Ban list from Feast of Blades || Added LVO-Poll Link || GW Bans

Robyn was up next in Feb.

I wonder how many psyker levels they will limit their attendees to.

just read thru the comments on 3++ (full disclosure: I am a big fan of SirBiscuit's work):

Wow. Oh wow. I agree with several of the poster that their needs to be discussion, etc. (And SirBiscuit makes it clear they are discussing them).

But "I'm not playing in any FoB style tourneys if I can't bring my ScreamerStar, it's beatable." "So you nerf ScreamerStar and leave Eldar alone." "You're gonna 0-1 Heldrakes? No need to play my CSM anymore..."

How many people are not getting this? To hit the points in succession:

The issue is not that ScreamerStar is beatable or not. The issue is it goes off reasonably often, and it isn't fun for 90% of players to play.

The Eldar Seer 2++ reroll is dealt with later in his "bans".

He has never said what the 0-1 units will be. It could very well be 0-1 Baleflamers.

This is all nitpicking. To be blunt, the "banlist" is not being made for players like Mark or Robyn or Ben, or bigtime guys like Ben Mohile or that. They know how to deal with top-tier, gimmicky list and can do the counters and whatnot.

The BanList is for folks like me. I can honestly say I have never entered a tourney and expected to win, I'm going to have some me time away from my weiner kids, play some toy soldiers, and maybe have some beers after. Showing up and expecting to have 3 decent games, and instead my dudes get to fight CronAir, Seer Council/Serpent Spam, PaladinStar, Triple Heldrake, etc,etc, etc

Its not so much an issue here.... but it'd make me question driving to Edmonton, dropping $100, knowing it was likely I wouldn't even have fun in 1/2 my games. (And I'm not talking about 'Wah, I'm not going to win.' It is possible to lose and lose gracefully and have a ball doing so.) When you literally have NO counter and they are pretty much gonna table you in 3 turns.. It makes it more of a "who is the better general" than "who brought the 'easy button' win?"

All that said, this would actually opent the door for Ard Boyz style tourneys with formations, Str D, networked forts, no restrictions on screamerstar and the like. I'm not saying the BanList is 100% correct, or that it even will ever be. But it's definately a step in the right direction.

It will be interesting to see what they settle on, since right now it is obviously not very refined. As a first draft into the community it is already generating a lot of discussion, which should help improve their ideas by pointing out unintended interactions with their own rule system and other possible options other than limiting some choices to 0-1, limiting psychic powers, and the ban on Grimoire.

The grimoire Errol should only interact with the 5+, but I don't think it's the end of the world if it is banned. Imho. People have given several suggestion, any of which would work.
I think 0-1 is fine. You don't Evan have to call it that. Those units are "unique"

I think it needs to be play tested, but the quickest way to do that is to put it into effect. Think of the old astronomicon annuals.

one of the top posts in that thread had it spot on. Reduce all Battle Brothers to Allies of Convenience . fixes a couple dozen stupid things.

Also, when he mentions dataslates, i hope he means Formations. Having Belakor take up your allies slot would kind of suck.

I could live with 0-1 baleflamers. the helldrake isn't really that great a model, just the baleflamer that makes it any good.

Roland wrote: It makes it more of a "who is the better general" than "who brought the 'easy button' win?"

THIS. I miss when generalship made all the difference. Anyone can do math and exploit the combos but that doesn't at all mean you're good at the game. It's unfortunate that our groups meta is moving more towards power gaming but you know what they say, "One bad apple spoils the bunch.". So instead of seeing interesting lists people insist on making it easier for themselves and their possible too fragile ego's. I want to have a fun, close game, win or lose. Not watch as someones ridiculous Mathahammer invariably wipes your army off the board and you've gotta sit there and eat their smugness. Bleh.

But but but... my smugness is delicious! EAT IT! *kidding kidding*

We don't have too many "power gamer" lists in our meta, which is nice. Once the dust settles on the big events, I wouldn't mind trying a few games with a "ban list".

To be honest, Dallas's screamer star wasn't too scary, neither was Tyson's Ovesa T6 list, I played both with a TAC style list (which is generally what I play, at least one tool for every situation).

We don't have anyone that plays 3 Helldrakes or 3 Riptides, or a true Taudar or Eldau list (that takes the real good/game breaking things)

The occasional thing is dumb on it's own, no combo's, like Asurman, who can often get a 2+/4++ re-roll ones without the need of a farseer rolling fortune.

Discussion related to the Los Vegas Open: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/12/11/las-vegas-open-poll-results-and-where-were-going-in-the-midst-of-the-current-40k-changes/

Interesting!

Confirms to me that people want a level playing field. though, that poll is a a bit skewed, as it looks like it was done with a small number of people that had registered to play at a single event in the near future. Which will tend to give you a more conservative sampling that a straight up public poll would give you, as the general public don't have any chips on the table or money in the game. I'de be really interested to see a poll done over a couple days just on the Frontline or 3++ websites sampled from general traffic.

I was overon Faeit and they were all defending adding D weapons to the game as addition that will " level the playing field against WAAC players and their 2+++ deathstars"

what boohoos like that do not understand is that if *us* WAAC players were really upset over D weapons for that reason... they we would all just be headed to the GW website to pick up a Reaver titan.

GingerBalls wrote:

Roland wrote: It makes it more of a "who is the better general" than "who brought the 'easy button' win?"

THIS. I miss when generalship made all the difference. Anyone can do math and exploit the combos but that doesn't at all mean you're good at the game. It's unfortunate that our groups meta  is moving more towards power gaming but you know what they say, "One bad apple spoils the bunch.". So instead of seeing interesting lists people insist on making it easier for themselves and their possible too fragile ego's. I want to have a fun, close game, win or lose. Not watch as someones ridiculous Mathahammer invariably wipes your army off the board and you've gotta sit there and eat their smugness. Bleh.

the argument could be made that if you want a game that is based purely on generalship then Risk is an option, settlers of catan, or Foosball. or tic-tac-toe...

Personally i find list building to be fun, and an integral part of 40k. Now, that some units and combinations have not been playtested or though out completely is not entirely the list builder's fault. One would hope that the game system and Codecies were balanced well enough within the FoC and points limits that any given army built from the options available would provide a similar challenge in the hands of similary gifted Generals. Unfortunately, GW seems to have turned its play testing budget over to its marketing department and recently a lot of ridiculous stuff is coming through the QnA screen.

I like the suggestion reecius made on that las vegas open pole, that 2++ rerollables must be passed on second attempt on a 4+, as a 2+ reroll just sucks.

I think a 0-1 cap on game changing units makes sense. baleflamers for instance: if you are playing marines or any 3+ and up save troops army, and are facing two drakes, you know they are gonna wipe your shit off the board, so you have to change your army to be competitive with that unit. Which means most players will try the internet units and lists to try and win against said unit.
we talk about generalship and listbuilding. but multiples of units like drakes, riptides etc I find actually stagnate the game, as to win, you HAVE to bring certain builds.
I can take one drake or riptide, but I know, if I want to have any chance of winning, that if I face multiples of these units, ima need to bring some slices o' cheese.

Rhaevyn wrote:

GingerBalls wrote:

Roland wrote: It makes it more of a "who is the better general" than "who brought the 'easy button' win?"

THIS. I miss when generalship made all the difference. Anyone can do math and exploit the combos but that doesn't at all mean you're good at the game. It's unfortunate that our groups meta  is moving more towards power gaming but you know what they say, "One bad apple spoils the bunch.". So instead of seeing interesting lists people insist on making it easier for themselves and their possible too fragile ego's. I want to have a fun, close game, win or lose. Not watch as someones ridiculous Mathahammer invariably wipes your army off the board and you've gotta sit there and eat their smugness. Bleh.

the argument could be made that if you want a game that is based purely on generalship then Risk is an option,  settlers of catan, or Foosball. or tic-tac-toe...

Personally i find list building to be fun, and an integral part of 40k. Now, that some units and combinations have not been playtested or though out completely is not entirely the list builder's fault. One would hope that the game system and Codecies were balanced well enough within the FoC and points limits that any given army built from the options available would provide a similar challenge in the hands of similary gifted Generals. Unfortunately, GW seems to have turned its play testing budget over to its marketing department and recently a lot of ridiculous stuff is coming through the QnA screen.

Don't get me wrong I love list building as much as the next guy but I'm more into building balanced TAC lists that will be fun and fluffy (also getting a perfect points list because OCD). If you're rooting through a codex just to wring out the most powerful stuff maybe you're playing for the wrong reasons, and come on, blaming peoples power gaming on GW's marketing department is a cop out. If you need an ego boost go beat up some kids, it's just as easy. If you want to have some fun playing a game, win or lose, then challenge yourself because playing Risk and Catan is too simple for the likes of us and not at all the same. Remember, ultimately you have to stand at a table across from another guy for 3 hours and investing that time will only feel good if you get something worth while out of it, not show up, put models down, remove models until game ends, cry in the shower when you get home.

PS Foosball is a test of timing, speed, and hand eye coordination, not generalship.

Luckily for us, our local meta doesn't suffer from any mass abuse of anything in particular. As far as the big tournaments go, I like to follow what they are doing as they are very adept at making a fun, competitive and reasonably balanced environment, like the BAO, Nova, and Feast of Blades events. Mostly it's been accomplished by missions, the only reason it's a big topic now is because the Escalation book is clearly broken.

Looks like Warhammer World banned Escalation.

http://natfka.blogspot.ca/2013/12/throne-of-skulls-bans-will-escalation.html

Hints that they'll modify Stronghold Assault too.
====

That's really the only issue