event will happen.
It’s amazing to me that people seem to universally agree that GW is terrible at rules design.
And yet when you want to fix things, they come screaming “noooooooooo.” Treating it like some sort of holy scripture.
The FLG crew are a bunch of vet tourney players. I would trust their rules design decisions far more than GW’s.
If your car is broken, don’t go see the salesman. Go see a mechanic.
I’m very glad the FLG crew took it upon themselves to spread their own set of house-rules to be a tournament standard. If we were all playing by GW’s vision of the game, I wouldn’t even bother with events. I have better things to do than getting my teeth kicked in for a weekend by the people lucky enough to be running books that are favored by the “GW design gods.”
Part of me thinks that if u play this crap game you get what you deserve….the part of me that looks at the thousands of dollars I wasted on the stuff makes me think about fixing it. Perhaps the butt hurt is too great to make a unified tourbey rule set out of what has come our recently. It looks like knighrs are LoW…so I can only use one of the five I own now in your format???
Good direction. Now, how about dropping the hybrid vehicle shooting on Tyrannocytes….
Great post. Although I have stopped with 40k I really remember the complaints people had about the Swedish comp. With it the tournaments grew and grew. Although I’m not sure it changed which army were the best overall it did change a lot in the armies being played and more specifically which units that were used at the top armies in tournaments making the difference between the hardest armies and the weakest smaller. The arguments against some kind of restriction system or comp got old pretty fast;
1. “You should not decide which units I will have in my army.” This one is rather fun as there are many more units that becomes valid with a restriction system which basically made the amount of competitive armies many more. So less felt restricted in their army building than before.
2. “It is not really 40k.” This one is basically just stupid. 40k wasn’t meant for competitive play. So the second you play in a tournament it is isn’t by definition 40k anymore. So the argument what a “real 40k tournament” is rather mute. 40k is what each player and TO makes it into. A TO decide what 40k is for that tournament. The player decide to participate or not.
Overall. I think any system that makes the community grow is a good thing. As long as no one is forced to actually hold a tournament in a specific way and free to use any system I think restrictions are great – especially if there is some kind of greater consensus.
People also complained that you changed balance. This is also rather mute. If you change balance it will be either more balanced or less. And most TO have the common sense to make sure the most powerful army is not as much more powerful than the weakest army in the tournament so the overall balanced is generally better even with just small restrictions.
Great post.
I wish the wisdom in it could be implanted to all 40k players when they start joining the community.
Weight this with 8 years of animating the ETC captain’s council…