Designing a competitive rules package for 40K

[HERO]

Can everyone access this? I hope so!
https://drive.google.com/drive/#folders/0B7_TofINQVJafmRjQTI2SkFTaTRZREo2eHVHRjFBUXUwMFV1R 3VYWkVoeUh2TUhiQzNfbkE

Hey guys,

Larry here from HERO's Gaming Blog and I want to reach out to you on a community project. Are you familiar with how ETC is done for Warhammer Fantasy? It's a very intuitive rules packet that aims to promote game balance while still allowing players to take powerful options in their book.

I've been developing something similar for 40K (geared for 1v1, championship format), in the attempt to get better quality games in instead of playing the rock-paper-scissors style of play in tournaments. I am already in touch with several community leaders with large connections to the competitive blogosphere and I would like to turn this rules package into something that's designed for the competitive gamer. I have already reached out to Reece from Frontline Gaming, Kirby from 3++, Larry on BoLS, and several contacts managing Adepticon and east coast majors.

You might not know my gaming history, but I've been playing GW games for 14 years. I have a ton of competitive tourney experience, including competing in majors on the east coast, and now work in the computer game industry. I'm a competitive RTS player, ex-pro CS player, former balance designer (for said RTS games), and enjoy doing multiplayer balance-related projects on the side.

Just some food for thought before you begin on this journey with me. The design goals for this document is as follows:

You can still take the good stuff, but in moderation.
We're out to limit powerful armies and combos, but not outright ban them.
The idea here is to promote equality among all armies in the game.


You might think this is impossible to do because 40K has a billion supplements, data sheets, formations and whatnot, but this is a fallacy. Warhammer 40K might be more expansive than WHFB, but it is not more complex. Its rules are much simpler, the units are more streamlined, the combos are more defined, and most importantly, is less random. I think we should give it a shot, I know I need all the help I can get because there's just so much out there!

Anyways, this project is supposed to be something fun, as well as challenging and I would like to get your input. Let me know what you think, and please, break it as much as you can. This is just a preliminary draft to showcase what the rules package is designed to do.

[DrBored]

Just make sure there are no re-rollable 2+'s, no Invisibility shenanigans, and no ranged D weapons.

The rest of the issues are from GW changing their codices. You'd have to keep the document up to speed with each change in codex, which means playing a LOT of new games with each new codex right as it comes out to figure out what's broken and what's not.

I wish you the best of luck.

[daboarder]

Most Auustralian tournaments use a community comp that adds another pts system unto the GW one, so that the army as a whole has a pts cost based upon its composition, from everything I've read it seems to do a remarkably good job of leveling the field.

also the fact that its done by the community means it can respond to playtesting and changes in the meta

[Mr.Gold]

Most Auustralian tournaments use a community comp that adds another pts system unto the GW one, so that the army as a whole has a pts cost based upon its composition, from everything I've read it seems to do a remarkably good job of leveling the field.

also the fact that its done by the community means it can respond to playtesting and changes in the meta

do you have an idea as to what the pts costs are - i would certainly be willing to give this a try...

[Mr.Gold]

I would suggest:

Universal Points:
- Each Void Shield (and each add-on) or Sky Landing Pad - 1 point
- Each Flyer - 1 point
- each vehicle with a combined armor value of over 35 (count side armor once) - 1 point

Each Wave Serpent over 3 - 2 points
Wraithknight - 1 point
Each Wraithknight after the first - 3 points


Each Daemon Prince with Mark of Nurgle - 3 points


Each Nemesis Dreadknight after the first - 3 points


Decurion Detachment - 5 points
Reclamation Formation - 3 points
Each Res Orb/Eternity Orb in the army after the first - 2 points
Each unit of Canoptek Wraiths after the first - 3 points
Each Catacomb Command Barge after the first - 3 points


Each Riptide - 2 points
Each FW named Riptide - 3 points
Each unit of Broadsides - 1 point


Each Centurian squad - 2 points
Each Bike Squad (with white scars?? chapter tactics) - 1 point


Flying Hive Tyrant - 1 point
Each Flying Hive Tyrant after the first - 3 points


these changes would help prevent spam (mostly) due to points limit of 5.

[HERO]

Most Auustralian tournaments use a community comp that adds another pts system unto the GW one, so that the army as a whole has a pts cost based upon its composition, from everything I've read it seems to do a remarkably good job of leveling the field.

also the fact that its done by the community means it can respond to playtesting and changes in the meta

Does it look like Swedish comp in WHFB?

[daboarder]

Does it look like Swedish comp in WHFB?
yes its similar to swedish comp but the values and certain other aspects are adjusted to the aussie community

- - - Updated - - -


do you have an idea as to what the pts costs are - i would certainly be willing to give this a try...
The whole document should be readily available at wargamerau

[ShadowcatX]

All this is going to do is change what is competitive. People are still going to min max within any system. Accept it for what it is.

[daboarder]

All this is going to do is change what is competitive. People are still going to min max within any system. Accept it for what it is.

not really, the second layer of Pts costs merely means that you cant just cram all the tricks into one army, it helps balance everything out

[lantzkev]

I would suggest:

Universal Points:
- Each Void Shield (and each add-on) or Sky Landing Pad - 1 point
- Each Flyer - 1 point
- each vehicle with a combined armor value of over 35 (count side armor once) - 1 point

Each Wave Serpent over 3 - 2 points
Wraithknight - 1 point
Each Wraithknight after the first - 3 points


Each Daemon Prince with Mark of Nurgle - 3 points


Each Nemesis Dreadknight after the first - 3 points


Decurion Detachment - 5 points
Reclamation Formation - 3 points
Each Res Orb/Eternity Orb in the army after the first - 2 points
Each unit of Canoptek Wraiths after the first - 3 points
Each Catacomb Command Barge after the first - 3 points


Each Riptide - 2 points
Each FW named Riptide - 3 points
Each unit of Broadsides - 1 point

.

Going to speak just to the tau side of things...

lol on the "named forgeworld riptides" none are named. If you mean the riptide variants... meh calling em 3 pts is ridiculous, likewise assigning ANY point value to broadsides is idiotic. Actually this whole point system for stuff is just ridiculous.

Hell the points for void shields and sky ray is just silly, "hey I hate armies that need a gunline to have protection, I'll do something to help nerf that"
Limiting Dreadknights? what is this sillyness.

The whole thing just strikes me as an overcomplicated rational to list comp, when you can just simply say "none of this, or max of this"

Keep it simple, just say what you don't want to see spammed and go on. If you think having kaldor and three dreadknights is too much, just limit it rather than this point system of "well you can take three dreadknights, but you can't then take anything else, even a champ that's your chapters go to main man of doom"

[DarkLink]

We tried this system out, including a community lead comp council, and it didn't work for ****. Everyone eventually despised it, people stopped attending events, attendance from visitors from nearby cities basically disappeared, all while non-comped ITC/Frontline Gaming events were skyrocketing in popularity.

I can give a big thumbs up to the Frontline Gaming format, though. The missions have a ton of depth (even if I still don't care for the randomness aspect of the Malestorm missions and if some of the core rulebook missions are poorly worded), and the minimal restrictions seem to be just about right to keep the meta running smoothly. You can debate over some minor aspects, but as a whole the format works great.

[HERO]

We tried this system out, including a community lead comp council, and it didn't work for ****. Everyone eventually despised it, people stopped attending events, attendance from visitors from nearby cities basically disappeared, all while non-comped ITC/Frontline Gaming events were skyrocketing in popularity.

I can give a big thumbs up to the Frontline Gaming format, though. The missions have a ton of depth (even if I still don't care for the randomness aspect of the Malestorm missions and if some of the core rulebook missions are poorly worded), and the minimal restrictions seem to be just about right to keep the meta running smoothly. You can debate over some minor aspects, but as a whole the format works great.

Why do you think the comp failed in the first place?

Do you think 40K gamers just want to freestyle and take whatever they want with no regard towards non-spammy, ultra-competitive play?

[lantzkev]

Why do you think the comp failed in the first place?

Do you think 40K gamers just want to freestyle and take whatever they want with no regard towards non-spammy, ultra-competitive play?

I'll tell you why such things fail with me.

I'm skeptical of TOs that have a long laundry list of how they want the tournament set up. Specifically when it limits alot of options they perceive as "op." For leagues or what not, have at it with whatever restrictions, it's not a competitive thing normally (or is with alot more gentleman's agreements) In this set up specifically, we can tell that void shields and sky ray are viewed as OP to some extent. Yet void shields are completely negated by getting within that 12inch bubble, or by simply removing the armor 12...

Let's look at a 1850pt list that decided to run a vortex generator and 5 barricades. They spent 150pts on something to make them more survivable... 150pts... nearly 10% of the 1850 allowed in something with zero offensive capability, and is entirely negated (except the barricades and even then maybe) by drop pod armies and other very fast/mobile armies.

So when some arbitrary "tax" gets applied to it or limit, it makes me wonder why, I look at the impact it has on my army I planned on playing and what army it favors and what armies it restricts more than others. So take this for instance, there are huge restrictions to tau. I could take three riptides, but no broadsides (for some unknown reason), and no void shields/sky ray... For a competitive gun line, you can take or not take void shield over aegis line... but again it's a why can't I thing?

Hell if I took a firebase formation, I'd be at 3 points... so I could add a defensive line, but then as tau nothing else can be added, so it's all up to tanks or lots of suits etc. It all starts to look arbitrary.

Guards are randomly limited by chimeras and nothing else? When was the last time chimera spam was an issue for any army?

[HERO]

I think when people see restrictions, or any kind of restrictions, they think limitations for one particular army. Like you said, you mentioned Guard, Tau, and other armies being taxed unequally. This is true, but all armies are not created equal. You can still have 2 Riptides in an army with 2 unit of Broadsides. Likewise, you can have multiple Chimeras, up to 7 in fact for 5 points and that's not a problem. What you won't be able to have, is 7 Chimeras with additional allies generating extra points, like Azrael, or Power Field Generator, or everything on a Void Shield, or drop pod Centurians.

Game balance is done as a whole, and not as a vacuum. What this short set of restrictions is set out to do is limit the top-tier combos and craziness that better books can employ so lower tier books can play on the same level. You won't be able to field Green Tide with 3x Void Shields, only 2 at max, which also means no Blitz Brigade in the same list if you choose to do so. You won't have Draigo, Centurian Deathstar with Tigurius, since you won't be able to fit it. You will still be able to field 3x Hive Tyrants, but not any more than that, and you won't be able to fit 3 and take Assassin Brood at the same time. Likewise, you will not be able to take multiple Wave Serpents and still have double Wraithknights in the same list.

It's just a different type of game, one that breaks the meta and puts you back to something that resembles more like the game back in 5th. I left the actual document at work so I can't work on it more tonight, but the fact of the matter is, some people prefer to play something not as crazy. Not all of us enjoy playing 5x Flyrants, WS spam 2x WK, IG carparks or 5 FMC Iron Daemons. I don't view that as very competitive, I see those lists as an abomination to what the game should be. I originally designed this document to play inhouse with a bunch of friends, because we think that comp is better than uncomped play. 40K is just too crazy these days if you run with bare minimal comp, at least in my opinion. If you disagree, and think these restrictions will force you into cookie-cutter lists, I challenge you to write out an unstoppable list.

Don't forget this is a community effort too. If you disagree with something, please, let me hear it. But I need you to think of the game as a whole, with everything together. It's a challenge no doubt, and I sure can't do it on my own and I'm asking for help from the community to point out the flaws and tell me what is bull**** and what isn't.

Maybe a competitive ruleset is not what it should be called, but rather fairplay ruleset.

[Path Walker]

People that want to win will do so by exploiting rules to their advantage, ignoring the spite of those rules to increase their likelyhood of winning. Written comp systems just give them another layer of rules to take advantage and manipulate of while restricting the players who are more balanced anyway.

Best tournament I ever attended had the following comp system "this is a friendly game, we want a good day of playing the game with good people, so don't be a dickhead, leave your spam bull**** at home and chill out." That, combined with a nice selection of missions and terrain made for some really interesting games.

[Mr Mystery]

Yep.

Comp does not remove spammy lists or power lists.

It just changes what a spammy or power list looks like.

[daboarder]

Actually the problem with such comp systems are the gamers that constantly ***** and moan about how the game shouldnt be balanced, cry about "whiners" who want balance (then whine themselves about comp) and usually loudly proclaim that they dont play competitively when such conversations are had in different threads.

If done right comp can work. But it is a lot of xonstant work on the part of not just the person organizing it but the community as a whole.

In Australia at least comp is the only thing keeping 49k events above the water

- - - Updated - - -


Yep.

Comp does not remove spammy lists or power lists.

It just changes what a spammy or power list looks like.

Have you read any of the latest generation of comp systems?

[DarkLink]

Why do you think the comp failed in the first place?

Do you think 40K gamers just want to freestyle and take whatever they want with no regard towards non-spammy, ultra-competitive play?

Lots of little reasons. No one can really agree on what's actually broken or not, everyone wants to nerf every army but their own, and people get annoyed when suddenly their army either isn't legal or takes so many comp hits you'll never win anything. It also gets very complicated. That's probably the main reason attendence dropped. Why would I drive an hour to play in an event that has a bunch of complicated rules that I don't have the time to bother to sit down and try to figure out. When building an army feels like I'm doing taxes, that's too much work.

Really, the comp system takes the game a little too seriously, and assumes the game is more poorly balanced than it is. And, really, a rules comitee isn't actually any better at balancing the game than GW is. The good players still managed to figure out some brutal lists that worked within comp, while the had even softer opponents than normal, and the exact same people won as normally would. The only percievable difference was the extra headache involved in writing lists.

[HERO]

I updated the rules package again, as you can see it, it is VERY light on restrictions and more or less plays towards the "don't be a douchebag" list.

However, I see Imperial Guard as being a problem here. Can you guys inform me on what the most broken combinations of Guard can look like under this ruleset?

[lantzkev]

I updated the rules package again, as you can see it, it is VERY light on restrictions and more or less plays towards the "don't be a douchebag" list.

However, I see Imperial Guard as being a problem here. Can you guys inform me on what the most broken combinations of Guard can look like under this ruleset?

Why on earth would we do that, there's no broken guard lists out there, just ones that are very much a paper to some rocks.... This doesn't make them op or broken, just hard to play against if you're not scissors.

If you're trying to make all the games "only skill on battlefield and luck matters" just write them all a list and go from there.

[DrBored]

Going to speak just to the tau side of things...

lol on the "named forgeworld riptides" none are named. If you mean the riptide variants... meh calling em 3 pts is ridiculous, likewise assigning ANY point value to broadsides is idiotic. Actually this whole point system for stuff is just ridiculous.

Hell the points for void shields and sky ray is just silly, "hey I hate armies that need a gunline to have protection, I'll do something to help nerf that"
Limiting Dreadknights? what is this sillyness.

The whole thing just strikes me as an overcomplicated rational to list comp, when you can just simply say "none of this, or max of this"

Keep it simple, just say what you don't want to see spammed and go on. If you think having kaldor and three dreadknights is too much, just limit it rather than this point system of "well you can take three dreadknights, but you can't then take anything else, even a champ that's your chapters go to main man of doom"

Just telling your players for your tournament, "don't spam" will only generate questions. Tournament players need things spelled out for them so they know what's OK and what's not OK before they dump a bunch of cash on new models to pwn the scene. Having a points system like this will help that, but I think it needs to be a bit more exhaustive, and with more playtesting involved.

Honestly, I'd think a lot could be solved if the FOC chart was changed to 2 HQ, 4 Troops, 2 Elites, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Heavy Support. You then can spend a 'point' to extend one of those slots to it's full capacity (like spend a point to get 3 Heavy Support), though these points are calculated at the end and make up part of your comp score.

[lantzkev]

Just telling your players for your tournament, "don't spam" will only generate questions. Tournament players need things spelled out for them so they know what's OK and what's not OK before they dump a bunch of cash on new models to pwn the scene. Having a points system like this will help that, but I think it needs to be a bit more exhaustive, and with more playtesting involved.

Honestly, I'd think a lot could be solved if the FOC chart was changed to 2 HQ, 4 Troops, 2 Elites, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Heavy Support. You then can spend a 'point' to extend one of those slots to it's full capacity (like spend a point to get 3 Heavy Support), though these points are calculated at the end and make up part of your comp score.

You'll find more milage in my opinion taking a few key elements of rules that make things ridiculous and altering it, IE change invisibility to allow flamer templates to hit... or barrage weapons that don't need los or whatever you find you prefer.

Limiting force org is another way too, although I suggest to be careful with that, alot of armies can get great milage out of a CAD detachment, but others at certain points find themselves wasting points on worthless crap, because they have no other options to spend points on.

[Path Walker]

Competitive players want systems that can be abused because they they can abuse the system and not be called out on it.

Asking them to be decent human beings and not dickheads is the key. If anyone doesn't like it, they can find another game to play. The rule book supports this.

[daboarder]

Competitive players want systems that can be abused because they they can abuse the system and not be called out on it.

Asking them to be decent human beings and not dickheads is the key. If anyone doesn't like it, they can find another game to play. The rule book supports this.

:rolleyes:


For those actually interested in finding out what a comp system looks like (one that is both extensively playtested and updated)

Please feel free to read the australian version here

http://www.australasianteamchallenge.com/Other/CompSystemWarhammer40k.pdf


Mission Statement
Comp carries with it several systemic problems that cause quite a lot of aggravation within the 40k
community.
The three main problems we have identified are as follows.

1. Weather its Panel or Peer comp, judges will sometimes get it wrong. Players get annoyed when
try their best to make fair lists to play at a comp event and get stung unreasonably on comp.

2. Panel, Peer and even the comp system that follows are unavoidably subjective.
Our opinions of how good or bad units or lists are can only be based on our own experiences
which differ sometimes greatly between person to person.

3. Because of both of these phenomenon, it can be nearly impossible for players to guess what
their comp score will be. Very often players give up on trying to make balanced and fair lists
because of this and will sometimes instead bring a list far too hard for a comp event.
Unfortunately the player that plays balanced list feels like a sucker when they don't get a decent
comp score and get trampled by one of these hard lists all the same.

The aim of this system is to remove the guessing game about comp by making everything as
transparent as possible. That way there will be no nasty surprises at the end of the event to upset people
and hopefully players wont give up on building fair and balanced comp armies.
We cant ever get rid of the subjectivity of comp but we can minimize it by tapping into the experience
and opinions of the best cross section of the community as we can.
A small committee will take feedback from the community to help guide their decisions on how best to
tweak the system every few months and after every new release. This will serve to keep the system
current and hopefully over time slowly improve to better balance the meta.
Simplicity is important so that the system remains easy to use and easy to identify if a player has made
a mistake. For this reason we will endeavor to keep the number of rules to a minimum.
Our consortium will host tournaments using this system and we are happy for you to use it for your
own tournaments if you wish.

We ask only that you give us feedback on how the system functioned at your event so that we can use
that information for continued improvements.

Thank you.
yup, THOSE guys are really just trying to rofl stomp newbs so or some stupid **** right pathwalker you septic sack o ****