One Rule to Rule them All!

Image by Kahlan

Hey everyone, Reecius here from Frontline Gaming to talk about something provocative!! Not that I ever do that….

So anyone with an internet connection and a pair of functioning eyes is aware of the rapid changes 40K is going through at this point in time. Formations? Super Heavies? Forge World? Fortifications? Digital Rules with unannounced updates? Supplements? Codices? FAQs? Holy Confusion, Batman!

We are truly in uncharted waters.

I have been in spirited, and very interesting discussions with other TO’s, tournament players and gamers in general about what to make of all of this interesting, exciting, crazy new information we are getting bombarded with and GW’s (apparent) complete disregard for balance (or even spell checking…or you know, making sure the Inquisition release even had the right title!).

So what to make of it all? I, obviously, love organized 40K. It is what I enjoy most about the game, honestly. The social aspect of going to events and gaming with, and playing with other hobby enthusiasts is just the best.

Previously we have been able to adjust to rules changes after thought and play-testing but now things are coming so rapid fire, and in so many different formats and media types, and with updates on the down low that keeping up with it all has become incredibly difficult. And, everything is being billed as good to go for any game of 40K (although what we choose to use is always entirely up to us).

So what to do? I love organized play, as do many, many thousands of gamers. However, presenting a cogent, tested format for tournaments, casual play, etc. in the face of this barrage of new material is an interesting quandary.

As the game becomes increasingly more complex with rules interacting with one another in nearly infinite ways, the potential for game breaking combos increases exponentially.

But what is game breaking? Even that is hard to define as two of the most commonly derided lists I hear about are the Seerstar and Screamster (both of which revolve around the notorious 2+ reroll save). Most gamers I would bet would say these are cheesy, or broken. However you talk to top level tournament gamers and they will tell you they aren’t that hard to deal with, some may even say they think they are bad!

Are they both right? Both wrong? It all depends on perspective. For the player with the knowledge of how to deal with something, that thing may be no big deal. For the player that doesn’t, it kills the fun of the game.

Where does that leave us? Well, as I see it, we have a few options if we want to continue to have fun gaming together as friends, rivals and fellow enthusiasts.

  1. Let it ride and see where GW takes us! The game has had broken, crazy stuff before and we have all survived. Perhaps this is just another storm to weather? Perhaps it will, at some point, all make sense.
  2. Look at running two types of events at each event in respect to tournaments. A “Gladiator” style event with a higher points limit, no restrictions on any official material, less games and a no-holds barred style format along with a more traditional tournament format with restrictions on supplements to create a more predictable, stable tournament environment with less points, more rounds.
  3. Introducing a “Ban List” style concept such as we see in games like Magic. This could take many forms and is essentially a form of targeted comp with the intent to prevent the most abusive units (at least as perceived by those determining the ban list) to hopefully prevent “unfun” combos. This would be a constantly evolving list, adjusted with each new release. As much as I dislike comp due to it’s subjectivity, a very focused list of no go units/items/etc. is something to consider.
  4. Attempt to “fix” universally abused rules. Some proposals have been to eliminate allies, limit allies, restrict the type or number of allies. Another suggestion was to target specific rules that impact all armies, such as the proposed change of making any 2+ save with a reroll downgrade to a 3+ save of the same type with a reroll. The intent being to prevent any army from having a potentially “invincible” unit to, again, make the game more fun for more people.
  5. Try to use missions, terrain, and deployment to encourage army diversity and to potentially penalize “abusive” lists.
What do you guys think?
Each idea has its merits and its flaws. Ultimately, those of us that labor at creating these events want them to be fun. We want them to grow and be something to look forward to every year! We want to evoke that excitement and fun that makes us all love the hobby of miniatures wargaming and our reactions to changes and proposals such as those above are geared in that direction. We want you to have fun! Even you BoLS Trolls that no longer play 40K but will inevitably chime in about how much you hate it and tournaments and puppies (in every, single article! haha). You guys need something to complain about every day, too!
So please speak up and let us know how you all feel about this as these super fun events are for you and you are the ones that play in them. Speak up and let us know!
In other news, our newest Mega Mat is up for you to view on our KickStarter! We’re doing well with it, thanks so much to those of you that pledged! Here are some preview images of the new mat with water marks on them (obviously those won’t be on the final product)!

 

 

Tags:

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

98 Responses to “One Rule to Rule them All!”

  1. JesseS December 4, 2013 1:28 am #

    Honestly I think the easiest way is just making every army Allies of Convenience with every other ally. Irons out most of the ‘broken’ combos right there.

    It also helps even out the playing field in that the Allies system was horrendously poorly aplied (in terms of levels), where some combos that make perfect sense fluff-wise: IG+Tau as Battle Brothers to represent the Gue’vessa [spl?] human worlds that have joined the Tau Empire is absent, but Tau+SM Battle Brothers is a thing because reasons?

    Look at Dark Eldar, they can ally with Eldar, which is great for them, but then no one else at all.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 8:03 am #

      The only problem with that is that it invalidates some lists. It makes peoples armies break and that is a sure fire way to kill attendance to your event.

  2. Pascal Roggen December 4, 2013 2:40 am #

    well everyone got scared of forgeworld and when played with the right amount of terrain, it leads to the most varied list of armies in any tourney? Suck up the crazy, It’s good fun!

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 8:04 am #

      I like your attitude, pascal!

  3. steven morrow December 4, 2013 4:31 am #

    Im thinking 5 is going to be the best way to go.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 8:04 am #

      I agree, but I also think it is the hardest way to go about it. We are brainstorming ideas now, though.

      • steven morrow December 4, 2013 12:54 pm #

        Hardest but more satisfying

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 4, 2013 10:28 pm #

          True, and if you have any suggestions, we’re all ears. Just be cautious of unintended consequences. That is the most common downside to this strategy.

          • steven morrow December 5, 2013 1:19 pm
            #

            Well the problem with changing rules of units or banning units is bad because some people might use those units but not the super combos. Changing rules sounds good until you think about lets say shadowfield which has in built rules to lessen the effect so dropping it to 3++ would suck for them. I feel the grimoire should not give a better then 3++ at best myself. Another glaring problem is Rules from one army so easily transferred over to a battle brothers army. Taudar have so much buffing power transferring all over the place that is just silly. Tau technology buffs should not transfer over to non tau as there is never a chance of it not working. Or buff commander joining a riptide to give it ignore any and all weaknesses. The problem with these units doesnt feel like a systemic problem with the allies or ind character rules as whole but single glaring oversites.

  4. skari December 4, 2013 4:34 am #

    I think having lots of terrain is one of the most important ones. especially LOS blocking stuff.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 8:03 am #

      I agree. I think that helps a lot, but then we still need to think about which formations, if any, we are allowing in, etc. it is confusing right now!

  5. Adam Fasoldt December 4, 2013 5:04 am #

    As I said on the forums, when it comes to comp, less is more. I’d avoid banning choices entirely. Don’t ban psychic powers. Don’t ban units. Doing so would penalize people using those choices in a non-breaking way.

    I’d suggest playtesting the re-rollable 2+ save as being 2+ for the first save and a maximum of a 5+ for the re-roll. Then try it with a 4+ and see how it goes. Note that Paladins are easily handled with weight of fire and they’re sitting at a 2+ with a 5+ feel no pain. Paladins are weak against melta and other AP2, but from my experience, that unit is often best dealt with by throwing bullets at it. Yes, a very mobile Draigowing is still REALLY good, but at least it wouldn’t be completely invincible requiring over 1000 bolter shots to bring it down.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 8:07 am #

      Yeah, I hate comp, and I don’t want to ban anything, I want to use it all, personally! But, the game has become increasingly difficult to keep track of and we don’t want to host an event that results in just crazy insane games, you know? We want people to have fun.

      The 2+ reroll is bullshit, pure and simple, and should not be in the game. It is not fun, an idiotic rule mechanic, and a crutch. Those are my personal feelings on it, but should we change it? That is dangerous territory. I want to, haha, but we need to consider all of the ramifications.

      • SaltyJohn
        Overwatch December 4, 2013 10:06 pm #

        The 2+ reroll is, as you said, bullshit. I say change the BAO FAQ to say any 2+ rerollable invul save will only save on a reroll of a 4+.

        2+ re-rollable cover saves aren’t as bad because of all the “ignores cover” weapons out there.

        That is, in my opinion, the only thing that needs changing.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 4, 2013 10:30 pm #

          Thanks for the input. Not including cover saves due to ignores cover is a moot point though because if a weapon ignores cover, who cares? If a weapon doesn’t, it’s just as lame as a 2++ reroll, you know? Better to just make a blanket statement on it, IMO.

          • Gordy December 5, 2013 10:25 am
            #

            Not everyone has easy access to ignores cover, either. Or even any access. You’re good if you’re Tau or Eldar, but broadening the field is the whole point of this discussion.

  6. Moridan December 4, 2013 6:00 am #

    If you start banning, where do you stop? To me, bringing more than a single Hellchicken makes the game no-fun. I only have an Eldar army and sometimes run a council, but often dont get Fortune. I still get called “cheese” but by no means is it unbeatable. It just takes a smarter than average player to 1) build an army that can handle it 2) know how to use that army to protect against it 3) win while not whining about how much “cheese” it is.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 8:07 am #

      I agree 100%. Ban lists, comp, etc. is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? How do you even determine what is objectively bad or not? It is really tough to do.

    • Bigpig December 5, 2013 5:16 pm #

      Intelligent choices can be made. As has been pointed out before, most tournament organizers already modify the base rule set by choosing not to allow mysterious objectives or terrain.

      • Reecius
        Reecius December 5, 2013 5:35 pm #

        Exactly. You are making up rules the minute you decide to have a tournament as GW has no rules for running one! Layered missions? Made up, but anyone who plays them typically prefers them for competition. Things like that are just accepted and fade into the background because they don’t impact player choice when list building. That is the key difference even though they often have a BIGGER impact on how the game plays.

  7. The Betrayer December 4, 2013 6:20 am #

    You could always play Warmachine ; )

    Really though, as an ex-40k player, I am curious to see where GW goes with this and I hope this is the storm before the calm and there is something good after the growing pains.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 8:08 am #

      I hope you are right, and you probably are. I hope there is a rhyme or reason to essentially turning 40K into Apoc. It is a very confusing time right now!

  8. Conflagration December 4, 2013 9:03 am #

    I would start off with no formations. The concept was ment for apoc games so should be left to apoc games. Same would go for super heavys just leave it to apoc games if you still want to add those just make them only available in high point games 2500+ point games.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 1:26 pm #

      Good suggestion, thanks!

  9. TrueKnight December 4, 2013 9:06 am #

    I say rule #6, he who brings a douchey army gets beaten up in the parking lot!

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 1:27 pm #

      Hahahaha, soap in socks!

  10. Adam
    Adam December 4, 2013 9:08 am #

    Honestly, I think that these list and probably the tidestar are all about 1 FAQ away from being a thing of the past. Forewarning not stacking with the grimoire is something that they could totally FAQ into nothingness, same goes for IC’s joining riptides (I sincerely doubt it was their intention to allow this just because of the presence of drones). I’d just weather the storm and wait; all the net listers will cry, moan and threaten to play war machine, then it will be back to business as usual.

    PS – Reece, you missed a hell of a party. 🙂

    • Puretide December 4, 2013 11:15 am #

      I know a commander joined to a riptide can be annoying BUT IC’s could of joined monsterous creatures since the start of 6th edition such as carnifexs, Tomb spyders etc and the rules for tau drones are very clear as it has a whole page on them, but before you say I am tau fanboy I am but I play mech tau and the most riptides I have fielded is 1.

      • Reecius
        Reecius December 4, 2013 10:31 pm #

        It is 100% clear that it is legal, I agree.

        It is also 1005 fucking lame! hahaha, but that may just be my personal bias.

        • Puretide December 5, 2013 9:49 am #

          I don’t blame you for your bias if you been on the wrong end of it, it’s a very powerful combo.
          It dose get annoying when people started judging you when they ask what army you play and saying ur one of those guys when you have been playing the army since you joined through the good and bad times.

          P.S you better hope the ravarna changes before it gets its main rules or people with be wishing for the riptide and commander combo 😛

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 5, 2013 4:36 pm
            #

            Yeah, the R’Varna is INSANE!

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 1:28 pm #

      I’m bummed I missed the party but my girl is studying for finals and I was going crazy with KS emails.

      I hope the FAQ comes! My main motivation with all of this is because LVO is only 60 days away and I am getting these questions on a daily basis and I need to come up with some answers =)

  11. auto December 4, 2013 9:12 am #

    I think the ally chart and the sharing of some special rules creates a lot of variety to the game that it really needed. Once the rest of the codices are released, I think the whole Tau/Eldar bandwagon won’t be nearly as successful or plentiful at tournaments. I think it will still be really, really good, but at least there will be some varying competition out there.

    With all that said, I think formations are completely silly. What is stopping a Tau army from bringing Riptides/Broadsides with their army at all, and just bringing a couple formations? I mean, it costs the same, AND you gain Tank Hunters/PE Space Marines. That is downright silly, isn’t it?

    I suggest banning formations. Forgeworld units, allies, special rules buffing a huge blob, thats all great fun and creates variety. Formations are simply abusive. If you want to bring riptides and some broadsides, you should be forced to bring them as an ally – just like everyone else.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 1:47 pm #

      It’s hard to say what’s silly these days! Haha, it has all gotten so insane.

      But, Taudar did take the top 7 out of 10 spots at NOVA, it is extremely powerful.

  12. anonymou5 December 4, 2013 9:26 am #

    Even removing the “2++ reroll” is a slippery slope. I am 100% sure that Fateweaver is intended to be able to get a 2++ with a reroll. He is the only Daemon with a 4++ naturally, and his rules effectively guarantee you take him with the Grimoire. Where as the Screamerstar (and the Seer Council as well) I’m pretty sure is not intended at all.

    Invincible Fateweaver is powerful, for sure, but he’s also fairly easy to deal with. He is extremely easy to tarpit, at a MAXIMUM he can affect two units, and there are a whole bunch of unit types that he is very ineffective against.

    Banning 2++ rerolls eliminates two units that are clearly broken, but also removes an intentional design mechanic. All comp systems end up doing this, but this is just an example off the top of my head.

    • Gordy December 4, 2013 10:56 am #

      No model should ever be unkillable the way a rerollable 2++ makes it. Difficult to kill, like Draigo or a Chapter Master is one thing, but unkillable is another. Yes, you can outplay your opponent, but neither player is supposed to have such a massive inherent advantage over nother. And while certain lists can stop those unit, then the meta stagnates to where everyone plays the same armies, instead of the wide diversity thete should be in the game.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 1:51 pm #

      We can’t argue intent, only speculate at it.

      I hate comp. Shit, I am a founding member of Team Zero Comp! haha, but there comes a point when we need to ask ourselves: is this the game we want to play? I don’t want to play a game with a certain number of armies that pretty much eliminate variability from the game and approach certainty. That makes skill a moot point in a game of chance.

      You are right that it is a slippery slope. If anything is done, it must be done with great caution.

      And going from a 2+ reroll to a 3+ reroll is still incredibly good.

      • anonymou5 December 4, 2013 3:30 pm #

        I guess I’m not saying I understand intent 100%. But you can still get an idea to game design. Fateweaver gets his 2++ pretty naturally in the codex. It doesn’t require any real scheming. It certainly seems like intentional game design (and one could argue that its fluffy).

        Where as Screamerstar requires more trickery and Seer Council even more on top of that. Let’s say there is a spectrum where Fateweaver is the most likely to be on purpose and Seer Council is least likely. That’s the slipperly slope I’m talking about (and it exists in all comp situations)

        It’s easy to say “change this rule because its obviously not intentional” but you end up impacting rules that are intentional and fundamentally change the game.

        I am of the opinion that Fateweaver’s 2++ is intentional game design, maybe player B is not. But my opinion is supported by the rules, thus my argument is more credible. If Player B starts throwing out rules he doesn’t like, he’s not playing 40k anymore.

        Is 40k a good game? Probably not, but if you don’t want to play it, it’s simple, don’t play it. Don’t change the game into something else, even if you think that it’s better.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 4, 2013 10:34 pm #

          I am very familiar with the argument that modifying 40K is no longer playing 40k. I used that myself in previous editions to fight for less modifications.

          However, every tournament already modifies 40K. We change the missions, ignore mysterious terrain and/or objectives, allow some “official” stuff but ban other “official” stuff, etc.

          This change, to me, makes the game more fun.

          I think the better question to ask is, would you still go to an event like this? Would reducing your 1/36 invincible unit to a still incredibly durable 1/12 chance of failure turn you off from going?

          I am not one to go in for comp. At all, I hate it. But I truly believe that this, or something like this, may be needed to keep the game healthy and fun.

          • anonymou5 December 5, 2013 10:19 am
            #

            I knew you’d bring up the missions point, and I think you’re right, that’s the argument against “you’re changing the game.” But somehow that’s different to me, I’m not sure why. Maybe because that’s a change that effects everyone the same, where as removing the 2++ rule only affects certain units.

            To answer your question:

            I actually don’t think I would go. I’d have to think about it. I really feel like Fateweaver’s rerollable is game design, it’s just a logical use of him, and matches his fluff.

            I mean it’s so arbitrary. I think Wave Serpents are more broken than 2++ rerollable. A Seer Council is an easier match up for me than 9 Serpents, but I wouldn’t go to an event where Wave Serpents were comped either.

            I think Tau Commanders are broken (probably less so than 2++ rerollable), but I wouldn’t go to an event where the Tau Commander was restricted.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 5, 2013 4:49 pm
            #

            And that is the difficulty in doing what we do. You will always anger someone no matter what. Modifying missions to make them more fair is by far, the best way to deal with balance issues. The thing is, without going off the rails with design, it can only take you so far.

            But truly, the 2+ reroll to me, is fun killing. I hate the dumb ass Buffmander, too, but those are subjective opinions.

            The goal ultimately is to make a fun, fair, competitive format and I think list building eclipses that now due to the open ended game rules right now. We’re going to be seeing 4-6 different books in a single list! haha

        • Gordy December 5, 2013 7:51 pm #

          It’s easy to claim that a rerollable 2++ isn’t a big deal when you play one of the best armies in the game, and one of the only armies that actually has the tools to reasonably deal with it. And heaven forbid your army has a bad matchup in Wave Serpents. Take a step back and think about how either of those armies looks from the perspective from virtually anything not Eldar/Daemons. There are a few niche tricks you can pull off, and a few things you can do like tossing a rune priest in every list ever, but don’t pretend that it’s not problematic for the game.

          For the vast majority of armies in the game, the Seer Council and Screamerstar are so imbalanced that you have to tailor your list specifically to stand a reasonable chance to beat them. And half the time that tailoring would mean throwing in a Rune Priest. It quickly becomes virtually impossible for anything that isn’t one of the top three codices to build an all comers list, and then all the non-eldar, non-daemon lists are shit out of luck. They have to pray that they get really good matchups to win, but so many people are playing the uber armies that you’ll run into at least one. Ruining my chances of winning a tournament because I didn’t play Eldar, Tau, or Daemons is bullshit. It. Is. Not. Fun. Sure, gamers like to whine about stuff. But if you play douchey lists, eventually people stop playing you.

          Are there a few other lists that can potentially compete? Sure. But you can’t seriously look at the sort of bullshit going on at a lot of recent tournaments and say with a straight face that there isn’t something wrong with the game.

          GW’s rules writers are not demi-gods enshrined on a golden pedestal. Just because their ‘intent’ was to include a rerollable 2++ save in the game, doesn’t make that any less bullshit for the vast majority of the players out there. The game developers do a lot of stupid stuff. Yes, Wave Serpents are another stupid thing they did. But just because you happen to be catching the wave playing one of those unfun armies at the moment doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t recognize how nasty that army is, and how unfun it can be for an opponent to play against something that has such a massive, inherent advantage over them with no skill on your part beyond picking the right army.

          I’m not saying this to try and be insulting, I’m just trying to communicate how much decay I’ve seen in 40k in the last few months.

          And it’s not like the problems are complex. As Reece has pointed out in articles several times now, adding adequate LOS blocking terrain reigns in Tau. Are they still good? Yes. But with proper terrain, they’re reasonably balanced. That would help against Wave Serpents, too, I think, since if you can get close enough to punch them they die. And you remove the various rerollable 2+ saves one way or another, and suddenly Daemons and Eldar are still very good, but again not literally impossible to kill. And if you’re a Daemon or Eldar player and you have trouble winning without a rerollable 2+ save, I so don’t feel sorry for you. Once you get the very limited number of game breaking issues out of the way (lack of terrain and the overabundance of rerollable 2+ saves), I would bet money that you’d start seeing a much, much, much, much, much, much more balanced 6th edition.

          /rant over/

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 5, 2013 10:01 pm
            #

            Gordy, that was one glorious rant! haha, well done, sir. And, I agree with 100% of what you said.

        • Gordy December 5, 2013 7:55 pm #

          Also, I feel it’s important to clarify that I’m absolutely having fun playing 40k. I’m greatly looking forward to the Twin Linked GT this weekend, and the LVO in the spring, and I don’t plan to stop playing 40k any time soon. I just don’t ever want to have to play against another bullshit Daemon Prince or some crap like that.

          • anonymou5 December 5, 2013 10:10 pm
            #

            No offense taken Gordy, haha. Apologies that I’m pretty tired and can’t give you the full on essay response you deserve.

            I’m not asking for pity, and I’m not claiming GW’s designers are perfect (far from it, actually).

            I have no doubt invincible Fateweaver is annoying and frustrating (although I do think far more Armies have the tools to deal with him than they do Seer Council or Screamerstar), but I do think it’s an intentional and fluffy rule design. My point in bringing him up was an example of how even obvious “change this because it’s broken” things such as nerfing a rerollable 2++ change the game as it was designed to be played.

            That doesn’t necessarily mean “don’t do it” and it certainly doesn’t mean I don’t think Invincible Fateweaver is annoying. I personally don’t think it should be changed, because at a certain point we’re either playing 40k (as stupid as it can be) or we’re creating a new similar game, because we are arbitrarily changing rules that we don’t like (no matter how noble that intention).

            I brought up Wave Serpents, not for pity, but because I personally think they are broken, but I’m not arguing that they be changed. I choose to play this game, which means I deal with the pieces of it I don’t like. I think the game should be left as intact as possible because the “game” is the common shared acceptance we have, once we start changing rules, we are no longer sharing acceptance. You want to change the 2++; I don’t. Someone else wants to change the Buff Commander, Tau Player X does not. Now we are all arguing for different games. I prefer we keep the social contract we have when we agree to play 40k, not craft a hundred different sub games we all think are better.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 6, 2013 7:48 am
            #

            The amusing thing about this for me personally, is that the argument you are making now, I passionately made in 5th ed as one of the vocal community members getting us away from comp! haha, so funny as you are making the exact same points I was making then.

            The thing is though, we already modify the game. The tournament FAQ straight up changes some rules for ease of play, because RAW does the opposite of what the rule means for it to do, to speed things up, etc. Unless we play the game EXACTLY as it reads in the book (which in some cases, isn’t even possible) then we are already modifying 40K and playing a commonly agreed upon alternate version of it. The issue then becomes: how much do we change it? I agree, that as little as possible is the answer I favor.

            But now that Stronghold Assault and Escalation are official, legal rule sets that bring D weapons to the table, and we can now put 4+ different armies into the same list, things have gotten fucking insane. We really need to think, is this the game we want to play? Do you want to go to a tournament and play with your Inquisition/Tau/Space Marine/IG/Forgeworld/Formation/Super Heavy list against something similar in straight book missions with mysterious terrain, randomly generated terrain, and mysterious objectives? I honestly don’t think that most people will answer that question yes.

            So where does that leave us? We must change the rules in order to even have a tournament to make the game even playable in that context and to make it more fun. The only real issue is deciding how much we change.

      • Gordy December 5, 2013 10:28 am #

        That’s the way i look at it. We’re in a position where GW has screwed up their game so much that I’m ready to say ‘screw it, I can write better rules than this’. I don’t see this so much as comp as doing the designer’s job for them, because there is unquestionably some stuff that they absolutely should have caught, but didn’t.

    • steven morrow December 5, 2013 1:54 pm #

      Fateweaver is really good and fits his fluff he is not necessarily the problem. 2++ rerollable units with multiple wounds is the real problem. Grimoire isnt necessarily the problem but the bearer being in a unit with 2++ rerollable is. Its the perfect storm of Having the grimoire with the reroll too see if it works from fateweaver and being nearly impossible to kill the bearer because of the unit means tactically there is nothing you can do to stop it. The combos that you can have that the enemy cannot do anything about is the problems.

      • Reecius
        Reecius December 5, 2013 4:51 pm #

        But then how do you implement that? Say, only these specific units can’t reroll a 2+? That isn’t going to please people as they will feel unfairly targeted.

        Damned if you do, damned if you don’t! haha

        • steven morrow December 5, 2013 5:09 pm #

          exactly you cant just say x unit doesnt get it but y is fine to have the same thing

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 5, 2013 5:36 pm
            #

            You said it. That is the root problem with trying to “fix” anything: Unforeseen consequences.

  13. Rich with GSI December 4, 2013 10:43 am #

    You could always have the “cheese” armies play each other in the early rounds, screamerstar vs screamerstar, 3x Chickens vs 3x Chickens, etc. That would take more work from the TO perspective because you’d have to pair players manually.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 1:54 pm #

      Again, pisses people off as they feel they are being discriminated against. You can go that route, I have played in tournaments like that, and it eliminates half of the power lists first round, but then the surviving half go on to win the tournament anyway =P

      • Rich with GSI December 4, 2013 3:53 pm #

        You’re going to piss someone off, whatever happens. Would you rather it be the folks that have the balls to bring a pure IG list or the folks that exploit the meta? Makes more sense to me to piss off the seal clubbers.

        Have the first round dedicated to fighting similar armies, Cheese v Cheese. Point being, a larger portion of the non-cheese survives to the next round. Hence, more non-cheese people get to have a chance to maybe win. And, the players that use the Limburger as a crutch will tend to drop away in that first round.

        I could care less who wins ’cause it ain’t gonna be me (you’ve seen me play), I just don’t want to travel to the LVO, pay all the money to be there, and be guaranteed to face one of these cheese armies from the start and likely every game thereafter. Give me at least one game where I know I won’t have to face a screamerstar or Taudar.

        To illustrate, say your event has 256 players and 128 bring cheese (I know that’s not going to happen but I’m just illustrating here). Second round you likely have the cheese folks left… does that sound fun?

        But, the 2nd round of the cheese-matching schema above and you get 64 cheese and 64 other. Yeah, 99% chance of a cheese player winning, but so what? That’s likely going to happen anyway with the current meta. I just really hate being beaten by a codex rather than a player.

        I say, let the cheese fight the cheese in the first round and maybe you increase the fun had by all. One guaranteed non-cheese game for the folks that show up to be punching bags might not be such a bad thing.

        And, the first round becomes more about skill and less about comp because you can still bring what you want. But, be aware that you will be facing a mirror army. Your skill will matter far more than any exploits/crutches you decide to use.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 4, 2013 10:36 pm #

          I hear you and you are not alone. A LOT of players fall into this category. Why go if I won’t have fun?

          Now, there is a lot going on in that statement, and the personality of who you play is more important that anything else. Frankie is a huge Cheese Dick (or was, he is changing a lot lately) and STILL super fun to play.

          But, these armies can be lame, I agree and that is what we’re talking about here.

          • Embrace Your Inner Geek December 5, 2013 6:42 am
            #

            IMHO, this is the key. Tournaments need to be fun for the 70% (or more) of players that aren’t brining the cheesy armies or they just won’t come. In the last month I’ve pulled out of 2 “competitive” events because I just couldn’t face playing screamers jet seers, taudar, etc etc. it’s just not fun.

            And sure, a descent human being with a cheesy army can be fun to play, but he would be way more fun to play if he was playing any army that was fun to play!

            EYIG.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 5, 2013 7:29 am
            #

            Haha, good point on the cheesy factor.

            We’re gong to poll the LVO attendees to get their feedback on the topic. I think 2014 may see some pretty big changes in the game.

  14. cavalier December 4, 2013 10:50 am #

    like i said on BOLS a combo of good smattering of area terrain and 4-5 piece of big LOS blocking terrain mitigates much of the insanity. as for formations I love the idea of them. Ever since I read the spearhead rules I instantly wanted to use them in normal 40k. I for one like all the change we’ve seen. The core mechanics of the game have been so static for so long that I think it brings in a real breath of fresh air. Who knows, maybe some of these formations will give the Baron’s Flying Circus, and Screamerstar a run for its money.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 10:39 pm #

      Thanks for your input!

      I agree that terrain helps a lot to mitigate things like Taudar, but it actually helps Screamerstar and Seerstar! haha, not a sure fix. D weapons on super heavies help kill everything, so we’ll see.

      One solution we have discussed is running multiple events so that people can play with all the toys in one event, and maybe have another with more limitations to have a more predictable environment.

      What would you think about that?

      • cavalier December 5, 2013 6:04 am #

        Multiple events would be a good solution… but I still worry about it fracturing the community into more niches, further dividing hobbyists and competitive players. With the streamlined tourney format creating “this is the real way to play 40k” attitude. Which is why I lean more towards bring it all without restrictions (allowing for tourney missions of course). I think I wrote to goatboy once about how its the attitude of the players that has to change. In sports you have unwritten rules (particularly in baseball) about sportsmanship, and if you violate those unwritten rules you are treated as pariah. Stuff like stealing bases when you have double digit leads, bunting on injured pitchers, going cleats up into second etc. etc. and these guys are playing for multi-million dollar contracts.

        Creating that self-policing attitude in the 40k tournament scene is the only way to create a real change. Whether Its some guy who just plays the crap out of a balanced no-spam, no netlist-deathstar army and takes down the big spam, deathstar players in some huge dramatic championship match. Or whether we collectivley shame people into dropping their netlist armies and to go back to playing the army they love (lol) to me its an attitudinal change thats required…

        • cavalier December 5, 2013 6:55 am #

          Sorry to spam on here…but another thought occured to me concerning collective-shaming lol. I think a big problem in the tourney scene is accountability. When you are just fly into a city for a big tournament, beat face with a cheesy netlist and then disappear back into the ether. If tournaments had a player profile for their top 10 players, and an attending video bat-rep for the final 3 matches, fans could start attaching faces to army lists and actually be able to leave feedback via youtube and all of a sudden you have the sort of accountability to the fans that pro athletes have. Some atheletes tune it out and continue to be dicks…but others hear it loud clear and have a change of heart (the about-face the boston red sox starting pitching had from 2013-2014 comes to mind). Either way they are hearing the criticism (or praise) directed at them.

          I know its a pain for TO’s but if you monetize the videos on youtube you actually make a little money on the side, or even get sponsors for the videos and run a little ad at the beginning and end of the video (megamat ads I’m looking at you) it could be really beneficial. I for one would love to watch video-bat reps. Me and my brother will sit down with a pizza and a couple of cold ones and watch videobat reps like its a sporting event. The frontline videos, skared cast, and strikingscorpion82 phenomenal videos immediatley come to mind. I actually have a rooting interest in many individual players because of these videos and I’m sure I’m not the only one.

          So in closing putting faces to lists, and giving the players feedback I think would create accountability and possibly create the change we’re looking for.

  15. Tiber55 December 4, 2013 10:58 am #

    To your points

    1) The game isn’t broken YET and i emphisize yet, GW has a history of not balancing well and normally they would only have 5-6 chances to screw up per year, but with the advent of digital products they now have 12+ with codexes and supplements and god knows how many with data sheets.

    2) This will not really help, splitting major tournaments into 2 wont boost attendance, I think one of the better ways to encourage people to come to multi day tournaments is to have prizes for multiple brackets, so give prizes to the top 8 as per normal but have a 2nd bracket for people that lost thier games day one and have a day 2 bracket so that players who may not have a current “power” list still have a chance at getting something and they have skin in the game for day 2+

    3) This is both a good and a terrible idea, if something comes along that totally invalidates the tournament packet than ban it. But banning to change the meta is not really a solution, the tournament competative players will just bring the next best, look at the recent comp tournament you just had all the top players bring seer councils, how does that make it more fun for anyone.

    4) This never ends well, unless you going to set up and comprehensively playtest a new set of rules your not going to do better. This isn’t saying that T.O.s couldn’t create a good comp system but the work it requires to playtest one is daunting, because you have 100’s of people all working within the new ruleset and within those 100’s there are at least 20+ looking to break it (i.e. find the cheesiest option) your facing an uphill battle..

    Changing a 2++ to a 3++ rerollable doesn’t change the fact that you have to target troops to get the win for objective based games, it just gives you a % better chance of fighting a non scoring 800+ point unit. Screamer star, O’vesa star, and Seer council have not broken the competative game. Outside of a tournament these lists are “broken” but competatively they are just things to plan for, play tactically against. They are quite possibly bad for the overall game but competatively are capable of being handled.

    5) This is the bread and butter of a good T.O. because it allows you to combat abusive lists while focusing on how they abuse the system instead of the specific unit.

    If you do see the tournament scene becoming unfun because of paticular builds you can change missions to suit what you want the scene to look like without totally invalidating those armies.

    Creative ideas in missions not only encourage list diversity but they show the community that you are involved and putting effort into the scene. The thing I appreciate most about frontline is probably the BAO packet.

    Work here to create the tournament and not only will players respond positively but the attendance will go up,

    The pitfall though is again playtesting you need to know exactly how every change here will effect the meta, and be very careful that while targeting one army or build you don’t unfairly penalize others.

    Changes to the meta using the missions is much better than comp, because you can take out the how they do it v.s. the specific units while still giving a chance to all lists.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 10:47 pm #

      I agree 100% that changing missions and format is the better call. However in this case, an invincible death-star is still an invincible death-star. And while yes, they can be beaten, no doubt, they are not fun. And that is the cardinal sin, IMO.

      The issue though, is that designing missions that accomplish this task in the environment of a rapidly changing meta is REALLY hard to do. If possible, that is the route we will take.

      • steven morrow December 5, 2013 1:59 pm #

        The BAO missions work real well to encourage multiple builds from what I have seen.

        • steven morrow December 5, 2013 2:22 pm #

          Another idea is to give bonus points for damaging or destroying certain units so there is an actual some pause for thought because of the risk. It looks like the escalation rules are going to have similar rules for the super heavies. getting so many bonus points for damaging and so many for destroying. Or have a few missions where all allies are desperate allies for this mission only. Perhaps a dangerous skies mission where flyers and or flying monstrous creatures have to hover/move as jump monstrous creature or flyer has to move off the board one random turn of the game. Perhaps a psystorm mission where any doubles on psychic tests will cause perils. It should happen randomly from turn to turn. The only problem with any of these is it does nothing to tone down pure Tau guns. Which is where LOS blocking terrain comes in. The beauty of this is it is not a blanket nerfing, but a more targeted incentive to bring a more balanced list without It killing you every game If you take the chance. Smart players will factor it into their plans and lists to minimize it.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 5, 2013 4:53 pm
            #

            I like that a lot but, damaging the 2+ reroll units is damn near impossible! Haha, it takes 108 Bolter shots to put a single wound on a Tough 4 model with a 2+/2+ =(

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 5, 2013 4:52 pm #

          Yeah, they do. I agree there, 100%…if I do say so myself! haha

  16. Cypher623 December 4, 2013 11:25 am #

    I think no matter what you try to do along these lines you are going to get complaints, if you try only a few changes you will get just as many complaints as if you try to make many changes. I think that T.O.’s ought to do the following:

    “Composition: Although no player will be penalized for their composition, the following bonus points may be earned by tailoring your list to be more balanced and fair, the total bonus points available are 20 total for the tournament:

    1. 10 bonus points will be provided to any player using Dark Eldar, Space Wolves, Blood Angels; Orks or Imperial Guard as their primary detachment;

    2. 10 bonus points will be awarded to any player with any Codex except those listed above and utilizing a single FOC with no allies;

    3. 10 bonus points will be awarded to any player utilizing double FOC and/or allies where their list satisfies the following criteria:

    A. No duplicate choices for elites; heavies; fast attack;

    B. No duplicate choices for HQ choices with 3 or more wounds so multiples of two wound models are acceptable (master of the forge, warpsmith, spiritseer etc., are fine; but no duplicate choices for three or more wounds, (so no two chapter masters, farseers, etc.); and

    C. The allies do not come from digital codex with the same name, so Codex Space Marines & Tau are good, Codex Tau and Farsight Onclaves, etc., are out.

    4. 10 bonus points for any player playing the least played army at the tournament, based upon primary detachments, so only two Ork armies show up, the two players with those armies get the bonus points.”

    In a tournament where there are only 90 points up for grabs other than the bonus points, these could make a difference. And please, don’t say, “Oh someone will find a way to break this system” because plenty of people are abusing the current system and the first step is always the hardest.

    JG

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 10:48 pm #

      Some good ideas, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

      We are definitely considering options. I don’t know if that intricate of a system is the best bet as the more complex the system, the more failure points it has.

      We’ll see though, I am open to any ideas at this point.

      • Gordy December 5, 2013 10:36 am #

        Yeah, with rules like ‘no duplicates’, I always think back to my days playing Daemonhunters. They relied extremely heavily on Land Raiders as their only transport and heavy firepower. But the sac tournaments had comp, which massively screwed over my army because I couldn’t take multiple Raiders. Yet my codex was easily the worst in the game, matched only by the old Necron book. How did comp help the game then?

  17. James Carmona
    kontraktkiller December 4, 2013 12:01 pm #

    Banning units is definitely a road to creating an issue among tournament players in particular. I think I can safely say that a vast majority of the players going to these events are playing to win. Taking away the favorite toys that lots of guys bring to these events would definitely cause some crying but IMHO, it’s totally a necessary evil. The fact that there is a “meta” is bad enough, but seeing the same lists win every event is getting kinda dumb. Rattle some cages Reece!

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 10:42 pm #

      I think cages will be rattled, hahaha, thanks for the encouragement =)

      Minimal and highly targeted bans, if anything like that were to occur at all, is the safest and best route.

  18. ACBrown December 4, 2013 1:39 pm #

    As a competitive tournament player, here’s what I would like to see:

    Let GW stand as it is. Yes, there are crazy powerful combos. Yes, it is hard to keep up at the moment. Yes, I wish they would publish an edition called Tournament 40K. Yes, I wish they would FAQ their rules more often.

    All true.

    But the company is what the company is. If we fundamentally don’t like it, we should pick another game system.

    But I like the game system. Therefore, let it stand.

    New players are going to get stomped regardless of what we do in terms of comp. That’s just a fact of life. It happens in all quadrants.

    My 2 cents.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 10:40 pm #

      I have traditionally had the same stance.

      So, you say include the formations, super heavies, etc? All of it?

      • ACBrown December 5, 2013 4:11 am #

        While I do recognize the inherent problems that could come with it, I have to say yes. Problems will crop up whatever is decided. Might as well be with allowing as many options as possible.

        Though theoretically I would be open to limiting or banning very specific things… like in MTG.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 5, 2013 7:23 am #

          Yeah, and that is what we were discussing, honestly. Just some ultra specific stuff to rein in the most crazy rules issues in the game at present.

  19. kalhoun December 4, 2013 3:43 pm #

    1. Let it ride.
    You’ve always unapologetically told people to suck it up and deal with Forge World. What’s a few more rules? 🙂

    I’d be hip to something along the lines of 3 as well, like a 1500 pt bare-bones one-codex event.

    I’d also enjoy playing in a heat-based small-points mirror-match event. Even though you’re still having to deal with luck being a huge factor (not to mention alpha strike), it’s still closer to an actual test of tactical skill.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 6:06 pm #

      Yeah, I have and that is my stance, personally. The issue though is that a lot of folks don’t have the inclination to figure out the truly crazy stuff. Whether or not we should do anything about that is the question.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2013 10:40 pm #

      It seems like multiple events may be the right call as a lot of folks lean both ways on the topic.

  20. Fulcrum December 5, 2013 1:56 am #

    Anyone who wants to say 2++ w/rerolls isn’t broken hasn’t played against them enough. Now if that comes on a unit with obvious flaws that is easily countered it’s a different conversation. Unfortunately these are not the units we are seeing. Additionally for Eldar & Daemons having a lot of LOS blocking terrain is not a deterrent & can even benefit these builds. Eldar & jetseers are fast enough to go when & where they like & their vehicles love cover saves, Daemons can deepstrike &/or make heavy use of FMCs in addition to the Screamerstar being very fast assuming the heralds are on disks.

    Every month we get more & more hard data thanks to torrent of fire. The triumvirate have dominated basically since their codex releases. Space Marines hasn’t had much effect on the numbers and the other 2 power armor 6th ed. codices can’t even compete. Now we are seeing more & more of the top elite tournament players switching over to some form one of the “Big 3”.

    We haven’t seen an FAQ of any significance since Febuary and there’s no sign of any coming any time soon. GW just doesn’t care, they’re not a game company, they’re a model company.
    The best strategies anyone can come up with is “go first & cross your fingers” because every other strategy (rune priests, shadow in the warp, etc.) is easy to avoid or counter & it’s hard to just kill all the scoring units when they’re either not on the table or flying 36″ to the next piece of LOS blocking terrain.

    The question is how many months of inactivity by GW & how much more hard data do we as a communityneed to see before we do something to keep this game fun for everyone not playing 1 of the Big 3. Now if things change in the future, then we too as a community can evolve with it. If Nids or IG drops & results in a huge meta shift so be it. We should make the changes as easy to undo as possible. When in doubt K.I.S.S.

    1. If any combination of effects cause one of your squads to have a 2+ rerollable save of any kind, it instead gives a 3+ rerollable save. This does not apply to single model units.

    2. No dataslate formations.

    3. No detachment in your army may be “Come the Apocalypse” with another detachment in your army. (To try to clean up the inevitable Inquisition issues. I’d even be open to banning it for everyone except sisters since they have 1/2 a codex anyway.)

    4. Fortifications & non-formation Dataslates on a case by case basis.

    5. Another possible quick & easy fix is to disallow battle bros. IDCs from joining units not in their detachment. This may be a bit extreme though & would do nothing to the screamerstar.

    I mean if you play a jetseer or SS & the change from 2+ to 3+ destroys your ability to be competitive, then shame on you. The Tau, Eldar, & Daemon codexes are incredibly strong even without these units. Your should be able to adjust your tactics accordingly. The unit is so fast, just use terrain & range to limit the amount of shots your unit takes, just like every other army has to do. Seriously if you play one of these builds & can’t handle the change then I don’t know what to say to you other than go try playing Orcs (or any power armor codex) against your list & see how much fun or competition there is. These lists take the skill out of the game.

    If in the future something changes the meta, be it an FAQ or a new codex, these changes are simple to undo. Personally I’m not holding my breath for any FAQs to bring balance to the force. GW just doesn’t care folks as long as they sell models, they’re a business.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 5, 2013 7:26 am #

      You said it very well, and I am in alignment with almost all of what you just said, personally.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 5, 2013 8:16 am #

      I agree 100% about the mental attitude but changing people’s feelings on something is the hardest change to affect. It is definitely worth trying, though.

  21. jciscon December 5, 2013 9:55 am #

    Or… we just take over writing the rules?

    I could forsee within a year or so, if things are as off the rails as they very well could be, then maybe we just write our own set of “tournament rules” which clean up all this and incorporate the 80 bajillion page BAO faq document into a cleaner set of rules.

    It would be an public ruleset and as clean as could be, and would likely start slowly as like 1 event at BAO or something.. but yeah maybe we just clean it up ourselves?

    It’s a huge undertaking, no doubt, but maybe that’s what we have to do.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 5, 2013 4:37 pm #

      That has actually been discussed! haha

      The problem is getting people to accept it. That is always the sticking point.

      • Bigpig December 5, 2013 5:27 pm #

        I think the silent majority of players will embrace changes such as are being suggested. The vocal find the word he saying don’t touch it will come and play anyways. Most people don’t come to a tournament with an expectation that they will win. They come to have fun hang out and play games with people they see only occasionally and enjoy pushing their little plastic army men around the table. As soon the fun leaves you will be left with nobody but the vocal minority fighting against each other with broken lists saying “keep the rules the way they are, it’s a slippery slope.”

        The competitive game system I used to play in used a tailored tournament rules set. Fortunately that rule set was designed by the game designer. They realize that their universe was so large and open to abuse that in order to keep game play fun and balanced at a competitive level you needed to limit the options. This created a very balanced playing field. In our world our game designer refuses to do this. There’s nothing wrong with intelligent experienced tournament organizers doing this in their stead

        • Fulcrum December 5, 2013 8:22 pm #

          Seconded. Most of the major podcasts seem to be in agreement that something needs to be done. But it’s hard to stick your neck out & be the first event to do it. I think once it’s been done the will role down hill. I think it’s going to come down to that bottom line of attendance, maybe not for the likes of adepticon, but for other less well established events that would have traditional draw more average players.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 5, 2013 9:58 pm
            #

            Yeah, everyone I have talked to agrees that we need to do something, but no one is on the same page as to what that something should be. A lot of the guys want to move together but none of them are on the hot seat like us. We are going to have to lead the way on this one, which I am fine with, honestly. I was just hoping we could all come together to act as a team.

  22. Tiber55 December 5, 2013 10:18 am #

    I know why you would want to nerf the 2+ rerollable as it creates a situation in which casual or semi competative tournament attendees take auto losses to army lists and not players.

    BUT if LVO is going to have a rules change as big as 2+ rerollable saves going to 2+/4+ or even worse 3+/3+ you should bite the bullet and announce it soon, as it will seriously impact what purchases people would want for the holidays, I would hate to be a semi competative player on a limited income attempting to build an LVO army; build seer council or screamer star and than feel like I was targeted.

    Also if it is nerfed i would suggest that the nerf come off for the last day top 8, because there are lists that put the big three (FMC,Seer,Screamer) to shame in the form of Forgeworld IG/SW/Inquisition, that are borderline turn one auto wins if you can get first turn, which you can try to seize twice if you fail to roll it, and having the 2++ re-rollable is almost necessary to fight against them, as they also abuse barrage, presience, and other rules to be able to erase everything around the deathstars from range without LoS.

    The

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 5, 2013 4:42 pm #

      Any changes made, if any are, would be made relatively soon for just the reasons you stated.

      We honestly don’t want to change anything. But, we want a fun game, first.

      • James Carmona
        kontraktkiller December 5, 2013 8:37 pm #

        Sounds like he’s played dougs “hobby killer” lol!!!!forgot to mention the sabre platforms.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 5, 2013 9:40 pm #

          Hobby Killer’s no big deal! It did beat my ass…but! I had the sun in my eyes and my shoelaces were untied!

          • James Carmona
            kontraktkiller December 5, 2013 10:17 pm
            #

            Watching doug play that list made me go home completely demoralized. I wasnt even the one playing against it, but it gave me a very sad panda peepee. I literally didn’t play for at least a month because I couldn’t think of anything to counter it. You guys should run that Taudar list against HK!

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 6, 2013 7:52 am
            #

            Hobby Killer is a joke, just like Jouglas Dohnson! haha, no it is really good, but it is not unbeatable. It is good, no doubt, but not the best. Lyzz’s daemons had Doug beat, they ended up tying. You just have to know what to do against it (just like all the problem lists in the game) to win.

  23. steven morrow December 5, 2013 2:30 pm #

    Top table only special missions ftw. Not only will it not slow down play for “normal” players but it will force top players to utilize skills with “balanced” lists or be put into harder disadvantageous positions for taking easy button lists. If you are good enough to get to the top tables you are good enough to fight harder missions.

  24. Fulcrum December 5, 2013 4:06 pm #

    I have no problem with any missions that may come to the table as long as they don’t extend either the game or the post game book keeping. I tend to field small armies but I like to see hordes on the table.

    As for the writing of rules, not that I’m ruling it out, but let’s cross that bridge when we come to it down the line. Who knows what the future holds. A discussion like that is likely to invite huge controversy that we don’t need to get into just now.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 5, 2013 10:08 pm #

      Fair play on the timing issue, but the LVO is bearing down on us! haha, we don’t have time =(

      We need to act swiftly. Which is why I am making such a big fuss about all of this stuff.

      • Fulcrum December 5, 2013 11:14 pm #

        Right I’m just talking about issues other than the main once presented here.

Leave a Reply