Las Vegas Open Poll Results and Where We’re Going in the Midst of the Current 40K Changes

Hey everyone, Reecius here with the Las Vegas Open Poll results about what our paid attendees want in their 40K tournament!

Just to be clear, this is what we are adding to our format, and if the rumors of the impending Nids release are true (we don’t know yet) then they will be in the LVO 2014!

First of all, what am I talking about with the LVO Poll and why did I send it out in the first place?

The Las Vegas Open is what will be our main event here at Frontline Gaming. It is a 3 day gaming convention, February 7-9th, at Ballys Casino in Las Vegas! It is going to be a blast, we’re so excited for it! We also have some awesome numbers going into it for events.

However, we all got hit with all the new types of rules and media GW is throwing at us in digital codices (Inquisition), Data Slates (Be’Lakor), and of course, Escalation and Stronghold Assault. It all came at us hard and fast and left a lot of us reeling.

Now, the sensible thing to do of course, would be to wait and see how it all panned out before making any policy changes to an event such as the Las Vegas Open. However, due to the timing, we had to make some choices fast as we have people coming from as far away as New Zealand, China, Sweden, etc. to the LVO! Those people had a right to know what to expect, as soon as they could.

So, I reached out all over the community to TOs, players, etc. for feedback (and thanks to everyone who took the time to talk to me) to try and figure stuff out and make a good call. It’s a crummy spot to be in as we have not only heaps of money on the line with the event, not only our reputation, but the responsibility of hosting a fun event for everyone who is coming!

After all the talking, reading, thinking and listening, I put together a poll of the main issues that I believed would matter to our specific Las Vegas Open attendees. We didn’t want to change our core format so close to the event, so while we were prepared to do something dramatic if we needed to; we didn’t want to. What that means is that our essential, tried and true format would remain, it was simply a question of what we would include or not include from the new releases and a few rules changes we proposed based on feedback from the various events we run. So, I sent out the poll and put the decisions in the player’s hands. We got a good response rate too, over 50% of our paid 40K attendees responded to the poll which as these things go, is a solid response.

Now, before we get further into the actual data, one last point: this is just where we are at NOW. We had to choose what we wanted to go with at this early stage. We are open to change going forward, and we do not expect everyone to mimic this or even plan on repeating this exact format, necessarily.

Question 1: Were you aware of the changes to 40K such as Data Slates, Escalation, Stronghold Assault, etc. and how these change the game?

Why ask? Because if folks are voting blind that data isn’t so hot, is it?

Cool. Folks at least understand the issues! I also included helper text in the questions to further clarify, FYI.

Question 2: Do you want Lords of War in the Las Vegas Open?

Well, that was clear! The Las Vegas Open attendees are not ready for the Super Heavies (and the dirty D!) this soon. Fair enough, I expected this result.

Question 3: How do you feel about Data Slates in the Las Vegas Open?

So, I asked this question to gauge overall positive and negative opinions on this topic. I wanted to see how people felt about it. I then combined these into generally positive and generally negative feelings.

So again, no matter how you slice it, folks aren’t ready for the Data Slates just yet. I was actually surprised that characters like Be’Lakor were rejected as they seem to have gotten a generally positive reaction. But, as you can see, it was actually a clear majority against it at this point. As a TO though I have to say this is nice as it is less rules to memorize before the event.

Question 4: Do you want to use Stronghold Assault in the Las Vegas Open?

Super forts in tournament 40K?

And again, a CLEAR majority! No question here, our attendees want to skip Stronghold Assault for this event.

Question 5: Do you think we should enforce a game wide rule change as follows: Any 2+ save that is rerolled, is failed on a 1, 2 or 3 on the second roll instead of only on a 1.

Oooh, the notorious 2+ reroll save! I hate it. Openly hate it and feel it makes the game less enjoyable to play. But, what did our attendees think?

Hooray! The community is open to a change such as this. Again, a clear majority. I thought this would be the hardest sell to the community and I was very prepared for this to get voted down, but it did not which I am happy about. The 2+ reroll, more so than anything else in the game, sucks the fun out of 40K for me.

The reason we worded this rule change this way is because this impacts all armies the same way. It isn’t picking on any specific units or armies unfairly. You don’t have to change your list. You can still take an ultra durable unit and play it the same way you did before. The difference now though, is that your opponent will actually be able to engage this unit directly and hurt it. It turns a situation where one person can do almost nothing to a unit and acts simply as an observer, which is not fun, to a unit that can be hurt.

This is a positive thing. I think more people will gain more enjoyment from an event with this rule in place. I know folks will say, “but you just play around it,” or “I can beat it,” or “this is no longer 40K,” or whatever.

Bottom line: all tournaments change rules to greater or lesser degrees. Whether it be changing missions, comp, not using certain rules (mysterious terrain and objectives, anyone?), etc. we all alter the rules in the hope of creating a more enjoyable gaming experiences. This is no different.

This rule change makes the game more enjoyable. I don’t think anyone is going to have LESS fun with no 2+ rerolls. The game has gone bananas with rules and it is on us to choose what game we want to play. This is what our attendees (and me personally) decided was the game we wanted to pay and I am very happy for it!

Question 6: From how many sources do you think a player should be able to draw on to write an army-list for the LVO?

As you can now write a list with over 4 different armies represented in it, lists have become really, really confusing. I was curious to hear if folks were OK with that or wanted to reign in the chaos a bit.

And again, a clear majority! Nice, that makes things like this easy for us as TOs. Folks don’t want to play Tau/Orks/Necrons/Inquisition vs. Eldar/Dark Eldar;Inquisition/Imperial Guard. I get it, and I agree. When you get the Super Friends teamups of unlikely bed fellows in each list it not only destroys the fluff (more than allies already can) but it gets ultra confusing to keep track of it all. The more rules interactions you have the more failure points in the system and potential for insane combos increases exponentially. This keeps things manageable.

I was actually surprised at how many people only wanted 1 army with no allies! That was a surprise to me. Allies still rub some people the wrong way and there is a decent amount of folks that want to play core books only. That could be a fun idea for a small tournament: 40K Pure! Core Codices only, or something like that.

Question 7: Should we buy Frankie “Hooked on Phonics?”

If you listen to our Podcast, Signals from the Frontline, you will understand this.

Hahaha, almost a dead heat, but a slight majority for no! You guys think his reading skillz (or lack thereof) is funny! Nice one!


So, what does this all mean? That, unsurprisingly the folks who have money invested into this event are largely playing it conservatively and chose to keep the game close to what they expected it to be before all of the big changes. Fair enough, that is totally reasonable.

However, the community is clearly open to rules changes that are not over the top, still allow them to play the list they want to play (I think that is critical), but that make the game more fair and enjoyable for more people.

The game as is in it’s current state requires some community involvement to play it in an organized setting. Truly unrestricted 40k as it stands, facilitates unbelievably, game killing combos (do you really want to play against a Revenant with Fortune, Forwarning and protected by Void Shields in every other tournament game? I sure don’t.) that only the most savvy players would enjoy playing against. I believe there is a time and a place for everything and that even the above, gross combo CAN be fun when everyone is on the same page and prepared for that.

In a lot of ways what GW has done is cool as it opens up the game so much. That is exciting after we get done freaking out. All we need to do now is come together as a group and decide how we want to play the game. We have more tools now than ever before, but we must accept that we also have to think carefully about which tools we want to use in which formats.

KickStarter Update!

Our Mega Mat KickStarter is kicking booty! Check it out and support it if you like! We have unlocked almost all of our funding goals!


About Reecius

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

203 Responses to “Las Vegas Open Poll Results and Where We’re Going in the Midst of the Current 40K Changes”

  1. Anonymous December 11, 2013 1:34 am #

    Gotta say I support TOs and players both taking the game into their own hands instead of what GW wants, as GW themselves have stated they’re not in the tournament business.

    The only thing that puzzles me is how the Screamerstars were addressed. Why 4++ rerolled of all numbers? Perhaps the poll could have been to have all the options (2++ to 6++ to not rerollable) and see which value people felt the most fair to give the rerolled save. This would have a two-fold result of truly allowing the players to choose what they wanted in regards to the Daemons matchup and get a better gauge of how people feel about it, rather than “yes/no to 4+++”.

    But yeah, I still give two thumbs up to this course of action. I am 100% positive an unofficial “official” set of custom tournament rules will help the competitive scene more than hinder it, and even though we don’t work for GW, we CAN improve the meta as a community. Anyone that follows Pokemon and Smogon will know what I’m talking about.

    Lastly, Barren Wasteland image when?!

    • Fulcrum December 11, 2013 1:36 am #

      DAM YOU! /shakes fist

      • Fulcrum December 11, 2013 4:40 pm #

        Just to be clear that “dam you” was for stealing my first reply:P

        I agree with what you said.

      • James December 14, 2013 4:47 pm #

        Fulcrum, where in Hawaii are you? I am assuming Oahu but if you are on big island we should meet up!

    • Hippesthippo December 11, 2013 5:55 am #

      (2+) + (4+) is the next best rational dice roll over a (3+) rerollable. Anything less would actually make it WORSE than a (3+) reroll, which would make very little sense.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 7:53 am #

      What Hippest said on the math, it was the next step above a 3+/3+ and a 2+/3+ is still insane durable.

      As for Barren Wasteland, we expect ti to be done tomorrow!

  2. Fulcrum December 11, 2013 1:36 am #

    First! Finally something good comes out of being in Hawaii. On topic: WOOOOOOOOOOOO!

  3. Noah December 11, 2013 2:02 am #

    I voted with the majority on most topics the only ones I didn’t were data slates and the 2++ reroll. I didn’t really see the data slates as OP and actually kind of a neat concept to see armies getting a model here and there. The 2++ rerollable is understandable but I still don’t think it’s unbeatable. The good players know how to get around it by playing the missions and mitigate how many units they kill by spreading out. Glad to see most of everyone shooting down super heavies as we are really not ready for those in such a large tournament in such a short amount of time.

    • Fulcrum December 11, 2013 2:32 am #

      Have you seen the tau formation dataslate?

      • Adam December 11, 2013 7:31 am #

        Over 500 points, will dictate how you play with the rest of your army, to have an ability that people could already accomplish with allies… It’s not that bad. Reading things on the internet and coming to conclusions is very different than facing it and realizing you’ve seen it before.

        • Fulcrum December 11, 2013 2:07 pm #

          Many Tau players already field at least 1 riptide & 6 misslesides. So they just got free tank hunter & preffered enemy sm. Those S7 missiles just got a lot better & the ion pie plate now gets to roll 4 dice to pen!

          • Reecius December 11, 2013 3:54 pm

            Yeah, they all provide excellent upgrades for free. That is easily abused.

    • Cruzcontrol39 December 11, 2013 12:18 pm #

      Tau data slate… That breaks the game.

  4. Callofdoobie December 11, 2013 3:02 am #

    No 2++ reroll or Belakor? You’re going to have a lot of happy Wave Serpent and Riptide owners XD

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 7:49 am #

      We also use a lot of terrain which helps a ton to mitigate SAFH armies. And, a 2+/4+ is still incredibly durable.

      Honestly though, the argument that the only solution to Taudar is a 2+ reroll is a straw man argument. It simply isn’t true and it makes the game less enjoyable for everyone else.

      • Jason Brown December 11, 2013 11:10 am #

        I know that I have said it before, just get in Tau’s face and punch them in the nuts full on. Dont balk at the gates, slow down…turbo boost-run-juke and juve….just get there even if you have to jump of the dead bodies of your best bros. I have had a third of my army left and then multi charged the inevitable tau gun line and pushed them off the board. I am this close to taking BA as an ally for my eldar just to drop pod in a Furioso and a Death Co dread on these sissie boy gun lines.

      • Callofdoobie December 11, 2013 2:11 pm #

        It’s not the only solution but it is very much a hard counter.

        The problem with this IMO is you guys have started a slippery slope, now that you have said “well since you guys don’t like 2++ rerolls, we’ll get rid of them” people have seen all they have to do is complain about something enough and it will get modified. What happens when ‘nids come out and they have a series of Bio-Morphs they can take thats “no fun to play against”? Or what if people figure out a Space Marine combo “that isn’t any fun” to go against either? Where does it stop? Banning Escalation and Stronghold are easy as they add an equal amount to each army (for the most part) so by banning them every army loses equally. This seems to target specific armies unfairly, just my two cents, which actually means WAYYYY less then two cents cause I won’t be going to LVO or anything XD. Hope everything works out great!

        • Reecius December 11, 2013 2:45 pm #

          I am all too familiar with this argument and have had it about 100 times in the past two weeks, hahaha.

          I hate changing rules, we do it as a last resort. We don’t want to do it. But we did, and we think it will be for the better. We don’t plan on doing it again unless something dire comes up.

  5. Aidobmac December 11, 2013 3:53 am #

    I know people aren’t “ready” for lords of war and all the other goodies yet, but will they ever be able to see the light on how all this changes are better for the game, even competitively?

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 7:51 am #

      I think so! We have some ideas on a new tournament format that we are considering for the BAO that does use them and that we think will be really fun!

      • Pascal Roggen December 11, 2013 1:27 pm #


      • bugsculptor December 11, 2013 1:28 pm #

        Excellent, it’ll be good to see if it can work when you have time to play test some new mission formats.

        In the mean time, I congratulate you on your temporary team name change to “Team Comp” 😉

        • Reecius December 11, 2013 2:45 pm #

          How about, Team “Just the Tip” Comp? haha

          • Adam December 11, 2013 4:58 pm

            We all know it never stops with just the tip.

          • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:34 pm

            BoLS Deep! Muahah!

  6. skari December 11, 2013 4:46 am #

    Awesome. Thanks for the update. Interesting to see what your main gaming baseline agrees or disagrees on.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 7:51 am #

      NP! And again, this is just where everyone is at at this point in time.

  7. Hippesthippo December 11, 2013 5:52 am #

    All of these changes are 100% reasonable. Thank goodness this is nothing like the senseless FoB Ban List. If I can find a cheap enough plane ticket, I’ll be there to support this.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 7:47 am #

      We hope to see you there!

  8. Hotsauceman1 December 11, 2013 6:12 am #


    • Reecius December 11, 2013 7:42 am #

      Pretty much what we got, here! haha

  9. CKuno December 11, 2013 6:49 am #

    I hope you will allow Inquisition with two other armies as it’s really more of a mini-dex and if you make it that it has to count as your allied army then it kind of kills the purpose of the dex and makes it a lot less useful.

    Also, I understand why you did this and appreciate the sentiment of wanting to ask the players, but the GW community is so full of reactionaries who run around screaming “broken” before new rules even hit. I wonder how many of the people who voted in your survey have even played against one of the new dataslates or characters. They should’ve been limited, maybe one dataslate per army, but I feel an outright ban is too harsh and was driven more by players who didn’t want to have to retool their lists right before a tournament.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 7:40 am #

      You can take Inquisition, but not it and another ally. It definitely alters the way it is played but you can still use it.

      Most people who voted have probably not played against this stuff. But, so close to the releases, that is normal. They’re voting based on what they know.

      Again, this isn’t final policy, this is policy for the LVO 2014 and the people that paid money and took time to come have the right to feel this way. Going forward we will look at opening the doors to new stuff a bit more.

      And yes, haha, players didn’t want to retool their lists before a big tournament. But again, can you blame them? We aren’t talking theory here, we’re talking the reality of buying, building, painting new stuff you aren’t familiar with before a big event. We want to have fun, people think they’ll have more fun sticking to what they know at this point in time. It is a totally reasonable reaction.

      • CKuno December 11, 2013 7:46 am #

        Oh, I completely understand that, and more power to you. It’s fantastic that you’re even willing to take on the responsibility of running such a major tournament, so major respect for that. Just my two cents is all.

        I still think Inquisition could’ve worked as is though, but probably because I’m really enjoying a Sisters/GK/Inquisition list that I’ve been playing, so there’s that.

        • Reecius December 11, 2013 8:20 am #

          Thanks for the props, much appreciated.

          And I totally get it and that is actually part of my point =) People are OK with most rules changes apart from those that impact their list! I have always noticed that that is where you get the most push-back.

          Saying all armies can only use 2 sources though, is fair. If we were to say all armies can use 2 except Imperials, then that would upset everyone else, you know? It was a compromise that the community decided they wanted. Again though, going forward that may change. For the BAO for example, we may not have these restrictions as by then people will be ready for more complexity.

  10. Adam December 11, 2013 7:14 am #

    Hmmm… Was this the dakka poll or one sent to registered attendees? I’m only asking because I only saw the one on Dakka!

    • Adam December 11, 2013 7:28 am #

      I also have to say that I’m in no way shocked that the response to every single “new” addition to 40k was met with an “No!” and asking people if they want to face a 2++ re-rollable was also met with the same answer.

      If the future of 40k is comp, it’s a sad future indeed. You sold out events without comp, you almost sold out the LVO without comp, and now we’re getting comp added… That’s very disappointing. I really enjoy the BAO events because they were the last haven of bring your best and play your hardest. I literally just want to have fun and play the game as it’s written. Since you run the biggest tournament in my area, and since all the smaller local tournaments and FLGS pick up games tend to follow your lead, this is doubly frustrating.

      Stronghold Assault isn’t broken, it’s new and like all new changes for 40k, people don’t want to adapt. Same with Escalation and Data Slates. Players who wanted tank hunting riptides or broadsides were already doing it, same with players who wanted 3 marine flyers. Be’lakor is finally a good unit to bring with CSM, but is by no means OP at a hefty 350 points.

      Asking people what they want rarely gets you the answers to the problem. As Ford once said, “If I asked people what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse.”

      • Reecius December 11, 2013 7:35 am #

        Don’t lose heart dude, this is just a reaction from people at this slice in time. It isn’t final. As stated in the article, we are open to change moving forward and we are very open minded but without knowing what half of the stuff in Stronghold or Escalation does, you really can’t blame people for wanting to stick to what they know.

        And this is typically how we have always done things. We waited to introduce big changes like FW as we didn’t want to piss people off too much because as i always say, in the end this is a business and imposing our will on attendees is not typically the right call.

        That said, I have some ideas for going forward that I think will make everyone happy! I think the future of 40K tournaments may change.

        • Adam December 11, 2013 9:16 am #

          I do have hope for your ideas, but I’m also afraid of them.

          Having a separate event for Escalation may as well be an event of who has the prettiest Revenant. What keeps Escalation in check is normal 40k.

          Maybe if you had a “40k Championship” and a “Comp-Hammer Championship” that’d suffice. But if the main attraction becomes comp-hammer, then I bet in 3-years time we’re just as bad as ETC… which may be a good time to look for a new hobby. 🙂

      • Bigpig December 11, 2013 8:46 am #

        Sounds like people want to play the game system that sold out for BAO and nearly LVO (with the exception of the reroll retool), and not a mini apoc game.

        • Adam December 11, 2013 9:12 am #

          You’re totally right, I want to play the game system that sold out for the BAO and nearly the LVO, which was 100% unrestricted 40k. 😛

          • Reecius December 11, 2013 9:16 am

            Which was also 5th edition =P This is not the same game as then, you really can’t compare the two.

          • Bigpig December 11, 2013 9:38 am

            The same name, but different game. BAO didn’t sell out with d weapon super heavies and four contingents per army :). All point of view I guess.

            Tournament version 40k is a thing now, just like many other game systems. It will be an interesting year to see what that shakes out to be.

          • Reecius December 11, 2013 2:47 pm

            Well said, BigPig.

            The combos with 40K now are insane and while Adam likes it, I don’t think he REALLY understand how crazy it can get. But, we always encourage spirited discussion.

      • Gordy December 11, 2013 9:01 am #

        I wouldn’t be too depressed about it. People need time to digest changes. The formations, as you’ve mentioned, are really just modified allies, so I personally don’t see what they add to the game other than a cheap money grab. Since there’s only a few right now, no big deal. If there are more, and it becomes a bigger part of the game, we can revisit the issue, but for now people haven’t figured out how to incorperate it into their game plan. Rerollable 2++ is gameruining bullshit that never should have happened, so no complaints from me there.

        No superheavies is a bit of a loss. Str D is also massive bullshit, bit the superheavies are otherwise fairly neat, but I don’t even know what the new superheavy rules are right now, so I’m ok with holding off on them. Not like Grey Knights get one anyways, and I’m not a big fan of the revenant titan look for my eldar. So, again, if they become a bigger part of the game, I’m al for revisiting the issue for, say, the BAO.

        • Adam December 11, 2013 9:21 am #

          People do need time to digest changes, that’s for sure. And I’d be totally stoked and 1000% supportive if Reece came out and said, “The LVO 40k Championships will not allow Escalation or Stonghold Assault because it is too NEW, but you better be ready for them by the next BAO where they will be used in the 40k Championships.”

          I’m just worried that if done democratically, nobody will vote for change unless they directly have something to benefit from it, because honestly, that’s not what people do. I think the vote to disallow Be’Lakor totally show this, nobody is calling him OP, the internet is not all in rage because of him, but really, there are many more players who are not getting character Data Sheets, so what do they feel the need to vote in favor of them? People vote all the time for what benefits them and don’t care about the repercussions it has in the world around them, anyone who follows politics can tell you that.

          • Gordy December 11, 2013 6:05 pm

            Well, as Reece has mentioned elsewhere, they pushed Forgeworld, and eventually people decided to accept it. They didn’t allow it until the attendees were ok with it, and now it’s fully legal not just in the BAO/LVO, but a lot of other tournaments are beginning to allow it as well.

          • Adam December 12, 2013 4:46 pm

            If he didn’t push it, people wouldn’t have accepted it. 😉

      • Fulcrum December 11, 2013 2:18 pm #

        Most competitive versions of publicly played activities, be it a game or sport or anything really, use a modified version of rules to mold the rules into a more even field for all the competitors. Why are you so married to GW’s canon of rules? They are writing rules & releasing models to make profit, not with competition in mind. Why does a player not playing a known top tier dex not have the right to expect to be able to compete?

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 7:30 am #

      Dakka was the warm up poll. I asked them questions that wouldn’t even come up for our specific event because I was just curious. This was sent to all of our paid attendees.

      • Adam December 11, 2013 7:32 am #

        Weird, do you know what % responded? I didn’t even get it.

        • Reecius December 11, 2013 7:36 am #

          We got over a 50% response rate, and I announced that we sent it out on the podcast twice. Check your spam folder? I sent it to the email addresses we collected from everyone that they entered into our site when they paid.

          • Adam December 11, 2013 7:51 am

            Hmm… Weird, anyhow, my 1 vote wouldn’t have changed much. 🙂

            The problem is how you ask the questions though. It’s my job to interview people to gain their feedback, without them being able to give any form of bias answer (ideally). You can never do that by asking a direct question, because people have an extremely strong tendency to answer in the way that best suits their needs, or they give the popular answer so they are part of the in-crowd, or they even try to give the answer that they think the question asker is looking for! Conducting a good user interview is quite tricky.

            Assuming you asked your answers directly (similar to how they were written on Dakka), the results are obvious. People don’t want to rock the boat, they have no incentive whatsoever to vote in favor of things, unless they themselves are using it. Had you taken a direct vote to allow FW, not only would your events not have FW, but all the other events that followed your lead would have probably also banned it. People do not want to swallow the bitter pill, and rarely actually are able to provide unbiased feedback when asked directly. That combined with the culture of 40k on the internet, it is absolutely no shock that people gave negative answers to every question you asked. Vote to allow 2++ re-rolls? Sure, I’ll say no, now I don’t have worry about it when writing my list. Vote to allow Escalation? Nope, now I don’t need to worry about heavy armour… Etc.

            I had a lot of respect for you when you stood up to the internet community and defended your position on FW.

          • Reecius December 11, 2013 8:38 am

            Dude, haha, did you read the article? You keep asking questions that were directly addressed in it.

            We didn’t ask about FW because we already know the answer. Out attendees overwhelmingly support FW. I didn’t ask any questions about topics that I already knew, this poll was just about new stuff. We never forced FW on the community, we waited until we had popular support and then we introduced it. My strategy in these things is to argue my point, try to persuade folks but then let them choose. If they agree and we get a majority, awesome! If not, I suck it up and deal with it. I am not, at all, here to impose my or FLG’s will on the 40K community.

            And yes, asking questions is tricky. But, this to me was the best solution available. I got direct feedback from those who are coming to the event on what they wanted.

            Try not to let your personal feelings on this get the better of you. People just weren’t ready for a big change this early. Going forward, as I stated multiple times, we are open to change.

          • Adam December 11, 2013 8:58 am

            I totally understand that you’re not wanting to affect the FLGS community, but it is an indirect consequence. By no means is that any fault of yours, just an observation.

            If you’re saying that after Escalation has been out for a little while and if after your testing you find out it’s not as bad as first thought, that you’d be willing to allow it back in, despite an ongoing negative opinion that the community has about it, then that is AWESOME! That is precisely what you did with FW (which is still banned in many places and still hated by a large portion of the community). Like you told people when you started allowing FW, it’s time for people to put on their big boy pants and deal with it.

            My personal feeling is more that I’d much rather play 40k as it’s written than having anyone else tell me how I’m supposed to enjoy it. I’ve mostly left that out though because it’s irrelevant, I honestly believe that Escalation really brings balance to the game, making heavy armour relevant again, and bringing hard counters to problems in the current meta, all that is said coming from the perspective of a CSM player, which may actually have the least to gain directly from Escalation.

            No hard feelings buddy, I don’t think ill of you in any way, I just have been touched in bad places by comp in Fantasy, which is what brought me back to 40k, and now I see that dirty uncle driving up in his van…

          • Reecius December 11, 2013 9:14 am

            I understand, man. But we had and still do have, a majority of folks in favor of FW. That isn’t even an issue. If we had a majority in favor of Lords of War, we would have gone forward with it! And I would have told the dissenters to deal with it, in the exact same way. I think you don’t understand the circumstances that led to us introducing FW. We argued for it for over a year before it got accepted by the majority and then we pushed it in.

            If that happens here, then right on! But I am not surprised by these results at all. We haven’t had time to play the new stuff to decide how we feel about it, yet. It is a shock.

            In time though, I do believe (again, as i said in the article) that there is a place for everything in the books. But you can’t play 40K as it lays right now, it is too chaotic. If someone shows up with a 1300 point Fort, how do you propose to event logistically play that? Take terrain off the board? Put it where? In the aisles of the tournament so it gets stepped on? Do you want D weapons showing up this early against people that have no clue what is coming at them and they never want to go to a tournament again?

            Patience. Show people how the stuff works and that it is no big deal. Let them come around on their own, don’t just shove it down their throats right away, it will only turn people off.

            Hahaha, and no, we won’t be using comp. Sure this nerf can be seen that way, but I don’t want to introduce elephant guns to swat flies.

          • SLAU December 12, 2013 12:09 pm

            One loud naysayer in a sea of supporters. Great job Reece I and many others appreciate you listening to the community on this.

          • Reecius December 12, 2013 12:30 pm

            Thank you, sir!

          • Adam December 12, 2013 1:19 pm

            SLAU, just because an opinion is popular doesn’t make it right. I’m not a nay-sayer, actually, I’m the person trying to bring out the positive in a sea of negative comments, many (though not all) made in ignorance.

            All I am speaking against is restricting. It is not fun to be told that you can’t bring the models you’ve spent your hard earned cash to buy, and hours of your time to build and paint. It is doubly not fun when you are told that due to people who people voting against you who have a vested interest in keeping what they own in the top tiers.

            Voting is the worst way to run a tournament, people are going to vote for what gives them the advantage they want. If I played a 2++ star, you bet I’d vote against any new things that may threaten that! If I don’t own the models to run any of the Data Slates, why would I vote in favor of them?

            As I’ve said repeatedly, I 100% support Reece in disallowing these new books in the LVO due to how new they are. I am totally against outright banning the new content in the long term though.

            Finally GW releases 2 books that add stuff to EVERY army, something which people have asked for many times. Only to have that quashed by people who make ignorant comments about how unkillable something is (seriously, Super Heavies are not that hard to kill).

            Do Stompas, Tiger Sharks, Lords of Skulls and Baneblades make the game un-fun? Hell no! Does the Revenant? Maybe, especially against some builds or players who haven’t or refused to adapt. Don’t spoil the fun of the community at large just because of one bad egg.

  11. EvilLairChandler December 11, 2013 8:11 am #

    While it’s good to see you guys and FoB taking actions to try and bring some measure of balance to the game, I’m not for the 2++/4++ re-roll. Now, let me preface this by saying I’ve not paid, nor do I plan to come to the Vegas Open. Too far to travel and too much money to spend unfortunately. That said, if you wish to simply skip down past my comment, I won’t begrudge you.

    I think it should be as FoB. Ban the Grimoire of True Names outright. Why? Well, let’s look at how Wizards does it with Magic. When they release a set of cards for Magic, if it’s determined that a specific card “breaks” the competitive scene they restrict/ban it. They don’t say “oh you can play this card, however if you do so it does x instead of y effect.” The same should be true of 40k. We shouldn’t be in the business of making rules IMO. The Grimoire is what makes the screamer star ridiculous. Ban that wargear rather than change a rule.

    Deamons players will argue “that makes our army unplayable.” No, it doesn’t. It keeps you from being the rape train with no brakes. Still competitive, however.

    I think changing and/or bending rules in tourney formats is a slippery slope. If a wargear or combo makes the game that unbalanced, do like Wizards and ban the wargear. Don’t change the rule. Just my take on it.

    • Brendan December 11, 2013 8:50 am #

      The issue with only addressing the Grimoir is that it solves only one of the 2+ re-roll armies…and the weaker one at that.

      So you ban the Grimoir…how does that hurt seercouncil?

      • EvilLairChandler December 11, 2013 10:56 am #

        Banning the Grimoire was just one idea and my post obviously wasn’t intended to cover all the broke shit in competitive 40k. It was merely one example of my point, which is to ban certain wargear, units, or whatever, rather than changing the way a rule mechanic itself works.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 8:52 am #

      The change we proposed was not just for invuls saves but ANY 2+ saves.

      The thing is though, that banning the Grimoire doesn’t fix the bigger issue. All that does is nerf on army, and honestly, only a small amount of problem units (Screamerstar and Fateweaver, really). Even just a 2+ invul on it’s own isn’t that bad. It’s the reoll that makes it 6 times more powerful. Daemons on their own are 100% manageable and while a very strong codex, isn’t unbeatable at all.

      The Seercouncil is not impacted by the change you propose at all and it is BY FAR the more powerful deathstar. It is significantly better than the Screamerstar. It has a 2+ Invul, armor and cover save available to it and it is on the rise in the tournament scene.

      Changing the rules is a slippery slope and honestly, we hate doing stuff like this. However, a 2+ reroll save creates an essentially invincible unit. That is not fun. We decided as a group it would be more fun to have a unit that could be hurt (although a 2+/4+ is still ridiculously durable).

      Time will tell if we made the right choice.

      • EvilLairChandler December 11, 2013 10:47 am #

        True. With seerstar I’m not sure what the answer is. To be honest and/or fair about seerstar, while it is an invincible unit, it is also incredibly expensive to field (at least to have the best chance to get fortune which is what makes the unit work.) How to address that? I’m not sure. Perhaps ban the unit as a whole? I know that seems over the top, but is it really? Like, if you take a warlock on a jetbike he must be attached to a unit of guardians, dire avengers, or a jetbike squad. Rather than a ton of warlocks together in their own unit.

        And while the Grimoire by itself doesn’t make screamerstar, it certainly is the key element you can guarantee yourself to make the combo work. Banning it simply makes the unit rely on fateweaver and forewarning, which is not bad at all.

        But I’m glad to see the big GT organizers taking steps to prevent this from becoming a horrible game to play competitively. These super combo deathstar units require very little skill to run, and basically comes down to, oh you’re playing let’s say Grey Knights today? Well, I’m running seer council. I win. Why even play the game? I know lots of people are probably not down with the idea of going to and traveling/paying for a big GT just to face 4 or 5 eldar, Daemon, Tau, or Taudar armies and getting their teeth kicked in simply because they have a net list that you can’t kill.

        At least these will encourage people to maybe attend and play in these large tourneys when it becomes less about how to out-dick your opponent and more about how to use skill to win the game like it is supposed to be.

        • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:36 pm #

          You said it, it’s about making the game more enjoyable to play for the most people. That’s what we’re trying to do. Not everyone will agree with all of it, but I think we can all agree to some compromise in order to come together and play as a group.

    • rpricew December 11, 2013 8:58 am #

      It’s not the Grimoire by itself…It’s the Grimoire, with Forewarning with Fateweaver’s re-roll that takes it over the top.

      • Reecius December 11, 2013 8:59 am #

        And the MoT for the reroll 1’s. That is the Devil’s brew!

        • Gordy December 11, 2013 9:17 am #

          You mean Phil Kelly’s special sauce?

          • Reecius December 11, 2013 9:18 am


  12. Tangentical December 11, 2013 8:21 am #

    I read that more were in favour (about 10) than against (about 5) the character dataslates or have I read that graph wrong (that one seems a bit confusing without the actual question and answers next to it).

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 8:23 am #

      You read that bit right, but that majority vote was no to all of them by a large margin.

  13. Sean Ireland December 11, 2013 8:56 am #

    I know I’m the minority here, but I don’t think the endgame of screwing with the game has been brought up.

    GW isn’t going to ruin 40k, the players will. Once you start asking people what they want in the game and what they don’t there will be no true consensus and 40k as a game will lose its ability to be played across geographic regions. Some will want this and not that, or that and not this. 40k isn’t a salad bar. Rulings to define unclear rules is helps the game, legislating the game as a whole is going to have damaging effects because there is no way to apply it.

    • Adam December 11, 2013 9:02 am #

      I could not have said this better my self. People are going to vote against what they don’t use, democratically voting on what’s going to be allowed or not is not going to work in the long term. This is how ETC was born.

      • Gordy December 11, 2013 9:24 am #

        Don’t forget that many communities have massively strict comp, and have for not just years but decades. Making two fairly minor tweaks is far from the end of the world. If those tweaks become as much of a problem as the things they are trying to fix are, then no problem, we’ll ditch them. But contrary to your claim that comp will drive people away, I’ve already seen people quit the hobby because they think all this new stuff is bull. Don’t accuse others of having a kneejerk reactions when a very limited and carefully thought out comp tweak comes out and your first reaction is ‘COMP?NOOOOOOOOOAAAAARRRRFGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!”
        I mean, i can understand the reaction, since Reece and I and a lot of other people I know have put up with a lot of stupid comp rules before, but just keep that in mind.

        • Adam December 11, 2013 1:33 pm #

          Totally not the end of the world, I agree. But why stop at 2++ re-rolls? There are tons of things that aren’t fun to play against in the game. I don’t particularly like fighting the Swarmord, should it get nerfed? I also don’t think that there is any way that GW intended IC’s to be able to join Riptides only because they have the option to take a couple special drones, so can we ban that too?

          • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:37 pm

            Hyperbole is a poor man’s debating tool, Sir!

          • Adam December 12, 2013 10:33 am

            But no, seriously Reece, why are we allowing the Tide-star? That’s just as un-fun and really only uses a loophole in the rules to accomplish.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 9:03 am #

      True, which is why we have never done anything like this before. However, 40K as it stands with no modifications right now, is unplayable in an organized setting. I mean that literally. We HAVE to change things now, our hand has been forced. If you were to play fully unrestricted 40K, right out of all of the various rules supplements, the game would be so unwieldy, long, and chaotic you could never get it done in a tournament setting.

      The changes we have proposed are very restricted: 2 changes.

      And the game is fragmenting on the organized scene. That is already done. I and others tried to move as a group to get all the TOs on the same page in regards to rules changes (if any), what to use, etc. but no one could agree and everyone is going their own way. Every event is going to be different. They already were, but now the differences will be more pronounced.

      I think in time it will come back together but right now everyone has wildly different opinions on what to do. Those of us who had to make a choice because of timing are simply the first ones out of the gates.

      • Adam December 11, 2013 9:11 am #

        Well, my issue with calling it “unplayable in an organized setting” is that it hasn’t been tested in an organized setting. I’d much rather see a tournament run with it allowed, the revenant ends up in first through 10th place, then go yeah, maybe it should change… Though if that’s the case, then the seer/screamer/tide-stars should have been nerfed long ago.

        I’m glad that while you’re stopping Destroyer weapons from entering the game (and sadly even every other super heavy), you’re also nerfing the 2++ re-roll, but why not also stop the tide-star? That’s just as un-fun to play against and is relying on the idea that drones were intended to allow characters to join a Riptide, which I’m sure we can all probably agree was not what was intended by giving it the option shielded missile drones.

        • Fulcrum December 11, 2013 2:37 pm #

          Dude come on. You are not the TO here. You want FLG to jeopardize their event for testing purposes? The onus is on them to try to make the event as enjoyable as possible for as many people as possible. That why they are running the event. If they did what you suggest they could possibly alienate a lot of average players who may or may not come next year or attend other events based on their experience. They are not throwing this event to crown a champion, it just happens to be the end result of a great weekend of fun gaming for everyone involved. That’s the difference in mindset between those of us who put in the massive amounts of work to run events of any size.

        • Reecius December 11, 2013 4:56 pm #

          Yeah, it is untested. That’s the point! I don’t want to test it at the LVO! haha, you’re arguing that we should go against the overwhelming majority and force something that in my limited experience is grossly OP on our tournament goers when they weren’t planning on it being there? Adam, hahaha, you have to realize that is a poor choice. In the future, maybe, but not in the LVO with a huge financial risk attached to it.

          • Adam December 11, 2013 5:24 pm

            Hey, I’ve said a few times, don’t allow it at the LVO, but it should definitely be allowed by the next BAO!

            PS – when should i come to the shop to test some beerhammer with you guys? 😀

          • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:37 pm

            Come by next weekend, maybe?!

      • Sean Ireland December 11, 2013 9:58 am #

        I remember a conversation after Da Grand Waagh 2011 that I had with Usi, Will, and Frankie about how ridiculous the comp was because it didn’t make any sense to us. The same thing true back then is true today.

        Anytime the meta of a game is severely tweaked by players, even with the best intentions, you change the game in a way not everyone agrees with. That is bad for the game. If there was one body to make changes, like in professional sports it would be fine, what the hobby community has is a hodge podge of different parties that won’t agree. The changes when not applied in a uniform manner will some crazy consequences. 40k’s strength is it’s globally large playing base. Fragmenting that further can’t be good for the game as whole.

        • Adam December 11, 2013 1:35 pm #


          Changing rules of the game and restricting/banning units are all forms of comp, even if it’s not a direct comp score. The goal of these changes is to affect the outcome of the tournament, exactly the purpose of a comp score.

          People complained about the 2++ re-roll being impossible to kill. GW came out with a book that gives literally every army (except Nids) a weapon which can mitigate that.

        • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:38 pm #

          Sean, seriously, come play the rules as is this weekend and I will show you how extreme this has become. You are comparing 5th ed to 6th ed with Titans!! Hahaha, it’s not even the same game.

      • bugsculptor December 11, 2013 1:56 pm #

        Well, at least this is the straw that broke the camel’s back. If it took D weapons to get a good ruling on 2++ rerollables, that’s a pretty big turnaround from watching Frankie’s harlie star go cheese dicking across the table for months.

        I think what you’re proposing for the LVO will work just fine and should result in a fun tournament for everyone involved.

        Having said that, I’m also curious what would happen if you just slapped the D out on the table and let people deal with it.

    • Fulcrum December 11, 2013 2:30 pm #

      I think you are wrong. GW will & is in the process of ruining competitive 40k.

    • Trueknight December 11, 2013 7:35 pm #

      Thinking that GW isn’t going to ruin 40k is simply naive… I’ve been a GW defender for a very, very long time. But this D-Weapon and 2++ is re-roll is BS. GW stopped caring about the balance of the game, and is full hard on cash grabbing by allowing lords of war into the game. They’ve stopped worrying about the game.

      A good example is back in the day, you used to need opponents permission to run a special character (1 rule that I sorely miss), but GW didn’t sell enough of the higher priced models so they changed the permission requirement.

      I totally agree that this is a slippery slope and should be managed with the highest of care. But it is crazy to think that Escalation is not broken. You say take a balanced TAC list…well I would think that would have what 1-2, maybe 3? long range anti-tank units? Well what happens if the Revenant goes first and blows up those 3 units with no recourse? Then you’re screwed. Let’s be honest here. If you want to deal with a revenant, you essentially need to build your list to defeat it.

  14. BBF December 11, 2013 9:00 am #

    Reecius – Mark my words changing the 2++ is going to set a bad precedent… they results of the poll do not strongly support this. If you do this it will really hurt truly competitive 40k. You should not let your own opinions-feelings dictate what should be a purely logical decision.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 9:08 am #

      The polls actually do strongly support it, hahaha, what numbers are you looking at? There’s a clear majority in opinion.

      And I have thought about it, trust me, we don’t want to change the rules. However, as a tournament organizer that has had to watch this stuff play out time and again, I believe this was the right call. Competitive 40K will be better for it, IMO and we see that the community largely agrees.

    • Gordy December 11, 2013 9:30 am #

      I’ve never heard anyone but Daemon players ever claim that the 2+ rerollable is not a big deal, and most of them admit it’s bullshit.

    • Fulcrum December 11, 2013 2:40 pm #

      The sky is falling!

      What poll are you looking at? He’s not using his own feelings, he is using the opinions of the people that are paying to attend the event & staying at the hotel.

      • Reecius December 11, 2013 4:57 pm #

        Thank you for pointing that out! haha

  15. BBF December 11, 2013 9:03 am #

    Next you will ban something else… whatever you might hate next to release .

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 9:06 am #

      I may just ban you! Muahahaha!!!

      And again, I didn’t ban anything, the community voted on what they want. And again, this is where we’re at now, we are open to change but we had to make some choices.

  16. Frenchy December 11, 2013 9:12 am #

    I’m going to say, for the sake of argument that the tournament players are going in overly cautious. I am going to further assert that it is because they haven’t read on the internet their opinions yet. I feel like the net decker, the spam hugger, the min maxer, the WAACer all get their grocery list from a few brilliant minds on the inner webs and then scatter to make copy cat lists. Even when it means abandoning an army and make anew! (i.e. daemon update that made flamers sell…urr uhhh powerful) so since they were given a poll and weren’t able to see the forest for the trees, panic choose for them. Still it was a good thing to do, poll those who purchase. There is no meta for any of these issues other than the grimoire, which is probably why feast of blades hammered it. The others, although assumptions can be made about the “D” haven’t been proven to be uber yet. I mean Be’lakor is neat and cool but not at all has he been scrutinized on the table to warrant the hammer. It’s just knee jerk scarecrows who haven’t been told how to beat him yet by the internet. Just my two cents.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 9:22 am #

      You are a bit harsh in your views, but I agree that people are reacting to their lack of knowledge. That is 100% fair. It’s easy to talk tough online about what should or should not be done when you don’t have anything at risk. When you have taken vacation time, bought a plane ticket and got a hotel reservation, painted your army, etc. it is fair to say you want what you signed up for.

      So again, as I have said numerous times here today, this is just a slice of time in the overall picture and things can and will change as we go.

      For now we are gong to roll with what we know, and then reassess things as we learn more about this new game we’re playing.

  17. Hotsauceman1 December 11, 2013 9:41 am #

    By two sources what do you mean in terms of supplements? IS supplements counting towards that?

    • Fulcrum December 11, 2013 2:45 pm #

      I’m pretty sure he means you can have a primary detachment & 1 other detachment/formation. That’s it. So no Eldar primary/ SM allied/ Inq detachment/ Tau dataslate formation.

  18. jadedknight December 11, 2013 9:51 am #

    I would have been very curious to see how army of choice influenced this voting. Especially the one about number of allies.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 4:58 pm #

      We can do that on the exit poll.

      • mercutioh December 11, 2013 9:18 pm #

        Reece, I think we both know that I fall on the side of Frontline fanboi, but honestly I think Adam may be right in this situation. You’ve played a game that everyone is referencing as the end all be all final answer on Escalation and thus all the other changes that have been incorporated for the LVO.

        It’s a bit early to have a final decree on any of this but unfortunately given the snap judgement that is being handed down(not just by you guys) we may never get to see the other side of the story and Escalation and Stronghold assault may never see the light of day based on these decisions.

        FLGS are going to reference this and a cool idea is potentially dead in the water without having been fully tested in a tourney environment.

        You had pointed out that Hyperbole is the poor mans debate tool. I would counter that small sample size is in that same toolbox.

        Even the exit poll will only show whether people were happy with choices they made. There can’t be another opinion as they didn’t experience what could have been.

        I hope it works out for you as I just enjoy the hell out of seeing a dude succeed when chasing their dream but this one has me nervous.

        • Callofdoobie December 11, 2013 9:41 pm #

          I don’t agree with some of the choices they’re making (2++ reroll and dataslate ban), but the argument that “FLGS are going to reference this….” is just silly. Are you seriously putting the responsibility of what every FLGS does on Reece and co? lol. He specifically pointed out these rulings where only for the LVO (not their standard games) and are experimental.

          Friendly games rarely (if ever) reference tournament rulings for rule debates. I recall at the beginning of 6th there was a tournament that ruled Drop Pods lost a hull point the turn they came in cause they “count as immobilized” everyone at my FLGS laughed it off as the most ridiculous thing we ever heard and kept playing.

          Friendly games are just that, friendly. For example, I run Burning Chariots of Tzeentch at my FLGS all the time, my friends let me move 12″ and shoot with them or DS and shoot with them even though i technically can’t due to(what we all agreed was) a terrible design flaw. I’m no more likely to find a tournament that will let me do this than you are to have your friendly games impacted by Frontline’s rulings. I get the guys are smart players and listening to their suggestions is mostly good, but that statement you made is just ridiculous.

        • Reecius December 11, 2013 11:24 pm #

          I think you overestimate our influence =)

          However, again, this isn’t dead. As I have said many times we are open to using this stuff just not his soon without having tried it out further. We have already found some disgusting combos in there and who knows how many more there are. It’s too soon and we have too much at risk to ride this one out.

          • Adam December 12, 2013 10:36 am

            I absolutely prefer the stance of, it’s too soon to the LVO to allow Escalation and Stronghold Assault. I really hate the stance of “LOL, go look at our battle report, Revenants = win 100% of every game ever!”

            Hope that comes off more teasing than shitty, you know me, I ain’t shitty. 😀

  19. Bigpig December 11, 2013 9:53 am #

    Well done. A good survey with pretty solid results. You are smart to respond the way you are. While it is arguable that SOME of the votes could be coming from a lack of experience with the impact of the product saying it is all fearful net listers knee jerking is a little OTT. With only two months to the event, a change which amounts to making the game a form of mini apoc is a lot to ask of the attendees. People want to play the game they signed up for, not a different game with the same name.

    What many of the detractors forget is that the TOs have a significant stake in the success of these events. It’s a hobby for me, but a livelihood for FLG. The to has a stake in making this a fun and enjoyable event for the bulk of the community attending. Especially with this being year one of LVO. You are smart to seek and respond to the desires of the community, even if there may eventually be changes as people see what is tenable and what is ridiculous.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:41 pm #

      Thanks, Bigpig, appreciate the vote of confidence. It is easy to sit on the sidelines for some, and be a critic when they have no skin in the game. It is entirely different when you are in the position we are.

      The event is going to be a blast, these changes keep it in line with what people wanted.

  20. Jonathan December 11, 2013 10:12 am #

    Reecius – I started playing 40k back in April and though I am new to the game I wanted you to know that I am really impressed by your caution and push for wisdom in light of all the new changes to the game. This thread of comments makes clear just how divided the community is, and understandably so. I, too, would hate it if my list was being threatened. Sometimes it seems like people become overly attached to a particular list or a particular idea about game purity, and can’t see the forest for the trees. To me it comes down to a few simple ideas:

    1) GW is in the model business, not the tournament business
    2) GW makes rules for two purposes – a) to sell models; b) so that players can let their imaginations run wild and play games of all different sizes, styles, lengths, configurations, etc., because it’s FUN to do that sort of thing in casual environments!

    Combing Numbers 1 and 2a is, to me, the issue at hand. Because GW isn’t designing tournaments, it falls on the shoulders of the TO to be the bad guy and set reasonable boundaries for tournament play. As you mentioned, it’s not just the new books/dataslates/etc. TO’s determine terrain, table set up, mission packets, etc. All the new rules are great for casual play – the Revenant/Daemons batrep was hilarious – but not necessarily for tournaments. Setting reasonable boundaries now and testing the new rules in smaller tournaments is incredibly wise.

    I hope the LVO goes well. Maybe someday I’ll be able to go to one of your events. I guess all of this is to say that I’m with you on this one – patience, perspective, wisdom, and collaboration are going to be the name of the tournament game going forward.

    • Fulcrum December 11, 2013 3:16 pm #

      Well said!

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:43 pm #

      Thanks for the support, Jonathon! We really appreciate it.

      And you said it, we have to shape the events we play in. GW certainly isn’t going to do it!

      And yes, patience and collaboration are the key, here.

  21. Jonathan December 11, 2013 10:13 am #

    Whoops. I meant, COMBINING numbers 1 and 2b!

  22. Scott December 11, 2013 10:26 am #

    So just to clarify, these are not only survey results, but final standards for the upcoming LVO? i.e. we can start finalizing lists/models around these?

    More importantly, I only care about the multiple codices per army list. Is it restricted to 2 codices per army list (i.e. Codex Inquisition counts as your allies slot)?


    • Reecius December 11, 2013 12:38 pm #

      Yes, this is what will be in the final draft of our tournament guidelines.

      Only 2 sources per list, that means yes you can use Inquisiton, but not it, a primary and an ally. I worded it this way in case people voted in Data Slates which are also outside the FoC chart.

  23. 6thstreetAlan December 11, 2013 10:36 am #

    I actually agree with a lot of things that Adam says regarding the art of asking questions and how questioning how accurate these polls are we send out to the masses. Closemindedness is really the issue here. I doubt that 90% of the people that responded to the poll played with any of the new things. But Frontline has put the cash and time to make this successful so what they are doing is in their best interest and %100 the best approach.

    Someone asked me do I think that GW cares about making a balanced game? No, they just want the cash.

    – However, the meta of tournament play will become balanced when there are more moving pieces. Following the poll responses I can almost guarantee that there will be an abundance of Tau and Eldar at LVO. I understand the meta and I get how things change based of rulings.

    These simplifications to make your world smaller only bring uniform and discourage diversity. How is that fun for the hobby? Would I rather see tournaments like the NOVA have 70% Tau/ Eldar players or would I rather see titians and crazy big things and variety?

    Ultimately my opinion really doesn’t matter. I will support Frankie and Reece with any and all tournaments they run because they are my friends and I wish them the best. I have been ranting about LVO to everyone and literally telling people to book at bally’s or I will junk punch them. And I already junk punched Malave….. I am going to be in attendance no matter what the rules set is. Oh I also told a bunch of people to not buy a badge…..

    In the last thread someone asked me do I have a limit? Is there a point where I tap out?

    The answer to that is: Probably not, I look at the game a lot different then the majority of players and I do a lot of work analyzing the meta. Because in my opinion your list is 100% going to affect your success at a tourney. Knowing your army and how to play with it is 50% and knowing all your opponents armies and strategies is the other 50%. Its like a game within the game and escalation / stronghold/ datasheets/ what ever add-ons all make that game more fun and complex…

    With this poll and these rules changes its almost child’s play for me to figure out what I feel is the best approach to the LVO. With all the addons even someone as obsessed as me could miss something. Going to the ETC and being in Europe all August I missed out on the Farsight Codex and it hurt at the NOVA when I was introduced to O’vesa Star. That was fun for me to on the fly try to beat it and come up with a strategy even though I lost against Justin in Semi-Finals.

    Overall I am cool with what ever the community decides to implement and I will still come with my game face and positive attitude to meet knew people and have a really good time…. Plus I am not going to be taking the LVO too competitive more fun cause its Vegas and the Sweed’s are gonna be rooming with me!

    • Adam December 11, 2013 11:08 am #

      Oh I totally agree, I don’t want to sound like I’m not going to the LVO, I’m absolutely going, I’m just less optimistic about the 40k championships as I was. Fortunately, I’ll be running Beerhammer 40k, so I can just drink my sorrows away.

      PS – Sign up for Beerhammer or I’ll punch you!

      Reece, are you going to be allowing the new Tyranid codex that hits next month? I desperately hope so, but if 2 months isn’t enough time to respond to a new book, is 1 month? :-/

      • Pascal Roggen December 11, 2013 1:47 pm #

        I’m sure they will allow it, everyone’s been wanting a change in the Nids codex and if he released a poll I’m pretty sure about 95% of peeps at lest would say yeah allow it:).
        people don’t’ jerk as hard when it’s just an update rather than entirely new rules/concepts/stuff they haven’t bought/invested in yet;P

    • Fulcrum December 11, 2013 3:05 pm #

      That was me. I think the “meta game” discourages diversity. Once people figure out whats the best combo, that’s what you see. A level playing field is what encourages diversity. You’re realy going out on a limb there guaranteeing lots of Tau & Eldar eh? You think it would be different if everything were allowed? We’d see a bunch of thunderhawks & giant khorne berzerkers with treads? How about sisters, would we see a bunch of them? I think you are being close minded. If everything were allowed we would still see tons of eldar & tau. It would just be lots of revenants with allied tau formations & lots of 3 man jetbike squads, YAY! I say that the best players are not the ones that find the best combination of units to put on a piece of paper & I think because of these changes you will see less of the 2++ deathstars, which will mean more enjoyable tactical games for a broader range of people. A truly skilled player finds an army he likes & makes it work. What you are encouraging is army hopping to whatever is the next best thing.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:08 pm #

      Thanks for the feedback, Alan and the support. It is appreciated.

      End of the day: We’re all going to be having a lot of fun!

  24. Tiber55 December 11, 2013 11:16 am #

    I agree that the changes are 100% resonable and come from a good place in that your trying to postively affect your tournament.

    I also empathize with the fact the the new books/datasheet drops (rewriting of core game mechanics like ignoring force org) were way to close the tournament to allow them in.

    I just hope you never have to resort / never use a poll again to determing tournament rules as they are basically completely invalid due to bias.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:06 pm #

      Thanks for the support and as for polls? They’re the best tool I have in my arsenal to determine player opinion.

  25. BBF December 11, 2013 11:45 am #

    60% for change to re rollable 2++, 20% undecided and 40% against… that is not a clear majority by any means.

    • winterman December 11, 2013 12:08 pm #

      The chart is not a percentage, that’s number of votes. So Just over 50% said they were for such a change. That is a clear majority — just not an overwhelming one.

      I personally wouldn’t change the game with those numbers (especially since people signed up knowing 2++ reroll was in play) but its not up to me.

      • Anon December 11, 2013 12:40 pm #

        That’s a great point. What about the people that singed up and bought tickets not knowing you were going to change actual game rules?

        Not allowing certain things is one thing, but you are now straight up changing rules.

        • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:05 pm #

          Yes, we are. But we straight up changed a ton of rules, already. Just as every single tournament I know of does. Most tournaments don’t use book rules for placing terrain, or mysterious terrain or objectives, or missions, or whatever. Almost every event changes rules. Almost every game changes rules for competition.

          • Chuck December 11, 2013 9:58 pm

            The difference in this case though, is that those rule changes (Placement of terrain, mysterious terrain, missions, etc) are rules changes that are known before people sign up for the tournament.

            In the case of the 2+ reroll, you are changing the rules of the game less than 2 months before the tournament, when people signed up several months ago knowing that it is a part of the game and preparing for it.

            While I agree that the rerollable 2+ save likely wasn’t intended, changing significant rules (that impact what armies people play, and play against) so close to the tournament is a problem IMO.

            Also, hiding behind the “it’s what the people want” thing on the poll is a bit disingenuous, because you could have done the same thing at the beginning of 6th edition by sending out a poll seeing if people wanted to change flyers to only needing a 5+ to hit, instead of a 6+, and probably would have gotten overwhelming support for it. But you didn’t do that, nor did you send out a poll asking if people wanted to change the rule so that ICs can’t join Riptides, or if people wanted to change wave serpents, or any of a million different “rules changes” that you could have asked about, and probably gotten support for.

          • Reecius December 11, 2013 11:20 pm

            True, but I didn’t feel the 2+ reroll issue (as much as I hated it) was worth addressing until now. Honestly the catalyst was all this crazy shit that had come out recently (and not just with me either, all the TO’s are talking about it) and it got the ball rolling on breaking the taboo on rules changes which ironically I was a part of bringing up in the change we went through during 5th ed.

            I am not hiding behind anything, I don’t know where you got that impression. I openly advocate for this and am glad it went through, I put it on the ballot (after a lot of thought) and I am ultimately responsible for putting it in the rules, packet, which I am going to do. I take responsibility for this, but it is supported by our community.

            As for the other issues? I really dislike the Buffmander and such too, but we narrowed it down to one, single, lame ass rule that was ubiquitous. We don’t want to change the rules if at all possible and we decided that this was as far as we wanted to go.

          • Chuck December 12, 2013 1:26 am

            Fair enough, it just seems that the 2+ Reroll issue was tacked on in a somewhat haphazard way, that seems to be at odds with the rest of the changes. Why is it just now that the issue has to be adapted, when it’s existed since the release of the Daemon and Eldar codexes? It seems like it’s an issue now because people have started to use it and it’s becoming popular, so it appears to be essentially punishing people for coming up with good list synergies (i.e. if it was something obvious that everyone knew about, why did it take so long to become an issue?).

            As I said in the previous post, my problem is with the timing more than anything, changing fundamental rules that can be the basis of someone’s list (that they may have been working on for months both in paint and list testing) with a month and a half until the tournament just seems like the wrong way to go about it. On the flipside, the escalation stuff and formations haven’t been out long enough for people to have been spending months planning / building / painting / testing their lists with them included, so banning them for this tournament won’t have as big an impact, since nobody signed up expecting the game to work a certain way.

            As for the comment about hiding, I guess I just got that impression because many of your responses to people like Adam and others in this thread who are against rules changes are basically “Well that’s just what people want for this tournament,” instead of “That’s what I decided as the TO because *reasons* and most people agree so I feel justified in applying these.” It’s a minor difference, but the first makes it seem like the people are the ones who implemented these changes, not the organizers.

            All that said, I’m still attending and appreciate the ridiculous amount of work that goes into organizing a tournament of this level, and especially dealing with game-changing (literally! lol) decisions like this on such short notice. I don’t want to seem like this is a bunch of personal attacks, I disagree with the decision (even though I don’t play an army that could even pull off a 2+ reroll), but I respect you and the fact that either way people aren’t going to like it.

      • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:05 pm #

        Do you enjoy having 2+ reroll saves in the game?

        • winterman December 11, 2013 9:40 pm #

          My enjoyment of the game right now is more about and who I play and less about what they are playing. If someone I regularly play rocked the 2+ reroll we’d just end up at the bar quicker and hopefully I learned a thing or two despite getting rolled up or having to deal with the silliness of said unit.

          But hey I played bugs all through 5ed where the ubiquitous rune priest did the D to my big bugs all the time. Never once considered banning it or asking to have it banned, even if on occasion it sucked the fun out of the game.

          But my enjoyment or any one persons enjoyment is not my original point. 50% of your attendees are for the change but 33% are against — and 100% of them paid assuming there was no change. So in other wards not one person felt strongly enough about 2+ rerollable to stay away but 33% are potentially put out by a change that was not advertised until now. That’s not an insignificant number to me, especially since the event has long been advertised, rooms booked, flights purchased and time off requested.

          This isn’t a dig on the event or your decision, nor am I saying this has any affect on my interest in attending or suppor of what you guys are doing. Just my POV on the timing and numbers. I think as far as the rules to allow/not allow you did the right thing in having a poll and I commend you guys for talking a tough situation with class. But the change to 2++, while it might be good for the game it seems too late to make such a change unless very few people said no.

          • Reecius December 11, 2013 11:32 pm

            I appreciate your position, and this would have been addressed sooner, but it wasn’t really on the radar until the shit hit the fan and we started rethinking the way we think about 40K.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 12:36 pm #

      Majority means largest in a set, or more than half. 63 of 125 is over half and it is the clear majority.

      the greater number.
      “in the majority of cases all will go smoothly”
      synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, best/better part, most, more than half;

      • Paul Cornelius December 11, 2013 1:06 pm #


      • Dr.insanotron December 11, 2013 4:17 pm #

        True but you Reece have gone on record about changes to your event when it concerns FW , points level, round time, etc and have said time and time again that there would have to be a over whelming majority to change anything.

        So why the difference when it comes to these new releases. The pole doesn’t have anywhere close to an overwhelming majority

        • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:03 pm #

          63 votes for, 38 no. That is overwhelming! haha, 60% more people wanted it than didn’t.

          And we waited for a similar result before accepting FW.

          Look, the point here is that we are trying to make the game more enjoyable for more people. Ask yourself this: will you have less fun if this rule is in play?

          I understand all too well that some people don’t like this, but more people don’t like the game with it. That is reason for change in our view.

    • Bigpig December 11, 2013 3:35 pm #

      That’s 120%. I think those number are actually raw responses, so roughly 63 yes, 38 no, and 21 don’t care. That equates to roughly 52%, 31%, and 17%. The direction of our nation was decided by less 😉

  26. Adam December 11, 2013 2:54 pm #

    Hey, Reece. I think banning the books was a pretty good call so soon after the release. I hope you remain open, as you stated in your article, for changes in the future. I think that cherry-picking from both books actually makes the game better, especially some of the updates to the rules for the existing fortifications. If you have the time, I do suggest going over them again and seeing if you can do a *little* cherry picking now.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:09 pm #

      We’re totally open to that, no doubt.

      Thanks for the support!

  27. C.J. Young December 11, 2013 3:28 pm #

    Are the results of this poll official rulings for the LVO? If so this is hugely disappointing. I am in concurrence with much of the community but feel this poll represents a very reactionary and negative result form the community. I understand the Escalation ruling but does banning the entire Stronghold Assault book make scene? Again I understand banning the massive fortification because I can see how they make a tournament game lopsided but I fail to see how something like the wall of martyrs should not be allowed.

    Lastly, the fact that Inquisition counts as taking your only ally really sucks! Their can still be Tau/Tau and Taudar but no SM with IG and an Inquisitor? The Xenos books have a great edge in 40k right now and I feel the Inquisition book helped give Imperials a minor boost. I myself have been building a Forgeworld Pre-Heresy army for LVO to use with the SM codex because you guys allow Forgeworld (which I do love and thank you for). I was building it off of SM, IG and Inquisition but now will have to change this.

    Sorry to rant because I love you guys at Frontline and appreciate what you do for the hobby! However, it is frustrating to see a poll that kills so much of the game and invalidates my list.

    • Fulcrum December 11, 2013 3:46 pm #

      I think warbands are a good option for you. You can use guard type models to represent many warband model types. Although if you want to make them scoring you need Coteaz, who is bees knees anyway. Also give you access to a great flying transport. Alternatively you could go GK allies to be able to take everything from codex inquisition & have the option to use anything that may have been left out of codex inquisition. I like the idea of Coteaz in a bastion with TFC or something. Just brainstorming here…

      • C.J. Young December 11, 2013 4:15 pm #

        That’s a good idea, thanks! I am mostly frustrated because I love to create theme armies from the heresy and this ruling killed my main idea I was hoping to do.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:09 pm #

      Hey CJ, don’t take this is a permanent condition, this is just what the folks coming to Vegas want at Vegas. Things can and will change.

      • C.J. Young December 11, 2013 8:54 pm #

        Thanks Reecius! Hopefully, people will become more accepting of these things over time. Still looking forward to VEGAS!!!

        • Reecius December 11, 2013 11:22 pm #

          Nice, see you there!

          • Thomas Barnes December 12, 2013 1:25 am

            I too don’t think that ban on Primary/Ally/Inquisitor is very fair or accurate. A significant number of people said that they wanted unlimited army choices on the poll, and there was no “3 or less” option that people could choose if they just wanted to exclude dataslates. I really think Inquisitors are a fluffy edition to Imperial forces that’ve been sorely out-performed by Xenos in this edition, and are nowhere near as troublesome as, say, Broadside/Riptide dataslates.

  28. Grant Theft Auto December 11, 2013 3:29 pm #

    Congrats on the poll guys you all got what you wanted an overall easier game

    Thank god as a council player that’s all I got to say

    Now if I hear anyone bitch at me about tabling them with the council at a tournament I’ll just look at them and ask them if their army just got nerfed because some T.O decided to rewrite their rules based off unfairness

    You know what will happen, all the top players will go running back to Taudar for any frontline tournaments because honestly it’s the most powerful build now.

    Just when the meta was shifting away from shoot’em up armies like Taudar to armies that could withstand their firepower like a council does it shift right back

    • BBF December 11, 2013 4:19 pm #

      I ordered a mess of jetbikes today .

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 5:11 pm #

      Grant, you have every right to tell people not to bitch under these circumstances! Hahaha

      If Taudar wins, they win. We think the increased amount of terrain will help mitigate this, though.

      We’ll see. If you can’t win with a 2+ reroll though, homie, I don’t know what to say. You are a good player, you will get around it =)

    • bugsculptor December 11, 2013 5:55 pm #

      That 0.5+ armour and cover save is still pretty damn good Grant. 1/12 is better than a 3+ re-rollable, without being absolutely ridiculous.

      Your buddies on Team Comp have steered a sensible compromise for you here, revenants and the other superheavies would be curtains for the seer council if we were really playing with the full GW ruleset.

      Every goofy build has it’s day… and the day has come for 2++ re-rollable deathstars. Bravo.

    • Callofdoobie December 11, 2013 6:48 pm #

      This is my point exactly! All that 2++ reroll survey comes off as is people who played super shooty armies and didn’t want to run into their worst counter. Take Escalation and Stronghold as you take options from everyone equally, but why single out any armies strategy? A 2++ reroll is easy to get around (no I don’t use Screamerstar or a Seer Council) if you know what you’re doing……

      Screamerstar- Easy to tarpit, has a chance to fail every turn, killing fateweaver neuters it, kill all their troops cause they won’t have that many, etc

      Seer Council- Shoot everything but the council, shoot around Baron, shoot ignores cover weapons around Baron, tarpit it (harder to do than Screamerstar cause of hit and run),

      Misfortune will ruin both of their days as well.

      Again, I won’t even be there and I respect what the intent of their plan, but don’t be surprised if from now on people try to survey out any list they can’t find a way to beat. I would almost put money on it that during the LVO you get suggestions of at least five more things that are “unfun” and “need” to be modified.

      • Reecius December 11, 2013 7:08 pm #

        Dude, your solutions to the deathstars show that you have a very limited perspective on them. I promise you, while they are beatable, they are not so easily dispatched as you make it sound. Hahaha, I am seriously laughing as I write this. Not at you, not to put you down, but I hear these kinds of arguments often and it is clearly not be people who have first hand experience against these lists. There is a reason the a lot of the best players in the world are switching to these armies: they have an incredible advantage. And misfortuning them is not nearly so easy to do as you suggest. Odds are that you won’t get it off on them. Anyway, I don’t want to get into a debate about this but I will say that as a hardcore tournament player who studies the meta and counter tactics, these armies are by a mile the most abusive and easy to win with in the game. More so than Taudar. They can take a carp due to not getting their powers, but when everything aligns, a monkey could win with them.

        And obviously the polls don’t represent such a narrow perspective. Everyone that voted was not a SAFH player and you must know that is silly to even suggest. The average player coming to our event is a normal dude, with a normal army. More than half of them are just sick of dealing with the 2+ reroll.

        • Callofdoobie December 11, 2013 8:09 pm #

          I promise you my perspective is far from limited =). I get you, I do, this debate has come up in my gaming group quite often since the Daemon and Eldar books. I’m not trying to downplay their potency, I have played against seer councils and screamerstar’s alike and yes I have got rolled by them (sometimes VERY badly) but I’ve beaten them as well (also sometimes VERY badly). Heck in one of your own videos Jy2 dismantles a Seer Council and then explains EXACTLY how to combat them. I’m not saying it will work every time. Yeah sometimes they will go first, go Super Saiyan, and dismantle you. Just like sometimes you will get nuked by Riptides, Skyrays, and Broadsides. Just like sometimes you go against ‘Nids and their Flyrants and Tervi’s all get Iron Arm. There have been a lot of armies “a monkey could win with”; leaf blower guard and Draigowings in 5th, Flyer ‘Crons and Daemons at the beginning of 6th but none of them were modified. Had Escalation been released say, after the CSM book, what would of happened? If you had taken a survey then most people would of probably been for limiting flyers and flying MC’s to 2 or 3 per army, would that have really been fair though or would it be just catering to the vocal masses? The popular opinion isn’t always the “right” one (that’s why good football players get screwed out of the pro bowl XD)

          Escalation and Stronghold are the problem (wouldn’t be if GW had just been sensible and set them for 2500 pts+) so get rid of them. Going back and modifying other releases is just opening up a whole other can of worms.

          All this being said, I DO sympathize with you, I have been talking to some people in my group about a small tourney we are running around here at the end of the month and it has been chaotic. I couldn’t even imagine have to work this out for something the size of LVO I think I would be pulling my hair out. So with that I understand the whole “laughing at you” comment wasn’t meant to be rude. I’m sure you have spent more time these last few days arguing with people then you ever cared to and you are just sick of debating at this point. At least you have the people playing at your event’s best interests in mind. Again, I wish you guys all the luck in the world!

          • Reecius December 11, 2013 11:28 pm

            Sorry if I sounded harsh, I am just tired and have been feeling these questions non stop from so many angles I started to get worn out a bit.

            I am sure you are a good player, I came across as condescending.

            It is a tough situation to be in for us but someone had to do something and we were first in line.

  29. Lord Alchemy December 11, 2013 6:41 pm #

    While I appreciate the stand that you did Reece, i gotta admit bro, I think the tourney goers went a little too far in banning the special character dataslates. I was planning on taking Belikor, bought the model and everything, been running tests with him and love what he brought to my CSM army. And unintended consequence i guess, but one I am definitely bummed about.

    • Reecius December 11, 2013 7:02 pm #

      Me too. I thought for sure people would want to include the Characters, but it was too much too soon, I guess. Going forward though, I think they will be accepted. It was just crummy timing.

      • Adam December 11, 2013 9:58 pm #

        It’s a lot easier to say no than yes. I think you should overrule your own survey in this regard. There is no reason to vote yes if you have nothing to gain, so why vote yes?

        • Reecius December 12, 2013 4:17 pm #

          Adam, hahaha, come on dude. You are saying it is wise to go against the vast majority because what? Adam says so? Haha, be realistic dude.

          • Adam December 12, 2013 4:28 pm

            That’s not at all what I’m saying, all I’m saying is that just because people voted no doesn’t mean that it should bind your hands in restricting things that, even as you suggested, do not need to be restricted. 🙂

    • Callofdoobie December 11, 2013 7:04 pm #

      Yea this is a shame, as he is the best CSM HQ IMO, he makes the army a lot more viable and is fair.

      • Adam December 12, 2013 10:40 am #

        Yeah, I really think it was unjust… Even having it available for Daemons meant that there might be a wider variety of daemon lists besides Screamerstars.

        People are afraid of change and when you have no reason to vote to allow units, why would you? I don’t have Be’lakor, so fuck it, ban characters, see if I care. I don’t own any Tau or Marines, so why should I vote to allow any Data Slates? Voting is not the answer. 🙂

  30. jmanj321 December 11, 2013 8:19 pm #

    So, since no one else asked the question so far I will, how do I receive a refund for LVO? Do not get me wrong, I like everything Zero Comp has done for the game on the West Coast. I have attended your tournaments and have been very pleased with how they were run. However, I was not satisfied with how I fared in your tournaments, based on my own decisions and lack of proper play testing. So, after BAO this year, I started messing around with armies and found something I liked. Then, I changed it quite a bit as I play tested until I was content with my list and then I practiced a lot. I am not playing one of the big two, i.e. screamer star or council, but I do use Kairos and feel that based on how I designed, practiced, and play my army, this is a significant nerf, and honestly, kind of insulting.

    So, based on my life right now, and how I decide to invest my money, I do not feel that trying to change at the last minute is an option for me. Also, I know for a fact that if I play my army with these changes, I will inevitably get pissed at some point, and have zero desire to continue to play in your events, which I would like to enjoy further in the future.

    • Reecius December 12, 2013 4:15 pm #

      Hit me up and we’ll work it out.

  31. Rawrgyle December 11, 2013 10:00 pm #

    “For the BAO for example, we may not have these restrictions as by then people will be ready for more complexity.”

    “I honestly believe that Escalation really brings balance to the game, making heavy armour relevant again, and bringing hard counters to problems in the current meta,”

    Complexity and balance are not what Escalation brings to the game. This is the basic issue that has the internet going crazy. D-Weapons are not complex, they simply make games go faster, as the number of rolls of the dice are, who goes first? Heavy armor means absolutely nothing to them.

    List building in this environment boils down to which super heavy do you want? How many melta guns do you have to take down other super heavies if you go second. NONE of your other models matter. That is not balance or complexity.

    Sure, it levels the playingfield (lol pun intended), but it is a hard counter to everything, the meta is gone. I can’t stress that enough, THERE IS NO MORE META with these expansions. There are no more fluffy lists, no more deathstars, and force org means nothing as it doesn’t matter what is under a D template.. it is simply gone.

    And as I said above, we are down to one build.. Super heavy + as many meltas to take down a SH as you can, while keeping enough stuff on the table to survive the SH. Thats not complex or balanced once again.

    • Reecius December 12, 2013 4:16 pm #

      Yeah, it becomes a battle of the Ds, not fun.

  32. Fulcrum December 12, 2013 1:12 am #

    Seriously people need to stop complaining & let it play out. See if these “massive world ending” changes & restrictions ruin the tournament before you start running around like chicken little. They change a rule which the vast majority of people agree is bad for the game, even if they don’t want it changed for whatever reason. So many people afraid of change & just freaking out just because they can’t get their 2++ rerollable or they want to maintain the “purity” of the rules as GW has written them.

    You should be grateful there are people like FLG willing to put in the effort & work (not to mention $) it takes to do this. Take a chill pill & see this as a problem to be solved & a challenge to be met. Almost every game in existence modifies it’s rules for competitive play & if something changes in the future then this ruling can always be changed as well.

    • Chuck December 12, 2013 1:43 am #

      The issue, at least in my opinion, doesn’t have anything to do with the “purity” of the rules or whether it will “ruin” the tournament as a whole. My problem is that people (many of whom I know) have been playtesting, building, painting, iterating their lists, etc. for months now, under the assumption that the rules are what they are. In many cases, that rule is the linchpin for someone’s army, and changing it takes the army from strong to mediocre. So, while in the long run removing the 2+ rerollable is likely good for the game, and in the short run doing so is not going to “ruin” the tournament, it certainly has the potential to ruin certain people’s experience by invalidating their lists so close to the tournament.

      On the flip side, everyone signed up for the tournament knowing that running into a 2+ reroll was a possibility, and that they should plan for it, so leaving the rule as it is doesn’t completely invalidate or make people have to completely change their lists around at the last minute (admittedly a month out, but with many of us having jobs and other responsibilities, it can take some time to get new units built, painted, and lists tested).

    • Callofdoobie December 12, 2013 2:00 am #

      Someone puts the time, money, playtesting into an army to use it at a tournament. Said person pays for a spot in the LVO to use said bought, painted, and playtested army. Randomly before the tournament the TO’s hit that persons army with a nerf they had no idea was coming AFTER they have PAID THEIR MONEY for the ticket. That person gets mad and your response is along the lines of “stop crying and be grateful they even offered to sell you a ticket”?

      I understand which side of the fence you’re on but stop and think about how that sounds for a second.

      • Fulcrum December 13, 2013 9:05 am #

        If that is teh case & the change to a 2+/4+ invalidates their list, then they don’t know how to play the game. Period.

        2+/4+ is INCREDIBLY STRONG, especially considering it’s on a unit that can move across the entire battle field in 1 turn. As I said before, now they just have to actually play the game instead of just ignoring most of the rules. They need to try to use their speed & the terrain to limit the amount of shots that unit will take. It is easy, maybe they just forgot how to do it since they hadn’t had to worry about things range, LOS, or taking wounds.

        Seriously if someone has had their deathstar nerfed by this & they are saying they can’t win or “it makes the game too hard” then I just have no respect for them.

        • Fulcrum December 13, 2013 9:06 am #

          & that’s what side of the fence I’m on.

        • Callofdoobie December 13, 2013 9:30 am #

          The point is that it was something they were not informed of until after having paid money and that their list is being singled out when you have things like Ovesha Star running around that none of you seem to have a problem with.

          While I don’t know what army you play I’m fairly sure you have a biased against the 2++ reroll like many on here do, i’m sure if they were to last minute change something for the army you play you would be thrilled to death and embrace the change because you are the perfect player =)

          I can see you’re thrilled to death that FLG is nerfing your opponents armies for you, just don’t act like that opponent has no reason to be upset about it.

          • Callofdoobie December 13, 2013 9:31 am


            herp derp

          • Fulcrum December 13, 2013 9:49 am

            I think that anyone who played a 2++ was either a bad player or didn’t want to challenge themselves, or maybe they got tired of swimming against the tide & gave in.

            There are plenty of great lists that can win tournaments (in the absence of the 2++star at least) that can be made using either codex daemons or eldar.

            I was & still probably am going to come as prepared for the 2+/4+ as anyone can be. As any skilled player knows a 2+/4+ is still incredibly powerful & I think this ruling wont keep good players from bringing it. They will simply adjust their tactics slightly. I’d say the list I have gives me a better than average chance against the 2++stars nerfed or not. I play against seerstars often & have had some success. But my friend, who is a great player, opted not to use his deldar seerstar list months ago because it was boring & unchallenging, in favor of sisters (+some ally). Having a 2++ reroll essentially lets you ignore your opponents shooting & assault phases with that unit. The only rolls in question during the game are the those to grant the 2++ reroll & the chance of failing those can be mitigated by both daemons & eldar.

          • Reecius December 13, 2013 11:54 am

            Exactly, it is still the most durable thing in the game but at least you have a chance of hurting it.

          • Fulcrum December 13, 2013 9:53 am

            The other problem is that there are several races which have absolutely 0 ways to counter these units & they are too fast to be avoided. What advice would you give an Orc, Sisters, IG, Necron, or CSM player? There’s not much to be said other than pray.

          • Fulcrum December 13, 2013 10:39 am

            1 last thing I think these 2 specific deathstars (screamer & seer) wouldn’t be as bad or as widely reviled if they weren’t in what would be 2 of the best codexes even without them. They both have several other very strong units & point efficient units which can be combined with the deathstars. If there were no khornedog blobs or wave serpents, etc., we would probably be seeing a different atmosphere.

            I think that escalation may be ok without D weapons & possibly the new forts as well. But there is sooo much in them. Time needs to be given to figuring out how to handle them in a tournament. Just consider the logistics of deciding what to let in, then trying to put out an FAQ, then figuring out how to deal with terrain & deployment, then dealing with the huge amount of rules judge questions that will be generated during the event, & then finally consider that many people are already having trouble getting to turn 4 in the allotted time constraints. That is a recipe for disaster in what they are trying to make a serious competitive event.

          • Reecius December 13, 2013 12:14 pm

            We encourage spirited debate fellas, but please be aware of the fact that we will all be face to face with one another at some point. Argue away but please be gentlemen about it.

        • Reecius December 13, 2013 12:14 pm #

          We encourage spirited debate fellas, but please be aware of the fact that we will all be face to face with one another at some point. Argue away but please be gentlemen about it.

          • Fulcrum December 13, 2013 1:18 pm

            Ya sorry I’m pretty blunt & tactless when I get my ire up, it’s my blood 🙂

  33. ansacs December 12, 2013 2:35 am #

    Thanks for sharing your results with the wider community.

    I won’t be able to attend this event but I hope it goes spectacularly so you have it again next year.

    Most of these changes are very good moves to ensure the security of your investment. The 2++ reroll change is probably your riskiest change, as you had a significant majority but not the overwhelming majority (75%) that tends to make people accept it. I am not sure if 2++/3++ would not be better but you guys have a much better ability to play test these things than some one like me.

    I do hope you guys run a tournament (with much less money at stake) to see how no bars hold 40K works in a tournament environment. That exit poll would be very interesting.

    • Reecius December 12, 2013 4:15 pm #

      We’ll try a no hold’s barred format for sure. We think it sounds fun! Just not this soon into the release.

  34. Cmdr Nearsight December 12, 2013 10:27 am #

    Wanted to weigh in as a casual 40k gamer but also someone who conducts focus group tests, does quantitative data analysis, and is a member of the videogame community (with production and development experience).

    First off, I have huge respect for Frontline Gaming, and although I have never met any of you, I do watch your batreps and hold you in high regard. And I commend the effort and thought you put into creating the LVO and providing leadership to the 40k community. I learn alot from you guys and appreciate what you do for us, even us lowly players who have never set foot in a 40k tournament (although I have played in other miniature tourneys).

    Secondly, while I think it is way too early to say whether Dataslates, Escalation, and Fortifications are so unbalanced that they need to be banned entirely, I can buy and agree with the logic to remove them from LVO due to the timing. I also concede that based on the early returns and small sample sizes (skewed as they are by the recency of Revenant madness in the Escalation batrep from last week), it does appear as if some kind of house rules probably need to be considered to maintain balance against D-weapons.

    However, on the 2++, I think others have summed up eloquently the problem with this. The “slippery slope” tends to be overused and therefore those who hear it tend to tune it out, but it is absolutely a scenario that should be considered with utmost respect, just as it is in the legal profession, due to the insidious nature of unintended consequences and the fact that we humans are subjective beings and should therefore be biased towards inaction unless overwhelming data suggests that inaction leads to a degradation of experience for the majority of players. That being said, I wanted to add my two cents.

    On the data itself: I think you should take a step back and realize that 50-59% of attendees did NOT respond, and therefore registered NO vote for change. I will assume that had 60% responded, Reece would have said that. And to be generous, I will assume that the 125 respondees represents 59% of attendees (Reece only said that over 50% responded). Therefore, if 63 people advocated to remove rerollable 2++, then that actually constitutes a significant MINORITY of LVO attendees. Specifically, only 30% of expected attendees voted to remove 2++ and therefore 70% of attendees did NOT vote for change. That to me is the overwhelming majority right there. If anything, your own data tells you that you do NOT have a mandate from the LVO attendees to change the rules, let alone the re-rollable 2++ rule. But everyone I think can agree on the reasonableness of what you are doing to be extra cautious about Escalation, Fortifications, et al and keeping them out for now. But at least on the rerollable 2++, right in front of you is evidence that 70% of LVO attendees did NOT vote for change. To use an analogy, if 50% of the Senate abstained from voting on a law (for whatever reason) that altered the constitution, then it doesn’t matter what the heck the 50% who did vote said; we NEVER change the rules or implement such far-reaching legislation with only a plurality of votes. I think it is wrong to upend the status quo and so massively impact the silent majority based on the vocal 30%.

    On the motivations of the voters: I can tell you that were I polled, I would selfishly want to vote to ban the rerollable 2++ because I play Tau. I don’t get access to it, so of course it benefits me to remove that advantage from my opponents. But damn is that a self-interested motivation, and as a game designer, event organizer, and data analyst, I am gonna throw that opinion out because because it does not benefit the larger community to alter the game based on a biased Tau players desire for advantage in a tournament. You have NO data on what armies these people intend to play. So maybe all your respondees are Tau, IG, Nids, Orks who have no access to rerollable 2++ and therefore want to ban it to remove a tough potential list. Maybe not. But in a game where we all try to squeeze out every competitive advantage we can get, I think you seriously need to take your data with a grain of salt where it comes to altering a competitive advantage that some armies have over others.

    On the effects on the meta: If the change goes through, then expect some disgruntled folks, especially those who have playtested and planned for rerollable 2++. The thing is, as Callofdoobie, jmanj321, and Adam have stated, people expected this because it’s in the rules. It’s been in there for all the tournaments leading up to this. It is an expected part of the meta, and now, you are removing it. Let’s use the analogy of rock-paper-scissors. Of course paper wants to nerf scissors! But you don’t do that because if you do, it’ll win every tournament. Obviously, 40k is exponentially more complex than that, but that massive complexity also creates more potential for unintended consequences, and I guarantee you it will alter the meta. Some players will show up to LVO and find their army core strategy completely invalidated (and they’ll be completely ambushed about it), while others will now suddenly find themselves more powerful because they would have had trouble against rerollable 2++, and still others (tarpitters, armies based on volume of fire) will find that they built themselves to counter rerollable 2++ and find themselves weaker with the elimination of their prey.

    On the method of dissemination: From a customer service standpoint, I think the way you are informing the LVO attendees and community will result in problems. For one, are you emailing every respondee to let them know the results of the survey? Will you email all the attendees, including the 40-49% who did not reply? Will you also include instructions on how to process quick and easy refunds for those like jmanj321 for whom this change will negatively affect their experience? Even if you do that, you are guaranteed to have attendees who show up with no idea about this rule change and who now are suddenly put out after having paid for the ticket, lodging, flight, and taken time off from work potentially. A huge inconvenience and loss of money and time not only for those playing rerollable 2++ armies but also those whose own lists were predicated on facing it. You cannot expect that even a majority of your attendees will have read and comprehended the changes. Banning new supplements is easy, because people going into LVO will not have the expectation that they are automatically allowed in LVO, but the opposite is the case with rerollable 2++, since it’s been an accepted part of the meta for over a year (if not longer).

    On the actual balance issues with rerollable 2++ (does it really need a nerd?): Here, I cannot speak to this issue. All of you on here have infinitely more and greater experience than me, and are better tactical generals than I. I have heard many of you say rerollable 2++ is a pain in the ass but also beatable. You can play to the objectives, ignore it, bury it under weight of fire, tarpit it, etc. So did it need to be banned, I cannot say. If Reece, as a much more experienced and accomplished player, says it is too hard to beat that it will absolutely ruin the fun of the majority of players, then I will consider it as perhaps OP. But on the flip side, GW has costed these units appropriately for their abilities. You remove one of the reasons why those units cost as much as they do, and suddenly, you are creating an overpriced unit. I think if this game were like Magic, where you are essentially just trying to destroy your opponent, then rerollable 2++ becomes a bigger issue. But in 40k, where objectives and missions can invalidate certain builds, and where the concept of scoring units reigns, rerollable 2++ is less of an issue, but certainly still an irritating proposition when trying to kill that particular unit.

    I apologize for the length of this post. And again, I want to reiterate my respect for Frontline and commend their effort in trying to create a balanced and fun environment for everyone. But I just wanted to apply some additional commentary here, because I believe that such change could have bad consequences. That’s even without getting into LGSs, pick up gamers, and smaller tourneys turning to this ruling as precedent to justify their own banning of rerollable 2++ and other tough combos (triple heldrakes, etc), and potentially creating a nightmare of house rules across local game stores.

    • Reecius December 12, 2013 12:47 pm #

      No need to apologize for the length of your post, it was very informative.

      We did consider all of those points you bought up.

      For certain, some people will be unaware of the changes. We are used to this as our tournament FAQ, which is up all year long, doesn’t get read by a large percentage of players that come to the event. It happens every single event. It stinks, but we can’t NOT make changes because some folks won’t hear about it. As it is essentially impossible to reach 100% of attendees, it is an unachievable goal. Therefore, we must do the best we can to reach everyone and let them know. We will email everyone too, yes. If we get some fall out because of this, so be it. That is the inevitable consequence of challenging the status quo.

      And yes, we didn’t get 100% response rate. But we used every reasonable tool at our disposal to reach everyone including forums, the podcast, email, etc. We did our due diligence to reach everyone and if they didn’t read their eamil or what have you, we can’t control that.

      Aware of these potential problems, having navigated them before, we decided it was worth it to do what we felt was the best thing for our community based off of our own beliefs and player feedback. Not everyone will agree with it and we accept that, but we won’t do nothing to the detriment of everyone for fear of upsetting someone.

      Thanks for the informed, and thoughtful post, much appreciated.

      • Adam December 12, 2013 4:44 pm #

        He summed up the point I was trying to make about the data much thoroughly. Surveys themselves are considered the least effective way of gathering actionable feedback. My entire career revolves around taking feedback, understanding the purpose of the feedback and trying to figure out what they actually mean by the feedback that people give (it is rarely exactly what they say), and then creating a plan on executing based on that.

        Based on the survey alone, people are more opposed to large expansions which are affecting the game too soon before the event occurs. To use the example of Be’lakor, people who took the easiest answer, voted that they do not want Data Sheets but from the survey there is no reason to know why. If it’s that they read online about how ridiculous they are, because Tau get free tank hunters and extra units outside of the FOC, that’s a great reason. But unfortunately, wanting to vote one out because it’s considered over powered also voted out Be’lakor, which some people may not even realize comes out of standard Force Organization and is required to be the Warlord in Daemon armies. So as the previous poster mentioned, a less than majority of the players voted to ban everything, so now the majority of players are impacted by the minority. A non-vote cannot be an affirmative vote, that disenfranchises a lot of people.

        I found the survey you sent, it unfortunately went to my spam box. Since I use Gmail, if it filtered it out of mine, it’s entirely possible that it filtered it out of many people’s email, especially if they use the same service.

        But you’ve already done the survey, the damage is done. I think it would be much wiser if you made your rulings considering the results, but don’t let them dictate your own tournament. Doing that effectively ties your hands in future events if you run a poll. If you do it once, especially the first time, then people will expect it every time, possibly accuse you of being bias if you don’t.

        • Reecius December 12, 2013 5:45 pm #

          Ok guys, you two write the questions for the exit poll or come up with a better system for gathering data. If it is more informative, I will use it.

          Polls also make people feel like they have ownership in the event. That is 50% of why we use them.

          And the damage is done? Hahaha, Adam, you act like this is the end of the world or something. And P.S., it looks like GW isn’t even using Escalation in their own events, but I am sure you saw that =)

          • Adam December 12, 2013 6:02 pm

            It’s less about the data and more about what is done with the data.

            Here’s a great example, my boss comes over and tells me that he and the entire marketing department have decided that I should make a button red. Democratically, red is the winner, it doesn’t matter what I think. Fortunately though, I am able to communicate with them and find out the real problem (because since I’m a designer, I know that red will look awful). They don’t have an affinity towards red, but instead they feel that the button needs to be more prominent and it is not getting clicked enough. Now that we know what the real issue is, we can actually use that to make a more informed decision about how to fix the problem. We can change it’s size, it’s color, it’s typography, or maybe move it to a space where we know that people are more likely to notice it. Yay, no red button ruining the aesthetic, but instead we have a solution that is more effective and accomplishes the actual goal.

            Anyhow, I’ll chat with you over Beerhammer about this kind of stuff, Data Analysis and User Experience is actually quite a fascinating field!

    • Fulcrum December 13, 2013 9:13 am #

      I think saying that anyone who didn’t respond registered a “no vote for change” is pretty presumptuous. I’d say if he got 60% response that’s more than enough of a sample size of attendees to infer that similar results would’ve been reached had he gotten 100% response.

  35. Cmdr Nearsight December 12, 2013 10:31 am #

    Shoot. I had a typo in my 5th paragraph. I meant to say that 41-49% of potential attendees did not vote (not 50-59%). That typo aside, though, I think the rest stands. Thanks!

  36. Jesus Emperor Christ….. I’m so sorry for Adam and all the lovely datasheets and formations he won’t be able to play. I voted for everything cuz I would’ve bought a revenant just to jack up Tau with. Also, I could’ve snorted tons more coke and banged more Vegas hookers with all my games capping out at 30mins. Well you can all be happy that you won’t be seeing my twin inquisitors with twin relics in my blob of 50. I don’t think many of you would’ve liked even that…

    At this point I just want to know when Reece and Frankie are renaming the club 49.6% comp.


    Just kidding, I love you guys, I’m so psyched its unhealthy..

    Reece and Frankie had a really hard choice to make here and despite Adam’s pseudo-objective tantrum, I think they made the right choice. Believe me when I tell you that at least Wolfbrothers would’ve had Revenants…none of you wanted that, not even Adam and his newly designed and feedback amended button.

  37. I use Gmail and it(poll) did not filter to spam.

  38. 2+ invul re-rollable IS broken. What army doesn’t have a hard time with something that very nearly is indestructible? Without Null Zone or a Grey Knight Banisher there is no way to level 90% of the armies with that vs. screamerstar. Nobody has access to that except daemons and the occasional Dark Eldar archon with eldar buffs. Nobody wants to play a game where they shoot their whole army at something that doesn’t take one wound…

    Don’t you people realize who you are trying to convince? Frankie and Reece play more games, see more games, video record more games, host more tournaments, read AND write more blogs and generally have way more experience than some button designer and a guy who has never even been to a 40k tourney. Information is contextual and you boys are out in left field all by youtselves. Stop crying over your spilt and spoiled milk and just rewrite your lists like the rest of us. What’s actually outrageous to me is that you think you can get them to change their mind with your pathetic arguments and whining. Man up.

    • Reecius December 13, 2013 12:13 pm #

      We encourage spirited debate fellas, but please be aware of the fact that we will all be face to face with one another at some point. Argue away but please be gentlemen about it.

    • Cmdr Nearsight December 13, 2013 3:37 pm #

      Not sure if you noticed but I don’t play armies with 2++ rerollable. So I’m not crying that I have to rewrite a list. Also, I absolutely concede that you guys here have much more experience and know-how when it comes to 40k than me. Your tone though is not inviting, and seems to indicate that you hold tourney-level players above us casuals “who have never even been to a 40k tourney.” I freely admit that, but chimed in where I felt I had expertise on data collection, analytics, general game design, polling, and general customer service. I’m surprised it offended you to the degree that you had to ridicule me. On the flip side, I’m very humbled and grateful for Reece’s gracious response to my long missive, and can concede that he might have found it quite annoying. I readily admit that he must have put days and weeks of thought into his decision and clearly did not make his decision lightly.

      But the attitude inherent in your replies makes me as a current member of the hobby and prospective tournament player hesitant to join the 40k tourney community. The attitude clearly doesn’t make me feel welcome, and I had hoped the community would be a more inclusive bunch; back when I was playing D&D miniatures and Magic at tournaments, I made a point to try to be inclusive to newcomers, especially because the tournament scene can often be intimidating. You very well may follow up with a “boohoo, man up, grow some balls, get a thicker skin, etc” reply, but in a hobby that needs new recruits to keep it healthy and viable, I’m shocked that any 40k player wouldn’t adopt a more conciliatory tone towards potential new members of the tourney scene. I’m sure you don’t represent the majority, but this is one of the reasons why I ended up withdrawing from more Gencon events in other games as well. The scorn just makes it not fun.

      P.S. You’re probably a nice guy actually, and had I just rolled into a tourney and met you without any previous context, perhaps you would be very welcoming to a newcomer. But the online persona and scorn compelled me to reply that you’re scaring away potential recruits (myself and others who may see their fears of intimidation validated).

  39. “Fear is the mindkiller… I will face my fears and allow them to pass through me, when the fear is gone, only I will remain.”

    • Reecius December 13, 2013 12:11 pm #

      Dune reference for the win!

  40. Agent of the God Emperor and beloved Wolfbrother General Oadius - Reclusiarch and keeper if the tome of rage December 13, 2013 12:57 pm #

    Being a gentleman is my point….it’s just that I have a very particular idiom to fulfill while doing it. I didn’t bother to chime in till around 185 posts. Thats when i felt everyone needed a good dose of reality. my point is “Lets be respectful and not expect that these, already inundated, individuals take us seriously or read every single thing that comes across our minds. ” Seriously 185 posts…. Now Reece will chime in and say that he is happy to get all the feedback, but in the back of his mind he might be thinking we should all STFU and move on.

  41. Agent of the God Emperor and beloved Wolfbrother General Oadius - Reclusiarch and keeper if the tome of rage December 13, 2013 1:33 pm #

    I wonder if they truly understand the scope of their requests. It’s taken you(Frankie and Reece[and all the people that have helped]) years of hard work running the BAOGT and other events to build up the street cred / reputation AND know how / experience to get to the point where the LVO is at. This many individuals will show up in one place to play one of the most obscure games in the world. You have taken the burden upon yourselves to host this far from your home. You practiced the due diligence of the poll and wrote a huge blog to tell us your viewpoint. After all that they sincerely expect you to jeopardize EVERYTHING so they can play unrestricted shenanigans and ruin it for everyone who isn’t a cutting edge, alpha male über predator. Bravo “gentleman”. I can’t see how anyone of us could possibly be taking this amazing event for granted. As for face to face confrontations I say this “Peace? I hate the word…as I hate hell and all Montagues”

  42. Mike Bass December 13, 2013 2:45 pm #

    Rapeknight for the win! Howl!

  43. Leon Trollski December 15, 2013 10:32 pm #

    I signed up to play 40k not some fanfiction game based on an internet poll.

    • Leon Trollski December 15, 2013 10:56 pm #

      Ah, maybe that was too much. I apologize for the snippy tone. Just a little disappointed to see this is all.

      Maybe we’ll see escalation and the like next year, when everyone is a little less panicked, eh?

      Maybe during the free play this year too. 🙂

      • Reecius December 16, 2013 8:01 am #

        Yeah, Escalation is fair game for open play. And yes, we are already working on ways to incorporate it into the BAO. People just weren’t ready for it yet and to be fair, this IS what people signed up for! haha, the game is staying largely what it was when we started selling tickets. All the new rules changes make the game a lot different than it was then.

Leave a Reply