No worries, didn't take it as complaining at all. Focused change is the best way to do it if you do it at all, I agree.
@Thread
Attached are the results of the poll.
240 people replied. Landslide majority for the change to take effect.
I'd be very curious to see how a vote on allowing/not allowing admantine lance would look.
We got time. I think that would be a fair second poll to put out. Anyone who was planning on running AdLance would have plenty of time to replace the third knight or just run them without the formation benefit: particularly given how the new invisibility change really boosted Knights.
Edit: And just to be clear, I'm running Sisters and AM at the LVO. No psykers, no Knights.
I am really disappointed in this. I would more like to vote on the five hive tyrant build we have been play testing it around here and it is much more game breaking than invisibility ever was. I would love to be running wave serpent spam or tyrant spam now. Even Knights love it. Hmm do you want to weaken one of the counters to three of the most powerful lists in the game? Why yes, yes I do. Everyone on the west coast must hate daemons. I haven't even really seen that many invisibility lists running rough shod over everyone at tournaments.
swanson4969 wrote: I am really disappointed in this. I would more like to vote on the five hive tyrant build we have been play testing it around here and it is much more game breaking than invisibility ever was. I would love to be running wave serpent spam or tyrant spam now. Even Knights love it. Hmm do you want to weaken one of the counters to three of the most powerful lists in the game? Why yes, yes I do. Everyone on the west coast must hate daemons. I haven't even really seen that many invisibility lists running rough shod over everyone at tournaments.
Normally I side with Frontline on almost everything, but this is just dumb. Pretty much everything Swanson says is spot on, and knowing Frontline guys the next poll will be on cover saves for Monstrous and Gargantuan creatures. The game isn't that broken tinkering with it is only going to make things worse, always had and always will.
Blackmoor wrote: That is why I hate polls. You are always subjecting the minority (invisibility users) to the tyranny of the majority.
Most people will vote there own self interests rather that what is fair.
As a user of invisibility I disagree. I think it should be changed, even though I know that it is the most critical thing to my Slaanesh demons.
^This. I believe that invis should be able to be hit by templates/blasts, but other than that, I think it is fine. Invis is the crutch that my pure Slaanesh daemons need to actually be a really viable list, otherwise my entire army is pretty much guardsmen or rough riders without guns who get their 5+ save all the time.
The way it should be changed should be voted on, we know the majority think it should be changed, but that type of change no longer makes it worth 2 warp charge. There are so many options to deal with this supposedly gamebreaking power. Exploring all options, even as a community afterwards, would be good in the long run.
Not surprised by the result. To me it'd be silly to change something that isn't hurting the game and is far less common and abusive than something like Ad-Lance. But I can't say I'm surprised that people voted to give their armies a leg up (even if they aren't admitting it to themselves).
The scaremongering articles about it also don't make for a reasonable decision pool.
Blackmoor wrote: That is why I hate polls. You are always subjecting the minority (invisibility users) to the tyranny of the majority.
Most people will vote there own self interests rather that what is fair.
Doesn't Democracy suck?
I'm not sure that most people will vote their own self interests. [Redacted political comment about American Voting patterns] I play Orks and Tyranids. If a poll was held to count a codex specific detachment as your 0-1 CAD, I would support it gladly even though it is against my own interests. Some things are good for the game, and the wider player base.
Invisibility is still good. So very, very good. Just like a 2+ reroll it is a very small change that doesn't make it that much worse, but does make it much more fun to play against.
If I thought invisibility was good for the game in its current form, I would have voted to keep it.
It's not a minor change though that Frontline is talking about though is it? It's a 100% increase to hit in CC. And now things that couldn't hit it before at all can. That's a massive, massive shift to how the power itself works. The only aspect of the power unchanged is hitting it on a 6 from direct shooting attacks.
That doesn't even get into the aspect of the power being one of the few ways for certain armies to deal with knights. Or that it makes current strong armies stronger.
But maybe it's a west coast thing and invisible units are running rampant out there
Also, I'd point out that playing orks and nids doesn't lend much weight to being willing to vote for Codex/Supplement Detachments counting as your CAD since self-ally exists. I mean at most you're losing that 5th tyrant that actually isn't good for your list. And the Ork detachments are very, very nice and unless you're fielding 6 kannon or buggy units you're coming out fine with self ally.
Why are everybody here assuming that the players vote against invis. to make their own army " stronger" so they could win more ?
Most players i talk to, who are not top ten or aiming for it in GTs, but just attain to have fun, says this: invis makes the game unfun. They don't like it.
This is what you see in the poll. The majority of the players don't like it. They fill up the GT and pay for it. Following the majority is not a bad thing.
Now i understand that it's difficult to nerf just something and not all the "broken" stuff. But IMO this is a sane aprouch. First it was 2+ reroll and now invis. Maybe next time they will take ad.lance.
There's a lot of knights players, but i haven't heard as much whining over ad.lance as over invis. Could be a local thing
(For the record : i play with a invis army if i can. )
It's not a minor change though that Frontline is talking about though is it? It's a 100% increase to hit in CC. And now things that couldn't hit it before at all can. That's a massive, massive shift to how the power itself works. The only aspect of the power unchanged is hitting it on a 6 from direct shooting attacks.
That doesn't even get into the aspect of the power being one of the few ways for certain armies to deal with knights. Or that it makes current strong armies stronger.
Misunderstanding of Nids and Orks aside, let me tackle your contention that invisibility is a major change.
The vast majority of ranged attacks are shooting attacks that don't use templates. No change has happened here.
The remaining ranged attacks fall into 2 categories. Templates, and automatic hits (Vector Strike, Nova, etc).
There was no change to automatic hits. The only change was to Templates. It is a small fraction of all attacks, and a change to it is thus by definition a small change.
As far as the change in close combat. 40k is a shooting game. Close combat is a minor portion of the damage done in the game. That being said, the reason this change is good, is that Invisibility creates a level of assault immunity found nowhere else in the game. It is a singular source for "Hitting on 6's" A Blind unit attacking a WS9 Demon Prince still hits on 5. Is it a big change for assault? Not really, while twice as many attacks hit, it is still the highest level of assault immunity available in the game. This change is to bring it into line with other defensive assault abilities such as having a high weapon skill or blind. It is still the best defensive power in the game by a mile, and is still highly worth it.
So the change to invisibility looks as follows. A change to a small portion of the shooting phase, and a change to the minority assault phase that retains its status as the best defensive ability available to assault. Is it a small change? I would say yes. You might say no, but It is certainly smaller than the FAQ change to blasts that makes them only able to target one level of terrain, and only 1 level higher than the level occupied by the current unit so that Swooping Flying Monstrous creates can't use a template to target any models on the 2nd level of terrain, unless they happen to be on the same terrain piece themselves.
Regarding Knights. They do the majority of their damage with Stomp. Stomp ignores invisibility. Hammer of Wrath also ignores invis. Invis wasn't a great defense against them, unless it was on a GC or SHV. It is barely worse now.
Um it is a major change. Knights still have D Weapon Attacks which it protects against. I am more afraid of losing my prince or keeper from D weapon attacks the a lucky stomp. Also last I checked Knights are cranking out at least three pie plates a turn...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have been playing against 5 tyrant lists during play testing and guarantee they will be unfun. When to we get to vote against them. Especially got forbid they get the fell no pain power.
Yeah, lets leave the nid/ork misunderstanding out of it
As for you view of invisibility I think it shows a lack of understanding of the units that are generally benefitting from it. There is one unit in a shooting edition that benefits from invisibility on a regular basis. Centurions. IG platoons can make use of it but how often do we see lists with that in mind?
The vast majority of units using it are multi-wound CC based units. Be it DE Beastpacks, a plethora of CC daemons, or TWC. Some are single wound assault units. What is the death of single wound, lightly armored units designed for assault? Volume and blasts. What is the death of multi-wound units generally? Instant Death Blasts. TWC aren't as affected by either. But things like DE Beastpacks and almost every daemon unit are.
Allowing blasts and templates to hit CC units is increasing the strength and durability of the current builds. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for it's actual CC benefits it would no longer be the best, it would be one of the best. An ability you have to roll for, invest points heavily to bring into play (you need the WC's afterall), and be in the right place to use should be better than blind or high weaponskill. Name another ability that costs (on average) 120pts (75% chance, 30pts per WC) to get off and can be denied by your opponent or taken away via removing one of a multitude of units over the course of the game that aren't the unit benefitting.
Against knights as has been mentioned it's the StD base attacks. It's also that there are a lot of units that can do damage that strike before stomps. Basically you half the number of StD hits your unit takes with invisibility. That's pretty huge.
That said I acknowledge there are many, many ways to ignore invisibility, so why does it need to be changed to allow more things to ignore it?
And I'd argue that since so many of the units that use invisibility are CC based it's a far higher proportional change than you casually wave away.
So while you see something you consider two minor tweaks I see a massive shift. It's not about how a tactical marine benefits. It's about how the units using it currently benefit. And worse it's a boost to armies that arguably make the game less fun overall since they dont' have to worry about invisible CC units in the game anymore.
Tyfus wrote: Why are everybody here assuming that the players vote against invis. to make their own army " stronger" so they could win more ?
Most players i talk to, who are not top ten or aiming for it in GTs, but just attain to have fun, says this: invis makes the game unfun. They don't like it.
Most players do not like it because they do not use it. Do you know what else is not fun to play against? Wave Serpents, Imperial Knights, Hive Tyrants, and anything else that is every good and hard to deal with. Those make the game unfun. A psychic power that is hard to cast, and is only on one unit is hardly game breaking and "unfun".
Tyfus wrote: Why are everybody here assuming that the players vote against invis. to make their own army " stronger" so they could win more ?
Most players i talk to, who are not top ten or aiming for it in GTs, but just attain to have fun, says this: invis makes the game unfun. They don't like it.
Most players do not like it because they do not use it. Do you know what else is not fun to play against? Wave Serpents, Imperial Knights, Hive Tyrants, and anything else that is every good and hard to deal with. Those make the game unfun. A psychic power that is hard to cast, and is only on one unit is hardly game breaking and "unfun".
As stated in my post i use armies with invisibility. Centurionstar and eldar. I can totally understand that other players (exept top players) find it a little unfun/broken/hopeless to play against. Guess we just have to disagree.
It's not neccessary on one unit. Last time i played against invis in a GT it was 3 units with invis in 1850 CSM//demons. Three smal stars. 2 csm sourcers on bike in their each nurgle spawn squad. And then a demon herald in screamer squad. Shure he was lucky on the telepath table... After that he was rather untouchable.
The numbers in the poll don't lie . The wast numbers of paying attendes prefere the GT without invis, even though no other nerfs like adm.lance was suggested.
I'd put odds on the vote to ban ad lance being even more skewed than the invisibility vote, which is a good reason other votes should be included. Also because those models are 100% able to still be run as another detachment (knights).
The details of the diagram is a little difficukt to read, and my english may be broken.
But to me it looks like about 15 i don't care, 155 for nerf, and 50 against nerf (numbers is a little of against total ). 240 people voting.
That's 64 % for nerfing and 20 % against.
If you exclude the "i don't care" it's 76 % for nerfing, and 24 % aginst nerfing. In my english that's a vaste majority. Could be just "major majority". :-) The native speaker chime in.
The details of the diagram is a little difficukt to read, and my english may be broken.
But to me it looks like about 15 i don't care, 155 for nerf, and 50 against nerf (numbers is a little of against total ). 240 people voting.
That's 64 % for nerfing and 20 % against.
If you exclude the "i don't care" it's 76 % for nerfing, and 24 % aginst nerfing. In my english that's a vaste majority. Could be just "major majority". :-) The native speaker chime in.
It would just be "majority" the others are just un-quantified descriptors that are going to mean something different to everyone.
I do feel bad for anyone that bought their ticket, reserved their rooms (in Vegas where you generally pay upfront), and their plane ticket to have their armies legs sliced out from under them. Not saying it did happen to anyone or anything but if it did I feel bad for them. Just not a fan of changing rules months after they stop being an issue.
Id also like to see adamantine lance toned down or removed,
such a silly thing, no downfall, huge amount of free benifits, rerolling ++ saves is a huge thing on knights
FWIW is have played with and against the lance, I feel it gives me a rediculous advantage, and there is literally no point in not taking it if you play knights.
IM glad reece is making these changes and doing FAQ's, it makes the game more fun and more competitive
"Democracy is where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49" -Thomas Jefferson
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Winston Churchill
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -Winston Churchill
"Democracy is a great thing and the fairest way of deciding issues--except when it disagrees with what I know to be right, then it is clearly the tyranny of the uneducated majority." - Me.
I do feel bad for anyone that bought their ticket, reserved their rooms (in Vegas where you generally pay upfront), and their plane ticket to have their armies legs sliced out from under them. Not saying it did happen to anyone or anything but if it did I feel bad for them. Just not a fan of changing rules months after they stop being an issue.
The GT is more than 2 months away. I think it's totallly unreasonable to expect that all rules, missions, faq and tweeks are locked so far up front. The invis change is IMO small.
I do feel bad for anyone that bought their ticket, reserved their rooms (in Vegas where you generally pay upfront), and their plane ticket to have their armies legs sliced out from under them. Not saying it did happen to anyone or anything but if it did I feel bad for them. Just not a fan of changing rules months after they stop being an issue.
The GT is more than 2 months away. I think it's totallly unreasonable to expect that all rules, missions, faq and tweeks are locked so far up front. The invis change is IMO small.
Except that wasn't what people were asking for. This isn't a mission or FAQ which you expect to maybe shift up to the week before the event. This is an actual rule change. It is reasonable to expect that any actual rule changes (and this isn't a grey area clarification or a universally incorrectly played rule like characters and infiltrating) to be announced when tickets go on sale. Not be voted on and decided after the event is sold out and after people have committed time and money.
And that doesn't affect the army changes that will likely need to be made and models to now be purchased/painted that weren't on the list because you don't expect a full rule change 2 months out. Again, this isn't people who build lists on a gimmick of how a rule could be interpretted. It's based on people building armies within the black and white rules of the game.
Like I said. I don't know if anyone did actually put all the money in yet that has an army that was affected. I just said it would suck if they did.
As a sidenote I don't play with invis in any of my armies and I'm not attending due to eating to much of my vacation time this year for non-40k stuff and my new year doesn't start till around Adepticon. So it's not that I want invis for myself. I just sympathize with those that it hammered and don't think it was good decision. He'd already sold out with Invis the way it was. Why do something that could have annoy or upset 25-30% of your attendees?
It's going to be an awesome event that Reece and his guys put on. And if I had the vaca I'd be there. Just don't think it's fair to all the attendees the way it was handled.
The type of people who drop out because they cannot use a power that takes away the ability of units to interact with them on the table are people I really wouldn't want to play against.
I do feel bad for anyone that bought their ticket, reserved their rooms (in Vegas where you generally pay upfront), and their plane ticket to have their armies legs sliced out from under them. Not saying it did happen to anyone or anything but if it did I feel bad for them. Just not a fan of changing rules months after they stop being an issue.
If a slight change to the rules of invisibility chops the legs out from an army it is safe to assume someone built their entire army to revolve around invisibility, which means they built their list around a power that basically makes the unit invincible to opponent attacks. That type of player (perhaps you?) really should reevaluate their view of how the game is meant to be played, i.e enjoyable for both players.
kimchi gamer what if tomorrow the voted against including wave serpents? or changing their rules? Maybe army revovled around using them. Well too bad I guess you shouldnt have built an army that revolves around that unit. What if you brought knights and there is nothing I can do about it? Maybe you should re evaluate the way you play? I bought and painted a Belakor model just to be able to deal with knights and serpents. I agonized over bringing him because I generally dont like to bring special characters. Now I have to completely reconfigure my army but too bad for me. I expected missions to change and maybe some comp things but not who sale rule changes. First the 2+ rerollable save which really never won anything and then the invisibility power. Why don't we put everything up for vote?
swanson4969 wrote: kimchi gamer what if tomorrow the voted against including wave serpents? or changing their rules? Maybe army revovled around using them. Well too bad I guess you shouldnt have built an army that revolves around that unit. I bought and painted a Belakor model just to be able to deal with knights and serpents. I agonized over bringing him because I generally dont like to bring special characters. Now I have to completely reconfigure my army but too bad for me. I expected missions to change and maybe some comp things but not who sale rule changes. First the 2+ rerollable save which really never won anything and then the invisibility power. Why don't we put everything up for vote?
Exactly! What if they ban pre-measuring too? And what if they force you to play Fantasy instead? Or, absurdly, what if people could have a discussion about their hobby without a golden shower of logical fallacies?
The type of people who drop out because they cannot use a power that takes away the ability of units to interact with them on the table are people I really wouldn't want to play against.
I do feel bad for anyone that bought their ticket, reserved their rooms (in Vegas where you generally pay upfront), and their plane ticket to have their armies legs sliced out from under them. Not saying it did happen to anyone or anything but if it did I feel bad for them. Just not a fan of changing rules months after they stop being an issue.
If a slight change to the rules of invisibility chops the legs out from an army it is safe to assume someone built their entire army to revolve around invisibility, which means they built their list around a power that basically makes the unit invincible to opponent attacks. That type of player (perhaps you?) really should reevaluate their view of how the game is meant to be played, i.e enjoyable for both players.
Oh man, someone didn't read everything I typed. Probably got to hard to see from that pedestal
People should be able to build their army around the rules. They should be able to build their army around a rule as long as it's black and white (i.e. set psychic powers). Saying people need to make sure the game is enjoyable for both players shouldn't then have a problem with adlance going away or even wave serpents or FMC's. There are a lot of things that make the game unfun to play against.
Flyers are just as hard to hit and can't be hit in combat but we aren't banning them. Why? And flyers get their abilities automatically and not after rolling 2 4's on however many dice you throw that cost an average of 30pts per dice and flyers don't lose their hard to hit status simply by someone rolling enough 6's to stop them before shooting at them. Flyers can be hit by snap shots and skyfire. Invisible units can be hit by: Stomps, Vectors, snap shots, impact hits, nova powers, and I'm sure some more that I'm missing. Flyers are broken and unfun! FMC's more so!!!!!!!
See how that works. Invisibility is annoying. But it's one unit and maelstrom forces you to play the game now. This isn't 6th where we didn't have maelstrom and it was deathstar hammer. The game has already shifted back out of deathstar's. What event had a deathstar win it recently? Or more, a deathstar with invisibility? I bet you more games were made unfun at the last 3 GT's I went to from Adlance than from invisibility.
Invisibility, as it is, is how many CC armies still function. There is 1 unit in the game that's a ranged unit that benefits greatly from invisibility and that's centurions. Everything else is CC based. People say this is a shooty game and then are in favor of instituting rules that make it more of a shooty game.
I dislike that being against a rulebook change makes me in favor of an unfun game.
Meh, no dog in this fight. Reece will run a great event, people will have a blast, and some people will or won't attend based on the poll.
The fact is that 7th edition is horrible for tournament play and any rules changes are just polishing the brass on the Titanic.
The LVO would have hardly have any players if it were not in Las Vegas, just like how the attendance is down for every other tournament so far this year. So any minor rules change that is implemented will have almost no impact on attendance since most people are there for Vegas, and socializing with there friends.
I still find it odd though that tournaments are allowing more and more FOC crazyness (Formations, multiple sources, forge world, etc), but it seems like when you give players a choice between a tournament with everything goes, and another that is very restrictive that most people choose the restricted tournament.
"Democracy is where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49" -Thomas Jefferson
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Winston Churchill
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -Winston Churchill
"Democracy is a great thing and the fairest way of deciding issues--except when it disagrees with what I know to be right, then it is clearly the tyranny of the uneducated majority." - Me.
You think a poll for one item is democracy? One person (Reecius) gets to choose the questions, sets the agenda, and sends out the polls. Hong Kong is rioting over such "democracy"
Dozer Blades wrote: They told they dropped out on principle - not because it would nerf their armies.
No one has dropped out as a result of this decision so far, but I do appreciate you continuously posting this around the net, lol. If you, or anyone is really that upset, all they have to do is reach out and we will refund their ticket, no questions asked and for any reason up until 30 days out form the event. We do have plenty of folks on the wait list, still, so I am sure others would appreciate the chance to attend.
However, I do have to say that if anyone is truly going to drop "on principal" because of a rule alteration, I have to ask why this rule and not any of the other rule changes that most every tournament implements such as: no unbound, limits on detachments, limiting some units (yes or no to Formations or Forgeworld, etc.)? Why not as a result of the Indy FAQ which alters lots of rules for the sake of ease of organized play? It seems arbitrary. However, to each their own. We strive to make fun, fair events. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on the definition of what is fun and fair.
@thread
Thanks for all the constructive criticism, everyone. We appreciate it. To address a few of the topics brought up:
Is this a big change? For the game in general: no. For an individual that built their list around it: yes, and for anyone in that position I do empathize. However, as with anytime we do something like this, it appears that more good will be done than ill. And when you have passionate stances on either side of a debate like this, that is the best you can hope for. Also, please remember everyone, that we are not just talking about Invis Centstars or Be'Lakor or what have you. We use LoW in our events, we are talking about those units going Invis, too. The impact here is more than a lot of folks may realize. An Invis Lynx or Khorne Mower, or Knight Acheron for example, is something most folks that don't play in a LoW environment may not have even considered.
Is voting fair? The vote was asking for an opinion and that is what we got. There really isn't an objective way to make a choice like this. The intent of the poll was for folks to vote on what they felt would make the game more or less enjoyable for them. While I am sure some folks did vote for their own interest (ie: I use Invis, I vote to keep it vs. I don't use invis therefore I vote to change it) but not everyone does so. We had 16 votes for "I don't care," which shows factually that not everyone voted to boost their army or hurt others. Also, I know some folks that use Invis that voted to change it and vice versa. Frankie voted not to change it, and he does not use Invis.
Voter bias is of course a real thing, but asking those coming to the event if they want a change or not is logical. I know of no better way to do it. For example, if we covered this on an exit poll from the BAO, those coming to the LVO but not the BAO wouldn't have had a say in their own fate, which feels unfair to me. If we only do it on exit polls, we also obviously miss the opportunity to rule on anything that comes up between that point and the next event. Now, I certainly could have gotten this done earlier and I do apologize for dragging my feet a bit but I kept putting it off as we have been super busy with the business. That said, we are still over 60 days out, this is plenty of time to adjust. Going forward, we will certainly make any adjustments like this (if we do it again) before putting tickets up for sale assuming that is possible (a new rule that has come out between that point and the event, for example).
And as for voting resulting in one group's opinion overriding the minority group...well...yes. That is what voting is. Is the proposed alternate path to only ask folks that use Invis? That is less fair. As always though, if people have methods for gathering data that would improve our decision making process, I am all ears. We use the tools we have available to us, and voting is as fair of a method as I have encountered to date.
As for the argument of "if we change Invis, why don't we change X,Y,Z..." Well, for one that is a slippery slope fallacy, and not a solid counterargument, but I understand the sentiment. Our logic is this: we don't want to target specific armies if we can help it. As with the 2+ reroll save, we want to only target those things that A.) a majority of players we interact with don't like, and that B.) are as fairly applied to as many armies as possible. This way, it is as fair as possible. As any army can get Invis to greater or lesser degrees through allies, this is a relatively more of an even change than say, altering AdLance, or Wave Serpents or what have you. Again, perspectives will vary, but that is the logic behind it.
As for this being a personal crusade, yes and no. I don't like Invis, I have been very open about that. I think it makes the game a lot less fun. However, that is not the final justification for anything we do. I also hate CtA allies, but I got overruled on that one because most players wanted it. Invis is something that comes up consistently and so we put it to a vote not knowing what the outcome would be, and we see that the overwhelming majority of those going to the LVO wanted it to be toned down.
Hopefully that clears things up, some.
As Krootman said, this is going to be a super fun tournament with friends in Vegas! Try not to get tunnel vision on one aspect of the format as the intent of this is to make the event more enjoyable for more people, not to make it less enjoyable for a few people.
@TasteyTaste
I appreciate your honest feedback, buddy, and no offense taken. However, this was not an "FLG Thing" or what have you. We try to change as few of the rules as possible and only when there is a lot of support for it. Our biases do come into play of course, we're human, but this was not a personal crusade. And, it's funny that you bring up the tow in cover thing as Frankie and I were laughing about wishing that was changed today, but that we have no one else talking to us about that rule issue. We feel it more than most because of who we play against. So, you are free to interpret this as you choose, but I can assure you I didn't just sit up one day and say, F Invisibility or something like that.
@Hulk
Wish you could make it! Thanks for the feedback though, much appreciated.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Blackmoor
Oooooh, buddy. You do so love to take shots at us, haha. And then you still come to every event! Your hypocrisy much like Doc Holiday's, apparently knows no bounds.
I don't arbitrarily choose topics. I can see that that may be the appearance, but it is not accurate. We talk about these things with the team, we listen to attendees, and we gather data. It is not me shooting from the hip.
Vegas would have no attendance if it weren't Vegas? So, the fact that we run a tight ship, on schedule, with beautiful terrain, and every other aspect of the event that we bust our asses over to make it fun don't count for anything at all? Thanks for that.
If that is the case, then it is Odd that the BAO, just 4 months ago, was a sell out event with a wait list. That was in San Jose, so odd that that was the case.
Or how about Brawl in the Fall which was just a few months ago that was also sold out with a 30 deep wait list in Clovis, CA? Weird.
I am being a bit sarcastic here, obviously, but you're being ridiculous, man. There is no need to be so negative. If you disagree with aspects of our format, that is fine, but please refrain from these silly and illogical arguments you're making.
I bought my ticket with my team, bought the hotel for them and am contributing to gas and all th other stuff that goes with traveling to an event, time off work and hundreds of dollars. I worked on an army, getting it painted for the event. That army's hammer unit (seekers of slaanesh) buffed by Be'Lakor is now approx. 50% less durable. I was already planning for mid-table mediocrity, as evidenced by my showing at BAO with a counts-as Be'Lakor and fully painted screamers. I won't bail on my mates, however, had I known when tickets went on sale that this was part of the event's rules I would not have invested the time and effort on painting those models. I would have instead done what most other players do, build the best army I can within the rule set provided.
Now I have the choice of fairing even worse than usual with my in-progress army, or scrapping all that effort and constructing a different army in the remaining time, including holidays and other such commitments.
While I like the events that you run (BAO was great, even with the small issues)I believe that you have handled this matter poorly, at best. It leaves a terrible taste in my mouth, far worse than the taste of having to play against an unfun army. You have succeeded at making the majority marginally more happy at the expense of disenfranchising a small group of players.
Lots of people have weighed in thus far so I might as well add my .5 cents
I dislike the nerf to invisibility (as a player that 'may' use it, although honestly I hadn't thought much of it until all of this hoopla around it), but I understand that the game is meant to be fun between all of those individuals involved. That being said a vote was made and a change is inbound. Will it affect what/how I play? meh, perhaps, but I suspect others will feel the sting of it more (or less depending on if they even cared).
I think the biggest issue towards 'balance' at this stage of the game is how detachments are classified. I think the initial premise many had going into 7th edition was that battleforged was the way to go, but formations/dataslates/knights/etc kinda wrenched that a bit. Some wanted to go 'full monty' others wanted to wade in the shallow end because it was familiar and had a perceived balance to it.
The new detachments (lets call them pseudo-CAD, because they aren't CAD or allies or formations), is where the concept of balanced play starts to creep towards unbound rather than the perceived battleforged that most accept.
P-CAD isn't battleforged, and really is like taking another CAD to be honest (which everyone else is prohibited from doing under the current format unless they too have the magic detachment mojo). Now I am not talking about formations, as that is called out separately in the rules and consist of specific models rather than # of options from a modified FOC.
Much of the crazy that we see (not all of course AdLance wouldn't fall into this category) can be mitigated somewhat by limiting that to CADOR Codex Detachment as 0-1, with much of the same left as is. It would help level things a little I feel.
But what about Ad-Lance? Count them as a CAD/Codex Detachment (using the above format of only one or the other) instead of a Formation (doesn't change them fundamentally but does limit some of the extra crazy then can field with allies).
Oh and can we have our 2+ re-roll saves back now, 6th edition is officially passed...
Oooooh, buddy. You do so love to take shots at us, haha. And then you still come to every event! Your hypocrisy much like Doc Holiday's, apparently knows no bounds.
No hypocrisy. I like your events and will support them, and that does not mean that I will not try to voice my opinions on some matters. I don't use invisibility, but I do not think it is right to nerf it.
Reecius wrote: I don't arbitrarily choose topics. I can see that that may be the appearance, but it is not accurate. We talk about these things with the team, we listen to attendees, and we gather data. It is not me shooting from the hip.
It was not a shot at you to say that you are the one who is issuing the polls and get to decide on what we are voting on. I am just pointing out to those who think it is true democracy in action that it is not. As I have said in the past, I trust your judgement more than the average attendee and I would be more comfortable with you making unilateral decisions that putting it up for a vote.
Reecius wrote: Vegas would have no attendance if it weren't Vegas? So, the fact that we run a tight ship, on schedule, with beautiful terrain, and every other aspect of the event that we bust our asses over to make it fun don't count for anything at all? Thanks for that.
You do all of that, and I am not arguing that.
What I am saying is that you would not have a large attendance without it being in Las Vegas. Now we have no way to prove our opinions one way or another so it will remain just our opinions. Tournament attendance is way down this year for almost every event, but you have the advantage of being in Las Vegas which gets people fired up to come on out to it.
Reecius wrote: If that is the case, then it is Odd that the BAO, just 4 months ago, was a sell out event with a wait list. That was in San Jose, so odd that that was the case.
The BAO had a smaller capacity than in years past, and San Jose is much, much, much better than Antioch.
Reecius wrote: Or how about Brawl in the Fall which was just a few months ago that was also sold out with a 30 deep wait list in Clovis, CA? Weird.
The Brawl in the Fall only had 64 slots and it was centrally located in California. For a state that is as large as California it really has very limited tournament choices. Now I am not saying anything bad about the BAO and the BitF, but there are other factors at play here.
Reecius wrote: I am being a bit sarcastic here, obviously, but you're being ridiculous, man. There is no need to be so negative. If you disagree with aspects of our format, that is fine, but please refrain from these silly and illogical arguments you're making.
What I was saying was not a personal attack. It was just my opinions that you took as a personal attack.
I would love to be more possitive, but GW is killing the 40K tournament scene. Attendance is way down and a lot of good players have fled to other game systems. If you take Adepticon as an example, last year they sold out their 40k championships in about an hour, and this year tickets are still available. What is more telling though is that they sold out their hotel block in a hurry and they are working on their 2nd and 3rd hotels. This means that other games are getting very popular, and 40k is declining,
Even though you run a tight ship, and have a good format, you are not immune to the outside forces that are killing tournament 40k.
With regards to Invisibility, here is my take. Just so that you know, I do run Invisibility - the Centstar, Be'lakor/seekerstar daemons and Tyranids (oh wait...no, that's flyer-spam).
First of all, for all the players basing their main strategy on Invisibility, I will say this....I feel for you. While I DO agree with the nerf to Invisibility, I myself voted AGAINST it as I know the majority will overwhelm the minority and that isn't quite fair to those players.
I understand your frustration at spending all your time working on an army, only to have it nerfed (it is NOT invalidated, just nerfed).
However, I've got to say this....get over yourselves and stop your self-pitying. Basing your army strategy just on 1 power is pure folly. You need to have a more balanced army than that. Despite the nerf to Invisibility, it is still strong (just not broken strong). With your ability to summon Daemons, Daemons are still a good army. So stop relying on just 1 power. Daemons are much better than that.
As for the centstar, I take no pity on them at all. Despite the nerf to Invisibility, they are still a super-powerful and very frustrating unit to play against.
For all the Daemon players who feel stuck in a rut, I offer this. You can PM me with your list and I will give advice on how to change your tactics (and perhaps even your list) against what you feel may be your bad matchups.
jy2 wrote: "Can't we all just get along?" - Rodney King
With regards to Invisibility, here is my take. Just so that you know, I do run Invisibility - the Centstar, Be'lakor/seekerstar daemons and Tyranids (oh wait...no, that's flyer-spam).
First of all, for all the players basing their main strategy on Invisibility, I will say this....I feel for you. While I DO agree with the nerf to Invisibility, I myself voted AGAINST it as I know the majority will overwhelm the minority and that isn't quite fair to those players.
I understand your frustration at spending all your time working on an army, only to have it nerfed (it is NOT invalidated, just nerfed).
However, I've got to say this....get over yourselves and stop your self-pitying. Basing your army strategy just on 1 power is pure folly. You need to have a more balanced army than that. Despite the nerf to Invisibility, it is still strong (just not broken strong). With your ability to summon Daemons, Daemons are still a good army. So stop relying on just 1 power. Daemons are much better than that.
As for the centstar, I take no pity on them at all. Despite the nerf to Invisibility, they are still a super-powerful and very frustrating unit to play against.
For all the Daemon players who feel stuck in a rut, I offer this. You can PM me with your list and I will give advice on how to change your tactics (and perhaps even your list) against what you feel may be your bad matchups.
On the off chance that my recent post contributed to your response. I don't see how your comment about self pity is even remotely helpful. Letting the event organizers know that they way they handled this issue had a big impact on a minority while having a minimal impact on the majority is not self pity. As a long time daemon player, I know what buffing and nerfing is, thank you. I also have had far more opponents complain about summoning spam than ever complained about invisibility. Summoning, while it may be a great tournament strategy (resulting in a mass of psychic dice, and rarely finishing a game naturally) is not fun to play or play against. I chose, what I thought was the lesser of two evils.
I like to run themed lists. Mono god, to the extent possible. I've run Tzeentch for 4 years now. It is now a summoning list, as what little shooting it had has fallen prey to 7E psychic mechanics. I stopped running it.
The point is not that I can't construct a new list. Of course I can, but thank you for offering. Will you build and paint the models to go with my new list? The point is that we had a tacit social contract with the TOs and they invalidated their side. When a new book drops the TO can do little, but actively changing a core rulebook rule after selling the tickets is poor form.
Like I said, I feel for your position of having to make changes to your army against a change that probably affects your army more than others. Yes, you have a right to complain. But currently, you have 3 options - 1) to either change up your army list, 2) to not make any changes and go as is or 3) to not go. I can understand if some people choose option #3, but for those who want to tough it out, there's no use crying over spilled milk. It's already done. I am just trying to offer help to those who are not sure how they can adapt to change. Consider my perspective to be tough love if you want.
@Allan
I believe you're rather wrong about the "What I am saying is that you would not have a large attendance without it being in Las Vegas."
I don't care for Vegas's slot machines or other trappings. I'm going so that I can play in a big, 40kGT. Last year I skipped all 'Vegas' related activities. My roomate did likewise.
Please keep up the quote battle though!
@punchdub
"You have succeeded at making the majority marginally more happy at the expense of disenfranchising a small group of players. "
That, sir, is democracy. Thank the ancient greeks. Although your assessment of 'marginally more happy' missed my feelings. Shooting at and fighting Invis-TWC , well, to paraphrase Bart Simpson, "I didn't think it was possible, but that both sucked and blew." I am more than marginally happy about this.
@thread
Time to grow a vagina kids (referring to Betty White's advice from her SNL monologue). The vote is in, Invis is getting some "massive, massive" nerfing (ah, Hulk, that one let me down, 16% to 33% is not what I'd call a "massive, massive" increase ).
@ Reece
Time for important things, okay? Seriously. No sarcasm. What will the bar be stocking? Will acquiring beer be like last year, that 'ticket' system?
Brothererekose wrote: @Allan
I believe you're rather wrong about the "What I am saying is that you would not have a large attendance without it being in Las Vegas."
I don't care for Vegas's slot machines or other trappings. I'm going so that I can play in a big, 40kGT. Last year I skipped all 'Vegas' related activities. My roomate did likewise.
I should say as large of attendance as they are having.
@punchdub
"You have succeeded at making the majority marginally more happy at the expense of disenfranchising a small group of players. "
That, sir, is democracy. Thank the ancient greeks. Although your assessment of 'marginally more happy' missed my feelings. Shooting at and fighting Invis-TWC , well, to paraphrase Bart Simpson, "I didn't think it was possible, but that both sucked and blew." I am more than marginally happy about this.
@thread
Time to grow a vagina kids (referring to Betty White's advice from her SNL monologue). The vote is in, Invis is getting some "massive, massive" nerfing (ah, Hulk, that one let me down, 16% to 33% is not what I'd call a "massive, massive" increase ).
Personally I'd say it's time for people who complain about invisibility to "grow a vagina" as you put it. The rules are being changed based on an imbalance that is lowest on the offensive totem pole right now.
Also when does a 100% increase or a 50% cut not indicate a massive shift? You do realize that's what it is right? A 100% increase in CC hits. We're also looking at the increase in going from no damage from blasts and templates to damage from blasts and templates.
I feel like people telling people to adapt would sing a different tune if something had been done to mess with the army they had planned when they bought the ticket based on black and white rulebook rules.
Hulksmash wrote: Personally I'd say it's time for people who complain about invisibility to "grow a vagina" as you put it. The rules are being changed based on an imbalance that is lowest on the offensive totem pole right now.
Okay, you say thatt Invis is lowest on the totem pole, then what is the highest one in your neck-of-the-woods? (not a, "Oh, yeah, what would you say!?!?" , but a "Oh. What do guys complain about most where you play?" nice question. )
Hulksmash wrote: Also when does a 100% increase or a 50% cut not indicate a massive shift? You do realize that's what it is right? A 100% increase in CC hits. We're also looking at the increase in going from no damage from blasts and templates to damage from blasts and templates.
For example, going from a 5% to 10% chance of success is a one-hundred percent increase, but still small odds of success. Not a game changer. Apply that to a d100 game, like the RPG Runequest or goodness knows what else.
16% to 33% ... twice as good, yes, but still less than average, less than a 50% of success per throw, thus, in my opinion, not a drastic game changer. To me, 'massive' would entail bumping the odds of success over 50% on the dice. But we quibble on that.
And yes, I like the fluff reason behind templates working, and yup, agree to the nerfage it causes. *That* is a far bigger game changer. Absolutely. Massive (no sarcasm).
Hulksmash wrote: I feel like people telling people to adapt would sing a different tune if something had been done to mess with the army they had planned when they bought the ticket based on black and white rulebook rules.
I agree. I'd be a big hypocrite if I were to whine, bitch and complain if Serpent Shields got nerfed.
And they need the nerf. I went 4 and 2 at BAO, and I'm not good. Iif you've seen picks of my eldar that I brought to BAO, and Brawl in the Fall, then you'd know I'd take a serious hit in that 4 WaveS army. But that'd be codex specific, instead of RB. So, maybe not a good comparison.
However, I accept your admonishment; If WaveSerpent got nerfed, I promise you I will take it like a birthing orifice, stretching with the changes, even drastic changes (10 centimeters!), and eventually pull back into functional shape, taking the pounding that Sam Kininson once described as 'getting rammed by a car."
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
After all that, Brad, figure out what game show you need to win, which boss to bully, how much 'Honey-Do' you have to do for your wife, and make out to this event. We have beers to buy each other!
You think a poll for one item is democracy? One person (Reecius) gets to choose the questions, sets the agenda, and sends out the polls. Hong Kong is rioting over such "democracy"
So you dislike the idea of taking a poll because you don't think democracy works because the common voter is self-serving and stupid*, but then apparently you do think democracy works, but this isn't really democracy because Reasons and hyperbolic comparisons to people who are actually being oppressed. Gotcha.
* As opposed to smart, savvy people like yourself, of course.
Well played sir This year is a total no go. The plan is to be there next year though so the beer will have to wait till then unless you're headed to Adepticon
Next one will likely be a local one in March, the Darkstar. Then Adepticon in the middle of March. The plan was to make this one last year when it was being planned last year but 5 out of state weddings this year put pay to my vacation time so next year it is
Hehe, oh yeah Well then Adepticon is the next event. Then Darkstar here in MN, Bugeater in NE, ATC in TN and then probably a break till the fall when we've got Michigan, Indy, and Renegade. And I only have to fly to one of these
I went to the first LVO... and seriously bummed that I won't be attending next year.
If I could, I would've voted to leave it alone as we had ample time to devise ways to counter it.
@Reecus and @thread...
Have you thought about having a GT in the Highlander format (with obvious caveats, ie Sisters), with no other nerfs?
That might be the best of both worlds as mitigating the strong list/combos in the tournament scenes.
1 Detachment
1 Allies
Formations allowed
FW & LoW Special characters count as their type (Mephiston is a Librarian, etc)
Everything is 0-1 (including Priests, Heralds, etc...) This means one unit of Carnifexes of 1-3 models allowed, for example.
That kills the spam lists (Waveserpents, Necron Flyer spam, Farseer spam, Riptide spam, etc...).
Essentially the anti-SPAM:
The only thing that it doesn't "fix", is that adamantine lance formation?
whembly wrote: I went to the first LVO... and seriously bummed that I won't be attending next year.
1 Detachment
1 Allies
Formations allowed
FW & LoW Special characters count as their type (Mephiston is a Librarian, etc)
Everything is 0-1 (including Priests, Heralds, etc...) This means one unit of Carnifexes of 1-3 models allowed, for example.
That kills the spam lists (Waveserpents, Necron Flyer spam, Farseer spam, Riptide spam, etc...).?
So an ork army with only one unit of boys and one unit of grots as troops? Only one trukk? Limiting everything else to 0-1 but allowing detachments or formations that include multiples of things is just plain dumb. And only allowing those formations/detachments with 0-1 of units limits what armies even have access to them. That would never work. You want highlander come and play in the highlander tournament on Sunday I'll be there as well.
I come to the LVOGT to try and win the painting award and you have just basically shelved 3/4's of my army. There is more to this very large GT then just balance of a single element in a single event.
whembly wrote: I went to the first LVO... and seriously bummed that I won't be attending next year.
1 Detachment
1 Allies
Formations allowed
FW & LoW Special characters count as their type (Mephiston is a Librarian, etc)
Everything is 0-1 (including Priests, Heralds, etc...) This means one unit of Carnifexes of 1-3 models allowed, for example.
That kills the spam lists (Waveserpents, Necron Flyer spam, Farseer spam, Riptide spam, etc...).?
So an ork army with only one unit of boys and one unit of grots as troops? Only one trukk? Limiting everything else to 0-1 but allowing detachments or formations that include multiples of things is just plain dumb. And only allowing those formations/detachments with 0-1 of units limits what armies even have access to them. That would never work. You want highlander come and play in the highlander tournament on Sunday I'll be there as well.
Eh... I think it'll work. It's not perfect by any stretch. But, because the game is a more Maelstrom variant of capture/hold the objectives... under Highlander rules, you couldn't spam out the cheap and/or effective units. You'd have to take the challenge to construct your list to handle the missions. 'Tis why "deathstars" isn't really worth it anymore and we'd see more interesting armies.
*shrugs*
It's just a thought man.
I come to the LVOGT to try and win the painting award and you have just basically shelved 3/4's of my army. There is more to this very large GT then just balance of a single element in a single event.
I'm in no way, advocating that Reecius does this in two months. Maybe in two years?
I am attending LVO and am grateful that the organizers are open-minded about modifying those parts of tournament 40K which were obviously not adequately thought out nor playtested. Invisibility was a mistake as written and is leveraged by players who don't really want to play an interactive wargame. It will be a better event if players who depend on such strategies either amend their lists to play in a more interactive style, or choose to attend other tourneys. I feel other items to address should be the application of Void Shield Generator protection to models outside of 12" and the extension of cover to models with just a toe in terrain. One would hope that GW would make fixes like this so that TOs wouldn't have to.
2¢
Coldsteel wrote: Invisibility was a mistake as written and is leveraged by players who don't really want to play an interactive wargame. It will be a better event if players who depend on such strategies either amend their lists to play in a more interactive style, or choose to attend other tourneys.
Or someone wants to get to place a close combat army and the ridiculousness of the shooting armies out there means invisibility is one of the few ways to make it into assault?
That spoon big enough for you so that you can get all the lumps?
Coldsteel wrote: Invisibility was a mistake as written and is leveraged by players who don't really want to play an interactive wargame. It will be a better event if players who depend on such strategies either amend their lists to play in a more interactive style, or choose to attend other tourneys.
Or someone wants to get to place a close combat army and the ridiculousness of the shooting armies out there means invisibility is one of the few ways to make it into assault?
That spoon big enough for you so that you can get all the lumps?
You can't get through to them all Hulk but I'd be damned before I said you weren't trying your hardest
Coldsteel wrote: I am attending LVO and am grateful that the organizers are open-minded about modifying those parts of tournament 40K which were obviously not adequately thought out nor playtested. Invisibility was a mistake as written and is leveraged by players who don't really want to play an interactive wargame. It will be a better event if players who depend on such strategies either amend their lists to play in a more interactive style, or choose to attend other tourneys. I feel other items to address should be the application of Void Shield Generator protection to models outside of 12" and the extension of cover to models with just a toe in terrain. One would hope that GW would make fixes like this so that TOs wouldn't have to.
2¢
Says someone who likely plays an army that has the ability to shoot more than 1-2 weapons in a turn. Please, again, tell me how my themed Slaanesh daemon army is supposed play an interactive game when I can't make my opponent choose between dumping all their firepower into my invis unit, or utterly wiping out my entire army on turn 1, with my awesome 5++ T3 models?
Oh, you suggest I stop playing slaanesh and go back to summoning? Yes, this seems to be a common suggestion. Tell me how that makes for an interactive game?
Thanks for giving my [TAU/ELDAR] army a leg up it didn't need versus the one good thing going for choppy armies - one less thing to worry about now.
Cheers,
Cheesy Shooty Player
Invisibility still forces them (Tau/Eldar) to hit on 6's, which makes it still good against those armies. I believe the example you want to use are Imperial Knights and Astra Militarum.
Coldsteel wrote: Invisibility was a mistake as written and is leveraged by players who don't really want to play an interactive wargame. It will be a better event if players who depend on such strategies either amend their lists to play in a more interactive style, or choose to attend other tourneys.
Or someone wants to get to place a close combat army and the ridiculousness of the shooting armies out there means invisibility is one of the few ways to make it into assault?
That spoon big enough for you so that you can get all the lumps?
You can't get through to them all Hulk but I'd be damned before I said you weren't trying your hardest
We do have Highlander this year! It has good attendance too, we will report on how it goes. The main event though, is still the traditional championships.
@Hulk
For someone that isn't even coming to the event I think you have commented in this thread more than I have, lol.
Dead horses my man, dead horses. You better be there next year for all of the energy you are investing into this, haha.
@Coldsteel
Thanks! We look forward to having you!
@Punchdub
I am genuinely sorry to hear that you are going to be adversely impacted by this ruling. Your list sounds like the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater, unfortunately and for that, I honestly do feel for you.
Your style list is probably what GW intended the power to be used for. Unfortunately, what we get more commonly is invisible deathstars and lords of war which are the types of things that make people not want to come back to tournaments.
You still have over two months, perhaps use some alternate strategies if you think it will be that rough for you? Maybe change a unit out? I know it is easy to direct your frustration at the event or myself, personally (and justifiably so), but if GW had changed invis with an FAQ in December, you'd be in the same boat, you know? The difference here is that it is the community of gamers going to the event that wanted the change, and as such it feels differently.
But I do empathize with you, honestly. You were not the target of the change at all.
@Blackmoor
I understand your position dude, but you come across with such absurd arguments and that is a pet peeve of mine. You are my friend, I like having you at events, but sometimes you come across so incredibly negatively that it is hard not to construe as an attack.
And as for saying this poll was false, or what have you, take a gander at this. The first time we ran the poll on invis at the beginning of 7th, we got the following result.
Early 7th ed Poll to change Invis
The vote to change Invis lost narrowly, and so we didn't change it. We ran it again this go around and the results were different.
Current poll to change invis for LVO 2015
The vote was a huge swing the other direction. There is no difference is the way we gathered the data. This is a community vote of attendees. This time, the result was just different.
Now, could the timing have been better? Yeah, no doubt. I wish we would have done it earlier but we have been slammed with work. We've been saying we were going to get to this for weeks, but I kept procrastinating. I admit that was not done as well as it could have. And, I guess that only having one question threw people off, we normally have several. However, saying that the poll was false pretense or whatever is just funny. How do we know the result of something before it happens? We don't is of course, the obvious answer. I think it is hilarious that folks think we somehow knew what was going to happen before we got the results, haha, I WISH I had that ability! Unfortunately, the results were as much a mystery to me as to you all until the votes came in. Plenty of times I have wanted a result to come in that didn't. It's just the way the cookie crumbles. But attacking democracy or whatever is really just a silly counterargument.
So, think what you will of course, but the data reflects the wishes of those going to the event. If you are upset about it, I am sorry for that, but please don't cast stones at me as an individual questioning my integrity.
Lesson learned from this: if any proposed changes are to occur, do them earlier in the game.
At any rate, this is a done deal. We look forward to seeing everyone at the LVO, even you, Mr. Blackmoor.
Reecius wrote: take a gander at this. The first time we ran the poll on invis at the beginning of 7th, we got the following result.
Spoiler:
Early 7th ed Poll to change Invis
The vote to change Invis lost narrowly, and so we didn't change it. We ran it again this go around and the results were different.
Current poll to change invis for LVO 2015
The vote was a huge swing the other direction. There is no difference is the way we gathered the data. This is a community vote of attendees. This time, the result was just different.
Do you have theories as to why the vote was so much different this time? People hadn't had a chance to play against it yet at the time the first vote was taken?
Reecius was very vocal on the Internet with his campaign against Invisibility telling everyone how unfun it makes the game. Obviously he influenced some people.
The first poll was at the beginning of 7th when Invis was really new. The second poll is now. I would assume that after playing with and against the power people now feel they don't want it in their game.
But, if you ask Dozer, OBVIOUSLY I influenced every voter! Because, in addition to the powers of precognition I apparently also can control people thoughts and actions! Muahaha! Next step: WORLD DOMINATION!
I understand your position dude, but you come across with such absurd arguments and that is a pet peeve of mine. You are my friend, I like having you at events, but sometimes you come across so incredibly negatively that it is hard not to construe as an attack.
I am sorry if I am coming off that way. I know that I can word my statements a little better.
And as for saying this poll was false, or what have you, take a gander at this. The first time we ran the poll on invis at the beginning of 7th, we got the following result.
So, think what you will of course, but the data reflects the wishes of those going to the event. If you are upset about it, I am sorry for that, but please don't cast stones at me as an individual questioning my integrity.
I don't think that anyone here has questioned the accuracy of the poll, or questioned your integrity. People are just disappointed by the question and the results.
Some people wanted a poll, the attendees voted, and it is what it is.
At any rate, this is a done deal. We look forward to seeing everyone at the LVO, even you, Mr. Blackmoor.
Dozer Blades wrote: Reecius was very vocal on the Internet with his campaign against Invisibility telling everyone how unfun it makes the game. Obviously he influenced some people.
I have not really heard Reecius say too much about it other than a few comments on his podcast, and I doubt that it would influence many tournament goers.
I would attribute it to more to the fact that there is so much crap out there to worry about that one less thing (like invisibility) the better. So it was voted down by players who did not use it, or who are playing shooty armies.
Dozer Blades wrote: Reecius was very vocal on the Internet with his campaign against Invisibility telling everyone how unfun it makes the game. Obviously he influenced some people.
You give Reece way too much credit for the amount of influence he has over a single community. While I can't attend the LVO this year I enjoy following this thread but you're just purposefully antagonizing people here.
I remember Reecius posting about it on the Internet and that's what I attribute it to. One units are going to steam roll through other armies with it? BeaStar and JSC are done. Except for Be'lakor I don't think you can reliably count on rolling it.
Dozer Blades wrote: I remember Reecius posting about it on the Internet and that's what I attribute it to. One units are going to steam roll through other armies with it? BeaStar and JSC are done. Except for Be'lakor I don't think you can reliably count on rolling it.
Lots of people post about things on the internet. If Reece posts about his love of unicorns on the internet and then takes a poll of LVO attendees if they too love unicorns you think the poll results will be directly related to his post about unicorns?
I guess all people on the internet are the sheep to Reece's Squealer...
Going to go out on a limb here and propose three reasons:
They have played against it and it was unfun
They are afraid of the unknown, deathstars; i.e. kittens in ninja outfits with lightsabers
They opted to nerf armies other than their own
and a 4th option although this may be the true purpose: the unicorns Reecius loves so much are jealous about not getting their poll to confirm who else loves them, and secretly, in the shadows, and as an attempt to retaliate, have construed fallacious arguments in regards to invisibility and using mental powers we don't truly understand, have influenced the LVO attendees.
I think next year the icon for LVO should be an evil drunk, unicorn
Going to go out on a limb here and propose three reasons:
They have played against it and it was unfun
They are afraid of the unknown, deathstars; i.e. kittens in ninja outfits with lightsabers
They opted to nerf armies other than their own
and a 4th option although this may be the true purpose: the unicorns Reecius loves so much are jealous about not getting their poll to confirm who else loves them, and secretly, in the shadows, and as an attempt to retaliate, have construed fallacious arguments in regards to invisibility and using mental powers we don't truly understand, have influenced the LVO attendees.
I think next year the icon for LVO should be an evil drunk, unicorn
That is some funny Sh** right there...and number 4 is actually true!!...even though I do not know why I think that....hmmmm...
remember everyone 40k is a game of toy soldiers and is meant to be fun...
One way or the other everyone should thank FLG for pouring countless hours of time into putting together an event for peeps to play in, they risk their business success on these events...not to mention its financial security...so I hope everyone travels safe and has a good time...I will be in attendance next year...work had me committed this year...
I think part of it is that the previous one didn't just go out to people attending. It went out to every person who had ever purchased from Frontline. I remember voting on that poll but people like me not attending this event this year didn't get to vote. Could account for a portion of it anyway.
@Reece
I don't think it's a dead horse when people incorrectly and repeatedly paint everyone who might use invis as some unfun mean man who murders kittens Plus most of my "energy" was when I was bored at work. Like I said earlier, 50% bored at work and 50% cares
To the fact that people's opinions change over time based on a variety of reasons, including game experience, input from their friends and yes, online sources such as forums, podcasts, etc.
But frankly the 'why' is largely irrelevant. The fact is that the vast majority of attendees do support the change and therefore it is stupid not to make the change if doing so will please the vast majority of the people attending.
If Reece has some sort of magical sway over peoples' minds that you believe that he does, then so be it. If that's the case, then the people attending have drunken his Kool-aid and will be much more happy with that change being made at this event than leaving it stand.
And note that I do not actually believe that Reece (or anyone) has the ability to magically sway peoples' opinions. He can say what he thinks and those who respect him will consider what he is saying, but ultimately everybody makes up their own minds about what they believe.
I am genuinely sorry to hear that you are going to be adversely impacted by this ruling. Your list sounds like the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater, unfortunately and for that, I honestly do feel for you.
Your style list is probably what GW intended the power to be used for. Unfortunately, what we get more commonly is invisible deathstars and lords of war which are the types of things that make people not want to come back to tournaments.
You still have over two months, perhaps use some alternate strategies if you think it will be that rough for you? Maybe change a unit out? I know it is easy to direct your frustration at the event or myself, personally (and justifiably so), but if GW had changed invis with an FAQ in December, you'd be in the same boat, you know? The difference here is that it is the community of gamers going to the event that wanted the change, and as such it feels differently.
But I do empathize with you, honestly. You were not the target of the change at all.
Reece, thanks for the condolences and empathy. Perhaps, in the future, you'll consider that you have the power to alienate players by your actions. I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone who had already purchased a ticket that expected Invisibility to have been changed, hoped perhaps, but no expectations. So, had you not made any changes, no one would have had expectations to the contrary and any complaining that took place would have been in the appropriate context of "this game is whack, thanks GW!"
However, by changing the rules (even by vote) you've now upset a number of people who rightfully had expectations about how the game was going to be played. People who are in for hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend your event. People who have built and painted armies, some just for this event. All of this angst and frustration was completely avoidable.
Your argument that GW could have made such a change and we would all have had to live with it is a red herring designed to distract from your conscious action. Yes, GW, can and often does make poor decisions. They have tacitly acknowledged that they don't care to support the competitive gaming scene. There is a difference. One was controllable by the event organizer, and as such you own the impact of the decision, and its timing. You would have been able to wash your hands of the GWFAQ.
I get that majority rules in this case. Again, I say, your handling and timing of the matter was poor, at best. To your comment that I was not the target, I call BS. I do so noting that I know I personally was not the target, but lets be honest -- players that use Invisibility were the target. Maybe I'm not the meanest list around, but I was the target. This was a targeted action by the masses aimed at a select group of players.
I'm moving on. I have started building a new army. We'll see how far I get between now and Vegas. If you see a guy with a half built and painted army, that might be me. If your goal was to sell your painting service, to that I say "touche, good sir!" But I'm not biting, I'm too proud to farm out my painting.
While I continue to have the utmost respect for the effort and investment you put into making these events happen, I really wish I could kick you right now. It wouldn't change anything, but it might distribute some of the anxiety I'm now facing as I try to build and paint 1850 points of another army in 2 months. BTW, something that normally takes my 6-12 months.
I feel your pain punchdub. I am doing a little scrambling myself atm. However as I am already heavily invested in going I will just try to make the best of it. I just wish you had decided this a little earlier Reece. I often have to plan my purchases months in advance plus any kind of painting and/or play testing.
I don't know if it has been mentioned, but why can't a compromise be Invis stays the way it is and changes for next year? The biggest complaint seems to be the timing of the poll more than anything.
(nicely, and serisouly)
C'mon, punchdub, this is entirely too much butt hurt being expressed over a game of Space Barbies.
And it's not about money or time either. As pointed out earlier, you can easily cancel and get your money back, from LVO, the hotels and ... I'm guessing most of your plane ticket. And you can play your Belakor army pretty much anywhere else, with unneutered Invisibility.
I know you already said that you're still gonna come, but once you played the martyr card (with your limited paint time to paint, 6 months crammed into 2, another army, mentioning anxiety, etc.), I think you lost credibility on the matter.
I know contentious topics fuel threads into having a lot of readership, and it's been said that negative press is good press, but your (I'm looking for not too negative word) ... complaint (?) and posts are quintessential
"the edition change / the FAQ / new codex == Damn you GW / FAQ / T.O. douche! You have nerfed my army! Rage !!! "
internet folderol.
We've been reading (and posting) in these threads since GW had its own boards. It's time these petulant "My army rule got changed Argh!" post runs ended.
Your last post (as I started this) said you're moving on. Great.
I will buy you a beer. I'm short and runty. Skinny. I will likely have purple 4 Serpent Spam with a great looking WraithKnight. Not too hard to find. My name is Casey. I give you green light to vent over some suds. ... And I'll tell you things that I respectfully won't say on yakface's site. Yes, it will be a friendly conversation.
-Cheers
Casey, it's worse than space barbies. It's SPACE TWILIGHT.
All I wanna say is go Reecius/Frontline. Seriously you guys rocked BAO (my first big event! woot) and I am excited for LVO.
Furthermore I'm glad that you guys are saying that maybe we can tweak the rules a bit and letting us vote on it. I think it takes guts to do and i just wanna say that I support you guys. In the end we have to take control of the rules so we can create a stable environement for people to play competatively in, because GW certainly will not and we have to respect that, so im glad SOMEONE is trying too.
Not everyone is going to agree with these votes and what it changes, but then the whole point of this game is that it changes and we have to modify our armies to match, that's what GW has been doing since time began after all, why is it so bad that we're trying to change things a bit back to fix things?
Some of the nerfs will get a bit extreme, and some wont go far enough, or nerf enough things. We arnt blizzard we can't just iterate constantly and use the input of 1000s of games, our data set will always fundamentally be orders of magnitudes smaller than any other normal board/video game. Furthermore our game has the equivelent of an expansion almost weekly now.
Are there other things that could be nerfed? Sure, here are some examples:
wave serpents
CCB having a "toe" in area terrain
pentatyrant
tau formation
wyvern
those special vehicle relics for SM/chaos
generally speaking having allied units in your vehicles is probably ultimately a bad idea
the point is are they all broken together in a balanced way? if not or they are taking advantage of some underlying nebulous mechanic (invisability for example) thenmaybe we can take steps to address it over time.
Either way lets play things out and try it out before we complain about the change. We voted on it after all, lets see how much it ACTUALLY changes first?
I've said it before and I will say it again, if you have made a list that completely relies on the Invisibility power than you have bigger problems than blast weapons hitting you. Instead of focusing on the slightly less ridiculous power of Invisibility at the LVO why don't you focus on what you are going to do when an Assassin shuts down your linchpin unit and it gets blasted off the table. This isn't to pick on Daemon players it is for anyone who relies on one thing when writing their army lists. You will NEVER win a substantial tournament with a list like that. Take the decision to (slightly) alter the Invisibility power to work on your list building. Be prepared for the Imperial army that has the Assassin that will neuter your power anyways. Remember that this is a game and no matter how much Black Blow Fly (AKA Dozer Blades) yells at the clouds, everything will be alright. This is coming from a guy who is bringing a Centurian Star with Draigo and Tigerius (guess why?)
I am genuinely sorry to hear that you are going to be adversely impacted by this ruling. Your list sounds like the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater, unfortunately and for that, I honestly do feel for you.
Your style list is probably what GW intended the power to be used for. Unfortunately, what we get more commonly is invisible deathstars and lords of war which are the types of things that make people not want to come back to tournaments.
You still have over two months, perhaps use some alternate strategies if you think it will be that rough for you? Maybe change a unit out? I know it is easy to direct your frustration at the event or myself, personally (and justifiably so), but if GW had changed invis with an FAQ in December, you'd be in the same boat, you know? The difference here is that it is the community of gamers going to the event that wanted the change, and as such it feels differently.
But I do empathize with you, honestly. You were not the target of the change at all.
Reece, thanks for the condolences and empathy. Perhaps, in the future, you'll consider that you have the power to alienate players by your actions. I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone who had already purchased a ticket that expected Invisibility to have been changed, hoped perhaps, but no expectations. So, had you not made any changes, no one would have had expectations to the contrary and any complaining that took place would have been in the appropriate context of "this game is whack, thanks GW!"
However, by changing the rules (even by vote) you've now upset a number of people who rightfully had expectations about how the game was going to be played. People who are in for hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend your event. People who have built and painted armies, some just for this event. All of this angst and frustration was completely avoidable.
Your argument that GW could have made such a change and we would all have had to live with it is a red herring designed to distract from your conscious action. Yes, GW, can and often does make poor decisions. They have tacitly acknowledged that they don't care to support the competitive gaming scene. There is a difference. One was controllable by the event organizer, and as such you own the impact of the decision, and its timing. You would have been able to wash your hands of the GWFAQ.
I get that majority rules in this case. Again, I say, your handling and timing of the matter was poor, at best. To your comment that I was not the target, I call BS. I do so noting that I know I personally was not the target, but lets be honest -- players that use Invisibility were the target. Maybe I'm not the meanest list around, but I was the target. This was a targeted action by the masses aimed at a select group of players.
I'm moving on. I have started building a new army. We'll see how far I get between now and Vegas. If you see a guy with a half built and painted army, that might be me. If your goal was to sell your painting service, to that I say "touche, good sir!" But I'm not biting, I'm too proud to farm out my painting.
While I continue to have the utmost respect for the effort and investment you put into making these events happen, I really wish I could kick you right now. It wouldn't change anything, but it might distribute some of the anxiety I'm now facing as I try to build and paint 1850 points of another army in 2 months. BTW, something that normally takes my 6-12 months.
Reece doesn't care about you or your problems. He can say he cares, but actions speak louder then words and that statement works both ways. You see he's going to get your money and your attendance with either ruling now. You have said as much, but if you and Swanson and others like you who have been adversely affected by this cancel then he's lost your money. If only 20 people cancel then Reece has lost money from 20 people. He was going to get everyone's money with no nerf to Invisibility and right now if you go he will get everyone's money with a nerf to Invisibility. If 20 people cancel with the nerf, then there is a pain that he feels for this decision. Complaining about it and then still going does nothing because he still gets your money.
You guys can still go to Vegas and have a great time, just don't go to the tourney.
And as for voting against allowing Wave Serpents being to targeted of a ban, then limit ignoes cover weapons to -1 to cover and limit cover saves to a 3+ maximum. That's a fine 'adjustment' to the rules that doesn't target Wave Serpents at all, but limits their shield weapon and also limits units that rely on 2+ cover (usually flyers).
I am genuinely sorry to hear that you are going to be adversely impacted by this ruling. Your list sounds like the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater, unfortunately and for that, I honestly do feel for you.
Your style list is probably what GW intended the power to be used for. Unfortunately, what we get more commonly is invisible deathstars and lords of war which are the types of things that make people not want to come back to tournaments.
You still have over two months, perhaps use some alternate strategies if you think it will be that rough for you? Maybe change a unit out? I know it is easy to direct your frustration at the event or myself, personally (and justifiably so), but if GW had changed invis with an FAQ in December, you'd be in the same boat, you know? The difference here is that it is the community of gamers going to the event that wanted the change, and as such it feels differently.
But I do empathize with you, honestly. You were not the target of the change at all.
Reece, thanks for the condolences and empathy. Perhaps, in the future, you'll consider that you have the power to alienate players by your actions. I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone who had already purchased a ticket that expected Invisibility to have been changed, hoped perhaps, but no expectations. So, had you not made any changes, no one would have had expectations to the contrary and any complaining that took place would have been in the appropriate context of "this game is whack, thanks GW!"
However, by changing the rules (even by vote) you've now upset a number of people who rightfully had expectations about how the game was going to be played. People who are in for hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend your event. People who have built and painted armies, some just for this event. All of this angst and frustration was completely avoidable.
Your argument that GW could have made such a change and we would all have had to live with it is a red herring designed to distract from your conscious action. Yes, GW, can and often does make poor decisions. They have tacitly acknowledged that they don't care to support the competitive gaming scene. There is a difference. One was controllable by the event organizer, and as such you own the impact of the decision, and its timing. You would have been able to wash your hands of the GWFAQ.
I get that majority rules in this case. Again, I say, your handling and timing of the matter was poor, at best. To your comment that I was not the target, I call BS. I do so noting that I know I personally was not the target, but lets be honest -- players that use Invisibility were the target. Maybe I'm not the meanest list around, but I was the target. This was a targeted action by the masses aimed at a select group of players.
I'm moving on. I have started building a new army. We'll see how far I get between now and Vegas. If you see a guy with a half built and painted army, that might be me. If your goal was to sell your painting service, to that I say "touche, good sir!" But I'm not biting, I'm too proud to farm out my painting.
While I continue to have the utmost respect for the effort and investment you put into making these events happen, I really wish I could kick you right now. It wouldn't change anything, but it might distribute some of the anxiety I'm now facing as I try to build and paint 1850 points of another army in 2 months. BTW, something that normally takes my 6-12 months.
Reece doesn't care about you or your problems. He can say he cares, but actions speak louder then words and that statement works both ways. You see he's going to get your money and your attendance with either ruling now. You have said as much, but if you and Swanson and others like you who have been adversely affected by this cancel then he's lost your money. If only 20 people cancel then Reece has lost money from 20 people. He was going to get everyone's money with no nerf to Invisibility and right now if you go he will get everyone's money with a nerf to Invisibility. If 20 people cancel with the nerf, then there is a pain that he feels for this decision. Complaining about it and then still going does nothing because he still gets your money.
You guys can still go to Vegas and have a great time, just don't go to the tourney.
And as for voting against allowing Wave Serpents being to targeted of a ban, then limit ignoes cover weapons to -1 to cover and limit cover saves to a 3+ maximum. That's a fine 'adjustment' to the rules that doesn't target Wave Serpents at all, but limits their shield weapon and also limits units that rely on 2+ cover (usually flyers).
Hey Darth Diggler, I didn't know you knew Reece personally? You must be great friends for him to tell you he didn't care about what his tournament attendees or their feelings. Do you also run tournaments and provide content for fans of Warhammer 40k? Let me know and I'll check out your website. I would also love to go to a tournament you are hosting. Let me know, dude!
I am genuinely sorry to hear that you are going to be adversely impacted by this ruling. Your list sounds like the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater, unfortunately and for that, I honestly do feel for you.
Your style list is probably what GW intended the power to be used for. Unfortunately, what we get more commonly is invisible deathstars and lords of war which are the types of things that make people not want to come back to tournaments.
You still have over two months, perhaps use some alternate strategies if you think it will be that rough for you? Maybe change a unit out? I know it is easy to direct your frustration at the event or myself, personally (and justifiably so), but if GW had changed invis with an FAQ in December, you'd be in the same boat, you know? The difference here is that it is the community of gamers going to the event that wanted the change, and as such it feels differently.
But I do empathize with you, honestly. You were not the target of the change at all.
Reece, thanks for the condolences and empathy. Perhaps, in the future, you'll consider that you have the power to alienate players by your actions. I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone who had already purchased a ticket that expected Invisibility to have been changed, hoped perhaps, but no expectations. So, had you not made any changes, no one would have had expectations to the contrary and any complaining that took place would have been in the appropriate context of "this game is whack, thanks GW!"
However, by changing the rules (even by vote) you've now upset a number of people who rightfully had expectations about how the game was going to be played. People who are in for hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend your event. People who have built and painted armies, some just for this event. All of this angst and frustration was completely avoidable.
Your argument that GW could have made such a change and we would all have had to live with it is a red herring designed to distract from your conscious action. Yes, GW, can and often does make poor decisions. They have tacitly acknowledged that they don't care to support the competitive gaming scene. There is a difference. One was controllable by the event organizer, and as such you own the impact of the decision, and its timing. You would have been able to wash your hands of the GWFAQ.
I get that majority rules in this case. Again, I say, your handling and timing of the matter was poor, at best. To your comment that I was not the target, I call BS. I do so noting that I know I personally was not the target, but lets be honest -- players that use Invisibility were the target. Maybe I'm not the meanest list around, but I was the target. This was a targeted action by the masses aimed at a select group of players.
I'm moving on. I have started building a new army. We'll see how far I get between now and Vegas. If you see a guy with a half built and painted army, that might be me. If your goal was to sell your painting service, to that I say "touche, good sir!" But I'm not biting, I'm too proud to farm out my painting.
While I continue to have the utmost respect for the effort and investment you put into making these events happen, I really wish I could kick you right now. It wouldn't change anything, but it might distribute some of the anxiety I'm now facing as I try to build and paint 1850 points of another army in 2 months. BTW, something that normally takes my 6-12 months.
Reece doesn't care about you or your problems. He can say he cares, but actions speak louder then words and that statement works both ways. You see he's going to get your money and your attendance with either ruling now. You have said as much, but if you and Swanson and others like you who have been adversely affected by this cancel then he's lost your money. If only 20 people cancel then Reece has lost money from 20 people. He was going to get everyone's money with no nerf to Invisibility and right now if you go he will get everyone's money with a nerf to Invisibility. If 20 people cancel with the nerf, then there is a pain that he feels for this decision. Complaining about it and then still going does nothing because he still gets your money.
You guys can still go to Vegas and have a great time, just don't go to the tourney.
And as for voting against allowing Wave Serpents being to targeted of a ban, then limit ignoes cover weapons to -1 to cover and limit cover saves to a 3+ maximum. That's a fine 'adjustment' to the rules that doesn't target Wave Serpents at all, but limits their shield weapon and also limits units that rely on 2+ cover (usually flyers).
Hey Darth Diggler, I didn't know you knew Reece personally? You must be great friends for him to tell you he didn't care about what his tournament attendees or their feelings. Do you also run tournaments and provide content for fans of Warhammer 40k? Let me know and I'll check out your website. I would also love to go to a tournament you are hosting. Let me know, dude!
I have to say from an outside observer that your posts are pretty much the definition of flaming. You basically ride the line of rule #1 while blasting people with most obnoxious of illogical fallacies.
Reece is a big boy, don't offend him further by thinking he needs your kind of posts to defend him
Dozer Blades wrote: I believe that DD used to be a part of the Adepticon crew and at one time ran their Gladiator tournament.
Regardless of credentials everyone has a right to post their opinion, especially when they have smart ideas like his, with out being lambasted by vitriol.
He (DD) does raise an awesome point about fixing unfun rules. If you are going to avoid targeted nerfs then it's not like it is difficult to amend core rules. It's not like they are apposed to it. Change ignores cover to a minus to their save and limit the benefits of cover. Done.
Dozer Blades wrote: I believe that DD used to be a part of the Adepticon crew and at one time ran their Gladiator tournament.
Regardless of credentials everyone has a right to post their opinion, especially when they have smart ideas like his, with out being lambasted by vitriol.
He (DD) does raise an awesome point about fixing unfun rules. If you are going to avoid targeted nerfs then it's not like it is difficult to amend core rules. It's not like they are apposed to it. Change ignores cover to a minus to their save and limit the benefits of cover. Done.
While the points about the nerf may have merit he is still attacking a Dakka members integrity and character in his post.
I am genuinely sorry to hear that you are going to be adversely impacted by this ruling. Your list sounds like the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater, unfortunately and for that, I honestly do feel for you.
Your style list is probably what GW intended the power to be used for. Unfortunately, what we get more commonly is invisible deathstars and lords of war which are the types of things that make people not want to come back to tournaments.
You still have over two months, perhaps use some alternate strategies if you think it will be that rough for you? Maybe change a unit out? I know it is easy to direct your frustration at the event or myself, personally (and justifiably so), but if GW had changed invis with an FAQ in December, you'd be in the same boat, you know? The difference here is that it is the community of gamers going to the event that wanted the change, and as such it feels differently.
But I do empathize with you, honestly. You were not the target of the change at all.
Reece, thanks for the condolences and empathy. Perhaps, in the future, you'll consider that you have the power to alienate players by your actions. I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone who had already purchased a ticket that expected Invisibility to have been changed, hoped perhaps, but no expectations. So, had you not made any changes, no one would have had expectations to the contrary and any complaining that took place would have been in the appropriate context of "this game is whack, thanks GW!"
However, by changing the rules (even by vote) you've now upset a number of people who rightfully had expectations about how the game was going to be played. People who are in for hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend your event. People who have built and painted armies, some just for this event. All of this angst and frustration was completely avoidable.
Your argument that GW could have made such a change and we would all have had to live with it is a red herring designed to distract from your conscious action. Yes, GW, can and often does make poor decisions. They have tacitly acknowledged that they don't care to support the competitive gaming scene. There is a difference. One was controllable by the event organizer, and as such you own the impact of the decision, and its timing. You would have been able to wash your hands of the GWFAQ.
I get that majority rules in this case. Again, I say, your handling and timing of the matter was poor, at best. To your comment that I was not the target, I call BS. I do so noting that I know I personally was not the target, but lets be honest -- players that use Invisibility were the target. Maybe I'm not the meanest list around, but I was the target. This was a targeted action by the masses aimed at a select group of players.
I'm moving on. I have started building a new army. We'll see how far I get between now and Vegas. If you see a guy with a half built and painted army, that might be me. If your goal was to sell your painting service, to that I say "touche, good sir!" But I'm not biting, I'm too proud to farm out my painting.
While I continue to have the utmost respect for the effort and investment you put into making these events happen, I really wish I could kick you right now. It wouldn't change anything, but it might distribute some of the anxiety I'm now facing as I try to build and paint 1850 points of another army in 2 months. BTW, something that normally takes my 6-12 months.
I don't want this to sound rude, and I understand some of your frustrations, but I feel it should be pointed out that if you build an army entirely around a single (in theory randomly rolled for) psychic power, that that should be an indication of several things. First and foremost, that there's something vastly overpowered about said power. Second, that it's likely to get nerfed, either by GW or by organizers at some point, and one should be ready for that. If someone builds an army around a single gimmick, then they should do so with the expectation that said gimmick can be modified or removed, and that the army may not function in that case, and should have a backup plan. Basic evolutionary theory, if you overspecialize, you over-expose yourself to the dangers of change. Like the old Siren-Prince lists, an army built around a single gimmick is not likely to last forever. At the same time, this change in and of itself is not tremendously unreasonable, both from a rules and a fluff perspective.
I get that the change should have been made earlier, that's entirely fair and I'll grant that, but if you built and painted an entire army around exploiting a single psychic power to the degree that this change is going to completely neuter it (which is difficult to see happening, that ability is still very powerful) and now require building an entirely new army as a result, it's difficult to feel tremendously bad about that for the above reasons. People may have gotten too comfortable with GW doing effectively zero on the Errata/FAQ front the last couple years, and they also doubled down on 40k not being a tournament game, and as a result its up to organizers to step up on that front with 40k's square-peg-round-hole issues with tournaments. If it were something like "yeah, we're going to not allow Telepathy at all", I'd be more inclined to see the change as draconian, but this is a relatively reasonable change to a single psychic power available to a number of armies and almost everyone through allies.
I haven't played in an event attended by or run by Reece in two or three years, but I can't see him making such a change just to get at specific players.
Dozer Blades wrote: If and when GW tones down FNP I will completely agree with you. A GW nerf is a completely different thing than an arbitrary TO nerf.
Unfortunately GW has apparently lost interest in doing any sort of Errata/FAQ, or rules support in general for their games. I don't think we'll be seeing anything from them for some time, though maybe the new CEO will fix that.
What about FNP in particular though needs toning down? I thought they'd already done that by reducing it to a 5+ from 5E's 4+, or is there something I'm missing?
Dozer Blades wrote: If and when GW tones down FNP I will completely agree with you. A GW nerf is a completely different thing than an arbitrary TO nerf.
Dozer Blades wrote: I believe that DD used to be a part of the Adepticon crew and at one time ran their Gladiator tournament.
Regardless of credentials everyone has a right to post their opinion, especially when they have smart ideas like his, with out being lambasted by vitriol.
He (DD) does raise an awesome point about fixing unfun rules. If you are going to avoid targeted nerfs then it's not like it is difficult to amend core rules. It's not like they are apposed to it. Change ignores cover to a minus to their save and limit the benefits of cover. Done.
While the points about the nerf may have merit he is still attacking a Dakka members integrity and character in his post.
I hardly would call his post attacking his character or integrity. The decision Reece made and the poor implication and timing of it were way more damaging to his integrity then any post DD made to be honest.
The following post is just my personal observation,
Did anyone actually think invis was going to win this gt? Was my first reaction after reading the poll question. Now im from the other side of the country so I can't claim to know the west coast meta..but is it that much different that invis is breaking the game?
I personally voted I didn't care about the change (in hind site I wish I voted against it, have been testing with the change and its a pretty big nerf, however I have not played against lords of war yet so I reserve the right to change my opinion).
I think for most people its more the fact that the change was made after tickets were sold. For instance, when I bought my ticket I immediately looked over the rules for the 40k championship. I recently looked at them again because i was curious about a Lord of War and saw this :
"A LoW may be chosen from the following list. *Please note, the Battle of Keylek legacy of glory upgrade is not allowed for the LVO 2015"
now several questions come to mind.
1. Does this only apply to LoW?
2. When did this get amended as it was not there when I first read it.
3. Why was this not put to a vote like invisibility?
4. Were we ever going to be informed about the update?
Have to say, as a player and TO, I am not a fan of stealth changes like this.
Bahkara wrote: I think for most people its more the fact that the change was made after tickets were sold. For instance, when I bought my ticket I immediately looked over the rules for the 40k championship. I recently looked at them again because i was curious about a Lord of War and saw this :
"A LoW may be chosen from the following list. *Please note, the Battle of Keylek legacy of glory upgrade is not allowed for the LVO 2015"
now several questions come to mind.
1. Does this only apply to LoW?
2. When did this get amended as it was not there when I first read it.
3. Why was this not put to a vote like invisibility?
4. Were we ever going to be informed about the update?
Have to say, as a player and TO, I am not a fan of stealth changes like this.
Reecius thinks that LOW that ignore cover are to powerful and that is why all of them that can do it are on the banned list. The Battle of Keylek legacy of glory is a way around it and so he is closing that loophole.
Bahkara wrote: I think for most people its more the fact that the change was made after tickets were sold. For instance, when I bought my ticket I immediately looked over the rules for the 40k championship. I recently looked at them again because i was curious about a Lord of War and saw this :
"A LoW may be chosen from the following list. *Please note, the Battle of Keylek legacy of glory upgrade is not allowed for the LVO 2015"
now several questions come to mind.
1. Does this only apply to LoW?
2. When did this get amended as it was not there when I first read it.
3. Why was this not put to a vote like invisibility?
4. Were we ever going to be informed about the update?
Have to say, as a player and TO, I am not a fan of stealth changes like this.
It appears to be hand in hand with not allowing any Lord of War that ignores cover saves.
Thanks for all of the valuable feedback, everyone! We appreciate it. Obviously, there is room for improvement in the way we approach some of these issues, and we will take all this feedback and handle it better in the future.
@Bahkara
We have a standing policy that any LoW with a larger than 5" blast or Helstrom Template weapon with torrent is not allowed. Once I became aware of that relic, it was added to the list. Sorry if it wasn't there right out the gates, there is so much info in the game now, coming out all the time, it can be hard to keep up at times. We do our best to stay on top of it all, though.
@Thread
Check out these gorgeous Collosal and Gargantuan models we're giving away in the Warmachine and Hordes events! These were painted by the very talented Tyson Koch.
Looking forward to competing in the 40k side of things. I wasn't in on time to be a part of the poll, but I will give my 2 cents since I'm sure Reecius and the rest of the LVO/Frontline crowd are hearing these as they come in.
I would split tournament rules into 3 groups. 1) Interpretations of ambiguous or poorly written rules. 2) Comp rules. 3) Re-making specific rules and unit changes to the game's official rules.
Tourney Rules of type 1 are always understandable and exist in every tournament. The FAQ is a regular fixture in tournaments and I'd say we're all OK with them at this point. Rules of type 2 can be controversial, but at least they're up front and everyone has to deal with them equally. Nearly every tourney has some level of them.
This change to Invisibility falls into the third category, and it's with those changes that I am most cautious. They tend to impact only a single race or group of players, to the benefit of the rest of players. In this case of course the psychic races are the only losers, with CSM/Demon probably being the worst hit. Meanwhile all others can downgrade (slightly) the threat from Invisibility. The problem with this third group of rules is that you really can undermine any list that used the impacted rule/ability/unit and you don't have anything to fall back on such as the age old debate between rules as intended/rules as written. In this case, Invisibility was very clearly understood. While in egregious case third category rules can make sense, they have to be decided well in advance and really have to be defined/decided by the organizer.
I would have been against the invis change in this case. I feel it impacted players very unevenly - and honestly on the east coast I haven't seen/felt invis really break the game or its meta. Although I can see how it is problematic in conjunction with certain lords of war. That said, the LoW question is mostly fixed by the comp restrictions. And specific to this occurrence I feel it never should have been put to any sort of vote. People naturally are going to vote to their benefit, it's a competitive event. This should have been decided well in advance of when tickets went on sale since it's the type of change that nearly invalidates some (admittedly not the most competitive) lists. It's not like Invisibility just happened this past two months, it's been around a while now and if we were going to change it there should have been more warning for everyone's sake.
All that said, it's water under the bridge at this point and I'll be looking forward to the tourney! Hopefully in the future rule changes can be handled in a different manner/earlier in the process.
The name should at least be changed from Invisibility to Translucentcy lol
Automatically Appended Next Post: Reece are you granting refunds for people who aren't down with a little fiddling with the rules? I can understand trying to balance the game through redesign. I would be willing to give that a shot, assuming I could read the rules before I bought my ticket. However picking Invisibility over so many other issues... well I don't need to reiterate the many problems with that.
Dozer Blades wrote: If and when GW tones down FNP I will completely agree with you. A GW nerf is a completely different thing than an arbitrary TO nerf.
Because GW put so much care and precision into their errata?
Dozer Blades wrote: If and when GW tones down FNP I will completely agree with you. A GW nerf is a completely different thing than an arbitrary TO nerf.
Because GW put so much care and precision into their errata?
The event was sold out months ago with a waiting list by happy and excited players who were fine with the current packet yet a change was made in conflict with ~27% of registered attendees 3 months out, basically pissing in those players Cheerios. If he is going to lean on cold logic in his defense of a decision then in regard to his behavior; if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'd say it's OK to call it a duck without a SJW hoping in.
The caring decision was and still is to give people what they paid for initially and make changes to future events. An event refund won't pay people back for their vacation time and travel arrangements.
It's not like they can't change it back. I honestly am surprised they haven't.
C'mon kids, the "FLG guys are despotic douches because they arbitrarily, and (cue with Sam Jackson's Julius) with extreme prejudice!, butt-hurt my Sue-Storm-Deathstar themed army ... timing, refunds ... democracy, polls ... voting ... rage quit/pause .... "
That dead horse has been beaten, rotted, decayed and recycled into grass, re-eaten by other herbivores, killed and eaten by Mufasa, and fatherly-advice commented on.
Time to move on.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anybody already Flamingo familiar for a non-obnoxious restaurant? Yeah, I could check their website, but word-of-mouth is far better. I'm not looking for great eats, just solid diner fare (especially after a day of beer). And not a hike through the streets and crowds. - Thanks to Frankie for that memorable stroll last year.
The event was sold out months ago with a waiting list by happy and excited players who were fine with the current packet yet a change was made in conflict with ~27% of registered attendees 3 months out, basically pissing in those players Cheerios. If he is going to lean on cold logic in his defense of a decision then in regard to his behavior; if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'd say it's OK to call it a duck without a SJW hoping in.
Ah, so it actually was an attack on his character, but it's okay because it's justified to you.
Dozer Blades wrote: If and when GW tones down FNP I will completely agree with you. A GW nerf is a completely different thing than an arbitrary TO nerf.
Because GW put so much care and precision into their errata?
The event was sold out months ago with a waiting list by happy and excited players who were fine with the current packet yet a change was made in conflict with ~27% of registered attendees 3 months out, basically pissing in those players Cheerios. If he is going to lean on cold logic in his defense of a decision then in regard to his behavior; if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'd say it's OK to call it a duck without a SJW hoping in.
The caring decision was and still is to give people what they paid for initially and make changes to future events. An event refund won't pay people back for their vacation time and travel arrangements.
It's not like they can't change it back. I honestly am surprised they haven't.
I know , right? It is tearing me up that this is causing you and BBF so much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Are you even attending this tournament?
I just find it hard to stand by and watch people defend a bait ans switch. That's what has happened, selling one thing but delivering another.
It has nothing to do with what rule was changed. It could have been anything, but it doesn't change the fact that selling someone one thing and delivering another is wrong and very much will call into question your integrity and character if you don't try to fix it responsibly. Why wouldn't it?
Add to the fact that it was an unnecessary decision and was admittedly handled wrong and it doesn't paint a great picture.
I absolutely believe in second chances and making an honest mistake but only if there is an attempt to remedy the issue. So far the answer has been sorry but your SOL. An event ticket refund is a half handed solution since he's admitted to having a wait list and not being impacted either way, yet the customer is still short their vacation time and travel expenses. But sure, keep painting the person with their finger on the trigger as the victim.
I still can’t decide what to field. Part of me wants to bring a solid list to see if I can do better than 2-2-1 which I did last year. Then there is the other part of me that just wants to throw down the most lopsided assault list I can where I ignore the entire psychic and shooting phase and just try to win by punching the other models in the face. Most likely my only hopes of winning would be to table my opponent while not giving a damn about objectives.
Dozer Blades wrote: If and when GW tones down FNP I will completely agree with you. A GW nerf is a completely different thing than an arbitrary TO nerf.
Because GW put so much care and precision into their errata?
The event was sold out months ago with a waiting list by happy and excited players who were fine with the current packet yet a change was made in conflict with ~27% of registered attendees 3 months out, basically pissing in those players Cheerios. If he is going to lean on cold logic in his defense of a decision then in regard to his behavior; if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'd say it's OK to call it a duck without a SJW hoping in.
The caring decision was and still is to give people what they paid for initially and make changes to future events. An event refund won't pay people back for their vacation time and travel arrangements.
It's not like they can't change it back. I honestly am surprised they haven't.
I still don't get it...I play with quite a large diverse group of players of all skill levels, and in all our preparation, only 1 person even attempted using invis as a viable strategy. He is also not a daemon player (daemons can win with out invis) He is still unsure its viable and actually relies on rolling up gate. Basing your army on one power that you have to roll for does not work anymore.... I have met most of the front line guys and have seen them play, they are good players and I am sure they have realized the same thing.. invis doesn't win gts. (of course anything can happen, but I am going off previous data). Which is why im sure they didn't think it is that big of a deal. Maybe they should have just made it so it couldn't be cast on a lord of war, but hindsite is 20/20. However when you add lows to an event well... that changes things, and an invis low sounds pretty broken, though I myself have not played vs one using the lvo mission packet yet...(hopefully that will change today) but I can only imagine how difficult they would be to kill.
Also like everyone else has said, its kind of beating a dead horse.
Hey Kroot, you going to be at LVO? This is Kenny, the guy who brings Tau to BFS. Will have to get in a rematch at some point if time allows.
Happy Holidays!
Per what Kroot's saying (and my earlier notes) I do not like how the rule change was done - but I really don't see it altering the final tables much unless someone was going to get rather lucky on their rolls through an entire weekend. But then again, it's Vegas right? We shall see.
When will we here from the council on the Blood Angels 3 Raven formation, don't want to start a riot or here everyone's opinion on it, but I have been following your banter in the podcasts and was just wondering.
Hi Reecius...not sure if I just couldn't find it on the LVO website, but has information regarding the painting competition been uploaded? Thanks in advance, really looking forward to my first LVO.
We have a standing policy that any LoW with a larger than 5" blast or Helstrom Template weapon with torrent is not allowed. Once I became aware of that relic, it was added to the list. Sorry if it wasn't there right out the gates, there is so much info in the game now, coming out all the time, it can be hard to keep up at times. We do our best to stay on top of it all, though.
No need to have grenades or pistols modeled, etc. Special/Heavy Weapons though, yes.
@ratmkith
Which paint competition are you referring to?
Looking forward to having you!
@SilverDevilfish
Yes, but it only ignores cover on a 6, not all the time. All D Weapons do.
@Thread
Remember everyone, tickets are only refundable until the 20th of this month! Just want to make sure to get that info out there so that there is no hurt feelings if someone gets caught off guard. Tickets can be transferred after that date, though.
Reecius wrote: No need to have grenades or pistols modeled, etc. Special/Heavy Weapons though, yes.
@ratmkith
Which paint competition are you referring to?
Looking forward to having you!
@SilverDevilfish
Yes, but it only ignores cover on a 6, not all the time. All D Weapons do.
@Thread
Remember everyone, tickets are only refundable until the 20th of this month! Just want to make sure to get that info out there so that there is no hurt feelings if someone gets caught off guard. Tickets can be transferred after that date, though.
Reece any update on when people on the wait list might find out if they got a spot(40k champs obviously)? I'm asking for a friend, he thought he was high on the list but wasn't sure. Is there a way to find out where on the list he stands?
Lol! Size doesn't matter, all about the motion in the ocean, haha!
But, immature jokes aside, you have it now.
@CNC
I emailed everyone on the wait list that tickets were up for grabs when we opened up more space and those that replied got first dibs. I didn't hear back from a number of folks and I assume your friend may not have seen the email.
Can you please PM me the individual;s name? I will look into it further and let you know.
We're at 280 40k singles at present in the champs, can't squeeze in much more than that but we always have no shows.
Well (Reece) the reason I asked was when I asked about the R'Varna and the Yvarha he said 'no' because the rules were "experimental." Just curious. Not trying to sh$t-stir or be difficult. Cool model though. Best looking SM flier easily.
Thanks,
DrG
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS: not gonna go out and buy one either. Or the Tau stuff... I'm so bummed about playing IKs and the Lynx/Scorpion. I'm bringing a fun list.
doktor_g wrote: Well (Reece) the reason I asked was when I asked about the R'Varna and the Yvarha he said 'no' because the rules were "experimental." Just curious. Not trying to sh$t-stir or be difficult. Cool model though. Best looking SM flier easily.
Thanks,
DrG
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS: not gonna go out and buy one either. Or the Tau stuff... I'm so bummed about playing IKs and the Lynx/Scorpion. I'm bringing a fun list.
Rules for the Fire Raptor are not experimental and are included in both the IA 13, for CSM, and the 2nd edition IA 2, for SM.
doktor_g wrote: Well (Reece) the reason I asked was when I asked about the R'Varna and the Yvarha he said 'no' because the rules were "experimental." Just curious. Not trying to sh$t-stir or be difficult. Cool model though. Best looking SM flier easily.
Thanks,
DrG
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS: not gonna go out and buy one either. Or the Tau stuff... I'm so bummed about playing IKs and the Lynx/Scorpion. I'm bringing a fun list.
Rules for the Fire Raptor are not experimental and are included in both the IA 13, for CSM, and the 2nd edition IA 2, for SM.
I see. Thanks for the clarification. It seems like suuuuch a better deal than the storm raven which is just as expensive point wise (w bolters). See you dudes there! Booking flight today!!!!
Warmonger2757 wrote: Any word on whether we can use the new Necron codex for the LVO?
As it will be coming out less than 30-days before the tournament, you will have the option to use either 'dex. That is because a lot of people won't have enough time to change their Necron army with so few time remaining.
We've been playing that particularly gruesome unit for a while now on the West Coast, so nothing new, here. I know you East Coasters are FW virgins in many cases, so it is a bit shocking, I'm sure.
Oh, and the irony coming from he who played the Seer Council last time is amusing =)
Man I'd love to make it over the pond to this one year. Can someone who has previously attended give me a rough guestimate on the sort of spending money you can get through, in terms or gaming tickets, average cost of food etc, hotels. Don't worry about gambling and drinking costs.
Eldercaveman wrote: Man I'd love to make it over the pond to this one year. Can someone who has previously attended give me a rough guestimate on the sort of spending money you can get through, in terms or gaming tickets, average cost of food etc, hotels. Don't worry about gambling and drinking costs.
Eldercaveman wrote: Man I'd love to make it over the pond to this one year. Can someone who has previously attended give me a rough guestimate on the sort of spending money you can get through, in terms or gaming tickets, average cost of food etc, hotels. Don't worry about gambling and drinking costs.
Eldercaveman wrote: Man I'd love to make it over the pond to this one year. Can someone who has previously attended give me a rough guestimate on the sort of spending money you can get through, in terms or gaming tickets, average cost of food etc, hotels. Don't worry about gambling and drinking costs.
Vegas is pretty cheap if you aren't gambling or drinking heavily
Most hotels, including the one they used for this, are going to be 90-100 USD per night, you'll also find deals for significantly less. Food just depends on what you want, but again, 20-30 per meal at most unless you're eating somewhere really fancy, and you will have a ton of options for significantly less.
Overall vegas is a fairly cheap place for attendees, if you dont plan on drinking/gambling.
Yeah, Vegas is very affordable or limitlessly expensive, depending on your tastes. You can stay 4 to a room (which at our prices makes it damn near nothing), eat cheaply and drink beer you buy at the store and it is mega cheap. Or, you can go to world class restaurants, get girls and go to clubs and spend as much money as you have! It really just depends on you.
The flight over the pond will be the biggest expense, but luckily, Vegas casinos often subsidize them to encourage travel to the city and you can often find incredible deals if you search.
Reecius wrote: Yeah, Vegas is very affordable or limitlessly expensive, depending on your tastes. You can stay 4 to a room (which at our prices makes it damn near nothing), eat cheaply and drink beer you buy at the store and it is mega cheap. Or, you can go to world class restaurants, get girls and go to clubs and spend as much money as you have! It really just depends on you.
The flight over the pond will be the biggest expense, but luckily, Vegas casinos often subsidize them to encourage travel to the city and you can often find incredible deals if you search.
This. I've done vegas on less than $200 (including hotel, but no flight) and at other times spent more than I care to divulge on a public forum .
Reecius wrote: Yeah, Vegas is very affordable or limitlessly expensive, depending on your tastes. You can stay 4 to a room (which at our prices makes it damn near nothing), eat cheaply and drink beer you buy at the store and it is mega cheap. Or, you can go to world class restaurants, get girls and go to clubs and spend as much money as you have! It really just depends on you.
The flight over the pond will be the biggest expense, but luckily, Vegas casinos often subsidize them to encourage travel to the city and you can often find incredible deals if you search.
Is the LVO always around this time of year? If so sounds like a 25th birthday trip for me!
Reecius wrote: Yeah, Vegas is very affordable or limitlessly expensive, depending on your tastes. You can stay 4 to a room (which at our prices makes it damn near nothing), eat cheaply and drink beer you buy at the store and it is mega cheap. Or, you can go to world class restaurants, get girls and go to clubs and spend as much money as you have! It really just depends on you.
The flight over the pond will be the biggest expense, but luckily, Vegas casinos often subsidize them to encourage travel to the city and you can often find incredible deals if you search.
Is the LVO always around this time of year? If so sounds like a 25th birthday trip for me!
I went last year and am fairly certain it was end of Feb also.
I think the logical way to look at it is how many kill points would you get if you removed the transport and what was inside, that is how many units you have there
1* Unit for the IC (which is actually counted as part of the squad below but for Kill points is counted separately)
1 Unit for the Razorback
1 Unit for the squad
I know I said kill points but that was just a simplified statement earlier
1 Unit for the IC 1 Unit for the Razorback
1 Unit for the squad
I know I said kill points but that was just a simplified statement earlier
I have never seen it ruled differently than above, in regards to scoring for missions/objectives.
Traditionally, an Independent Character joined to a unit counts as being part of that unit in all cases except where specified otherwise. 'Kill Points' (or whatever variation you are using of them) have traditionally specified that an IC always counts as being a separate unit for this purpose.
So a transport with an embarked unit inside that contains an IC would be two units (the transport and the unit inside), but if all were destroyed, they'd be worth 3 'Kill Points' (assuming the kill point rule you're using specifies that ICs are always counted as a separate unit).
Grey Templar wrote: I would think it would be 2 units. Because while the IC is attached to a unit he is part of that unit, not a separate unit.
That's of course assuming that units in transports count as being in the location their transport is standing of course.
It would be 2 units - the transport and the unit inside.
IC's count as part of the unit they are in.
Look at it this way. Say you have 2 objectives 12.1" apart. You have a 10-man tactical squad with Captain attached. If you spread them out so that they are in range of both objectives, can you score both objectives? No, because the IC + unit forms only 1 unit.
Note - neither units are scoring if the unit inside is in a zooming flyer transport. The flyer needs to be gliding in order for both the transport and the unit inside to be scoring.
Grey Templar wrote: I would think it would be 2 units. Because while the IC is attached to a unit he is part of that unit, not a separate unit.
That's of course assuming that units in transports count as being in the location their transport is standing of course.
It would be 2 units - the transport and the unit inside.
IC's count as part of the unit they are in.
Look at it this way. Say you have 2 objectives 12.1" apart. You have a 10-man tactical squad with Captain attached. If you spread them out so that they are in range of both objectives, can you score both objectives? No, because the IC + unit forms only 1 unit.
Note - neither units are scoring if the unit inside is in a zooming flyer transport. The flyer needs to be gliding in order for both the transport and the unit inside to be scoring.
although along those lines of thought now that you bring it up, what if you had a unit inside a transport that was large enough to be in range of two objectives (possible with a 7"long transport)
Reecius wrote: Yeah, Vegas is very affordable or limitlessly expensive, depending on your tastes. You can stay 4 to a room (which at our prices makes it damn near nothing), eat cheaply and drink beer you buy at the store and it is mega cheap. Or, you can go to world class restaurants, get girls and go to clubs and spend as much money as you have! It really just depends on you.
The flight over the pond will be the biggest expense, but luckily, Vegas casinos often subsidize them to encourage travel to the city and you can often find incredible deals if you search.
Even if you club , you would be surprised how how much you don't spend after a few days in Vegas if you do it right.
Reecius wrote: Yeah, Vegas is very affordable or limitlessly expensive, depending on your tastes. You can stay 4 to a room (which at our prices makes it damn near nothing), eat cheaply and drink beer you buy at the store and it is mega cheap. Or, you can go to world class restaurants, get girls and go to clubs and spend as much money as you have! It really just depends on you.
The flight over the pond will be the biggest expense, but luckily, Vegas casinos often subsidize them to encourage travel to the city and you can often find incredible deals if you search.
Even if you club , you would be surprised how how much you don't spend after a few days in Vegas if you do it right.
Pfft, I'm planning on throwing my first game and then getting blackout drunk and waking up missing a kidney.
Airfare and Event tickets book for DZC. I'll be coming in Wednesday due to airfare cheapness shenanagins, so if anyone wants to do any DZC gaming on Thursday, let me know!
Dave and Simon from the company will be there, which will be awesome to hang out with them. If I weren't so crazy busy at the event, I would totally take you up on that offer.
I have never escaped a vegas club having spent under $100, but you may have some secret Drunk-Fu techniques i do not
@Thread
As for counting units, an IC that joins a unit becomes a part of it and so that is one unit. If the IC breaks off, obviously, you have two.
A unit inside a transport does count. So you would have two.
No, I usually pay 100 and skip the line to get in lol. I was talking about spending less then 250-300 hahahaha. If you only do it 2-3 times a year ,there are way worse ways to spend money then being surrounded by friendly gorgeous wormen. (Why are west coast women so much more friendly when women on the east coast!?)
By the way Calvin Harris will be in town that Friday, so that's going to be a real good time!
Calvin Harris on Friday? Niiiiice! Might have to go check it out. love his music.
And yeah, F it, if you are going big, go big! haha.
@extremefreak17
We have a bar in the event, sir! Can't bring your own booze in, though. Anywhere else in Vegas, you can drink just walking down the street, it's awesome!
We have a bar in the event, sir! Can't bring your own booze in, though. Anywhere else in Vegas, you can drink just walking down the street, it's awesome!
Okay. Yeah I love Vegas foir that reason. Im glad Los Angeles is so close. What will the drink pricing be like at the event? Is it a cash only bar? (Just want to make sure I bring enough $$ to sustain my alcoholism )
The refund period has passed (deadline to get money back on tickets was January 20th), but if you find someone that wants to purchase your ticket from you, we can transfer yours to them.
For the hotel, call booking, they'll take care of you.
@extremefreak17
We will be selling drink tickets at the event, you can pay with cash or credit!
Reecius wrote: We will be selling drink tickets at the event, you can pay with cash or credit!
Given this, I state openly to all my opponents:
If you draw me for a match, I propose a Round 3 Stretch; sorta like the 7th Inning Stretch in baseball. We'll be sure to mosey to the bar at that point, wave to acquaintances, harass the guys we see but don't wanna play and either praise Reece & Frankie for how well things are running or gripe at them (depending on mood), and repeat the process, with fresh cold ones, on the way back to Turn 4.
Reecius wrote: We will be selling drink tickets at the event, you can pay with cash or credit!
Given this, I state openly to all my opponents:
If you draw me for a match, I propose a Round 3 Stretch; sorta like the 7th Inning Stretch in baseball. We'll be sure to mosey to the bar at that point, wave to acquaintances, harass the guys we see but don't wanna play and either praise Reece & Frankie for how well things are running or gripe at them (depending on mood), and repeat the process, with fresh cold ones, on the way back to Turn 4.
Reecius wrote: We will be selling drink tickets at the event, you can pay with cash or credit!
Given this, I state openly to all my opponents:
If you draw me for a match, I propose a Round 3 Stretch; sorta like the 7th Inning Stretch in baseball. We'll be sure to mosey to the bar at that point, wave to acquaintances, harass the guys we see but don't wanna play and either praise Reece & Frankie for how well things are running or gripe at them (depending on mood), and repeat the process, with fresh cold ones, on the way back to Turn 4.
I'm in, but lets do this more than once a game!
John, play me in Beerhammer and together we will forge your dream into reality.
Most notably, a final clarification on infiltrating (unit with cannot deploy with a character without, and a character with cannot deploy with a unit without). Is it safe to assume this will replace the ITC entry now that GW provided clarity? Just curious for list building purposes.
Most notably, a final clarification on infiltrating (unit with cannot deploy with a character without, and a character with cannot deploy with a unit without). Is it safe to assume this will replace the ITC entry now that GW provided clarity? Just curious for list building purposes.
Short answer is, of course, yes!
Long answer: Even if the ITC FAQ wasn't updated, the basic tenant on the first page states that GWFAQs take precedence, so the fact that they updated their FAQs means that anything that now contradicts what is in the ITC FAQ would automatically take precedence.
Most notably, a final clarification on infiltrating (unit with cannot deploy with a character without, and a character with cannot deploy with a unit without). Is it safe to assume this will replace the ITC entry now that GW provided clarity? Just curious for list building purposes.
Short answer is, of course, yes!
Long answer: Even if the ITC FAQ wasn't updated, the basic tenant on the first page states that GWFAQs take precedence, so the fact that they updated their FAQs means that anything that now contradicts what is in the ITC FAQ would automatically take precedence.
Got it - thanks much Yak! I wasn't read up enough on the ITC FAQ policy and was wondering if it would fall into a grey zone of faq vs errata and be treated at all like 2++ and Invis.
Reecius wrote: We will be selling drink tickets at the event, you can pay with cash or credit!
Given this, I state openly to all my opponents:
If you draw me for a match, I propose a Round 3 Stretch; sorta like the 7th Inning Stretch in baseball. We'll be sure to mosey to the bar at that point, wave to acquaintances, harass the guys we see but don't wanna play and either praise Reece & Frankie for how well things are running or gripe at them (depending on mood), and repeat the process, with fresh cold ones, on the way back to Turn 4.
I'm in, but lets do this more than once a game!
John, play me in Beerhammer and together we will forge your dream into reality.
(Why are west coast women so much more friendly when women on the east coast!?)
Might involve the fact we're not freezing our tootises off half the year.
Might also be based around not being so scared. I'll never forget some Australian comedians chasing a guy down the street in NY because he took off like a rabbit as soon as they asked him a question.
Reecius wrote: We will be selling drink tickets at the event, you can pay with cash or credit!
Given this, I state openly to all my opponents:
If you draw me for a match, I propose a Round 3 Stretch; sorta like the 7th Inning Stretch in baseball. We'll be sure to mosey to the bar at that point, wave to acquaintances, harass the guys we see but don't wanna play and either praise Reece & Frankie for how well things are running or gripe at them (depending on mood), and repeat the process, with fresh cold ones, on the way back to Turn 4.
I'm in, but lets do this more than once a game!
John, play me in Beerhammer and together we will forge your dream into reality.
Do you get to choose?
We can always request. After all, beer hammer is all about fun, not competition. And what's funner than to drink with a friend? I mean besides drinking with an attractive stranger of the opposite sex. Lol!
Reecius wrote: We will be selling drink tickets at the event, you can pay with cash or credit!
Given this, I state openly to all my opponents:
If you draw me for a match, I propose a Round 3 Stretch; sorta like the 7th Inning Stretch in baseball. We'll be sure to mosey to the bar at that point, wave to acquaintances, harass the guys we see but don't wanna play and either praise Reece & Frankie for how well things are running or gripe at them (depending on mood), and repeat the process, with fresh cold ones, on the way back to Turn 4.
I'm in, but lets do this more than once a game!
John, play me in Beerhammer and together we will forge your dream into reality.
Do you get to choose?
We can always request. After all, beer hammer is all about fun, not competition. And what's funner than to drink with a friend? I mean besides drinking with an attractive stranger of the opposite sex. Lol!
Word. Not sure if im going to make it to beerhammer yet though. I'll be rolling with a group of 13 people (only one of which is another player) and not sure if we have plans for that night.
Click the Follow button to get notified when we go live! We will be on during gaming between 10am and 7pm roughly, live casting the events.
We will also be posting round by round pairings and results over the entire event on the FLG homepage so you all can keep up with who is playing who and the outcomes!
Click the Follow button to get notified when we go live! We will be on during gaming between 10am and 7pm roughly, live casting the events.
We will also be posting round by round pairings and results over the entire event on the FLG homepage so you all can keep up with who is playing who and the outcomes!
Reece will it be possible to post a recording of the finals coverage? I will be slowly floating up the coast of Mexico hopefully too intoxicated to find out if I can get internet on the ship to watch live. But I still want to see the final match. I am calling CSM/Daemons and Tyranids at the top table because you that's why!
I am pretty sure you will have to at least turn in a copy of your list at the beginning of the event. Usually you only need to turn in ahead of time if there is comp involved.
The safest plan of action is to print out a bunch of copies and have them with you. One for each of your opponents and one for the TO.
The Twitch or whatever broadcast was really good, but they should use black and white dice.
I couldn't see any of the rolls, that may help in the future. Plus hey they get some free dice.
People are particular though about their dice.
I don't understand why the players playing the match had headsets though, it was weird. Although you got that great conversation where I think Sean was saying his wife got lost.
Just a bit awkard to listen to, The commentary was excellent and funny the player stuff was not it felt like you were snooping in on private conversation, like I could hear everything they were kind of going back and forth on during parts of the match.
Eventually I will come to the LVO and it's because of the coverage, can't wait to go!!
yakface. The 2 other threads on the LVO were not threads dedicated to the update and results of the LVO. Instead they were opinions on the meta, and opinions on the way the tourny was run in general. I understand that these may not be the general thread in which most people will want to follow for LVO news, but are still valid in their own right, and should not be locked. just my opinion......
Mephiston
Blood angel Command squad
Librarian (don't remember if it BA of SM)
BA scouts (10)
BA scouts (10)
3 Drop Pods
Sentinels of Terra Scouts (10)
Sentinels of Terra Scouts (10)
Devastator Squad x4 Lascannons
Devastator Squad x4 Lascannons
Centurion Devastator with Grav/Amps/Omni (3)
Lysander
Techmarine with Thunderfire Cannon
I may have the scout squads slightly off on count (maybe by 1 unit) but that was pretty much it
It's the Tyranids one, on the left (note that the one on the right is his semifinal opponent, not his finals opponent... the pic of the finals lists looked really blurry to me).
Major congratulations to Sean Nayden for forging his own path with Lictorshame list, and countering the meta! It always fascinates me when that happens . Previously, almost no tyranid players were taking lictors... he not only took 6 lictors, but 2 tyrant guard, which also had been put on the shelf by the vast majority of nid players for some time.
Sure, he had 3 flyrants, but it wasn't just "flyrant spam"... even back with self-allying, 3 flyrants could be common. I'm surprised this kind of list doesn't suffer in a KP mission, though, since it is so MSU? Would love to hear more thoughts on how it plays!
Good live cast, also good to see other TOs starting to carry the torch of classing up the attire in our hobby. Sharply dressed. Very positive stuff already flying around about how fun it was.
Really not that impressed with lictors. Have faced them and wiped them out as soon as they showed up. Will have to watch the games but that winning list does not scare me in the least...
Byte wrote: To bad the "update" thread was locked. It had a lot of list info and dialog pertaining to feedback external from the event.
Woh dude. You need to check your privilege - You're not allowed to have any of that information. You're lucky the tournament even acknowledges the idea that there is an internet.
Tomb King wrote: Really not that impressed with lictors. Have faced them and wiped them out as soon as they showed up. Will have to watch the games but that winning list does not scare me in the least...
Strictly Some of parts just like any other MSU list. I'm not scared of Scouts either. Doesn't matter how hard you hit if you can't hold all the objectives. Using 100+ points to clear 1 50 point lictor a turn is not getting your points back, and they can go to ground for 2+ cover save in ruins. Not to mention, you have to clear all his bombs even thought hey don't provide kps.
Lictors also have synergies with Mawlocs. It runs counter meta to serpents. Opponent bunches even two serpents and that's 4 Str 6 ap 2 hits that ignore cover to each serpent. He can also put all of his bombs in the blast range to get more hits per serpent. Not to mention, lictors glance serpent back armor on 4s. There is meta, and then there is counter meta.
I've seen several comments like this, You don't win out in a field of 265 of nasty lists without bringing a nasty list.
Lictors have been amazing in the hands of a good player since they dropped. Literally the night the codex dropped, I beat up Nanavati using his Drone list at my place with a heavy dose of Lictors and Deathleaper. Sean's beaten two serious GT fields now using lots of lictors and mawlocs with flyrant support.
Also, everyone going "that list doesn't scare me at all!" is very much part of what helps him win.
Well, obviously it doesn'tmatter how good a list is in practice, only how it looks on paper . In fact, really we shouldn't even bother playing tournament games, the players should just post their lists online and have the victor determined by commitee.
Byte wrote: To bad the "update" thread was locked. It had a lot of list info and dialog pertaining to feedback external from the event.
Woh dude. You need to check your privilege - You're not allowed to have any of that information. You're lucky the tournament even acknowledges the idea that there is an internet.
DarkLink wrote: Well, obviously it doesn'tmatter how good a list is in practice, only how it looks on paper . In fact, really we shouldn't even bother playing tournament games, the players should just post their lists online and have the victor determined by commitee.
You tell 'em brother... [heavy sarcasm] I'm sure #Lictorshame just drew 9 easy matches in a row, including all the undefeated players he beat, and any old net list could just "beat him easy..." [/heavy sarcasm]
DarkLink wrote: Well, obviously it doesn'tmatter how good a list is in practice, only how it looks on paper . In fact, really we shouldn't even bother playing tournament games, the players should just post their lists online and have the victor determined by commitee.
You tell 'em brother... [heavy sarcasm] I'm sure #Lictorshame just drew 9 easy matches in a row, including all the undefeated players he beat, and any old net list could just "beat him easy..." [/heavy sarcasm]
To be fair Sean wasn't undefeated.
He lost to Tyler's eldar list in the qualifier.
Nick self imposed some minor restrictions on himself when he decided to not use fatewaeavers reroll. That game was tied on points with Sean winning by killing summoned units. It could of gone either way.
He tabled Tyler's eldar in the top 4.
And beat nick#2 undefeated blood Angels in the top championship round
IMHO this tournament could of easily been won by either tyranids, eldar or demons. Those games were that close and no one at this tournament went undefeated.
Personally the hardest loss I saw was the draigo star who was winning in the final 8 table and mishapping and rolling a 1 on the mishap table on turn 5 when he gated to clear some scouts from nicks bloodangles list off an objective.
This tournament was close multiple armies had a chance to win lost by a single die roll.
MVBrandt wrote:Good live cast, also good to see other TOs starting to carry the torch of classing up the attire in our hobby. Sharply dressed. Very positive stuff already flying around about how fun it was.
I bought a vest for lvo.....it begins
Breazeal wrote:
Tomb King wrote: Really not that impressed with lictors. Have faced them and wiped them out as soon as they showed up. Will have to watch the games but that winning list does not scare me in the least...
Strictly Some of parts just like any other MSU list. I'm not scared of Scouts either. Doesn't matter how hard you hit if you can't hold all the objectives. Using 100+ points to clear 1 50 point lictor a turn is not getting your points back, and they can go to ground for 2+ cover save in ruins. Not to mention, you have to clear all his bombs even thought hey don't provide kps.
Lictors also have synergies with Mawlocs. It runs counter meta to serpents. Opponent bunches even two serpents and that's 4 Str 6 ap 2 hits that ignore cover to each serpent. He can also put all of his bombs in the blast range to get more hits per serpent. Not to mention, lictors glance serpent back armor on 4s. There is meta, and then there is counter meta.
I've seen several comments like this, You don't win out in a field of 265 of nasty lists without bringing a nasty list.
They are alot of fun when you ds them behind a serpent or skyray, then ask your opponent. ..if you want to jink
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: Petre and afew others were asking what my SW army was in the other thread but it got locked for some reason...
, it was
rune priest lvl1
rune priest lvl1
troops
10 grey hunters 2 meltas, pack leader with combi melta, guy with axe has CCW in addition to rest
drop pod storm bolter 12/12/12
10 grey hunters 2 meltas, pack leader with combi melta,
We will also be posting round by round pairings and results over the entire event on the FLG homepage so you all can keep up with who is playing who and the outcomes!
DarkLink wrote: Well, obviously it doesn'tmatter how good a list is in practice, only how it looks on paper . In fact, really we shouldn't even bother playing tournament games, the players should just post their lists online and have the victor determined by commitee.
Byte wrote: To bad the "update" thread was locked. It had a lot of list info and dialog pertaining to feedback external from the event.
Woh dude. You need to check your privilege - You're not allowed to have any of that information. You're lucky the tournament even acknowledges the idea that there is an internet.
Your sense of entitlement is amusing...
And your lack of understanding for sarcasm is quite amusing as well:p
I yearn for a year where literally everybody goes and attends, AT LEAST, LVO, AdeptiCon, *AND* NOVA, and not one person gets all snarky and silly on the internets.
Darkwynn wrote: Keep asking for world peace while your at it Mike!! Meanwhile, I will attend all three
That's b/c you're awesome. As per text message, awesome job this weekend, broski!
It should be telling to all you doucheytrolls out there pickin' fights with one major GT or another that the idea of everyone just getting along and supporting major 40K cons countrywide is considered on par with World Peace in terms of likelihood.
Thanks very much appreciated. Wanted to see how far I could take a list like this. Was very happy with the results even playing against Sean who is a great player. I beat him in the qualifier but he got me in the end.
DarkLink wrote: Well, obviously it doesn'tmatter how good a list is in practice, only how it looks on paper . In fact, really we shouldn't even bother playing tournament games, the players should just post their lists online and have the victor determined by commitee.
Byte wrote: To bad the "update" thread was locked. It had a lot of list info and dialog pertaining to feedback external from the event.
Woh dude. You need to check your privilege - You're not allowed to have any of that information. You're lucky the tournament even acknowledges the idea that there is an internet.
Your sense of entitlement is amusing...
And your lack of understanding for sarcasm is quite amusing as well:p
Oh, I got the sarcasm. Maaksel was still being super whiny about stuff he though he deserved for reasons.
Okay, this is not on-topic at all. I am going to close this thread so-as not to duplicate discussion, and re-open and make the "Updates" thread the official thread for discussing the LVO now that it is finished.
Quick feedback on the poll - some of the questions (main one I noticed was the rules change one):
Would you like to see any 40k Championships ITC rules changes remain or be overturned such as our change to the 2+ reroll saves and Invisibility? Leave this blank if you did not participate in the 40k Championship event.
-I would like to keep the ITC rules changes in place.
-I would like to see the ITC 2+ reroll save nerf (1/12 chance of failure) overturned to play as it reads in the book (1/36 chance of failure).
-I would like to see the Invisibility nerf (hit on 5's in melee, BS 1 in shooting) overturned to play as it reads in the book (hit on 6's in melee, only Snap Fire in shooting).
-I don't care.
It only selectable as pick one. I'd prefer to pick "get rid of both changes (options 2 and 3). Any way to turn this into a multi-selection entry?
Other than that hope you're winding down from a long event, and thanks again for putting it on.
MVBrandt wrote:Good live cast, also good to see other TOs starting to carry the torch of classing up the attire in our hobby. Sharply dressed. Very positive stuff already flying around about how fun it was.
I bought a vest for lvo.....it begins
Breazeal wrote:
Tomb King wrote: Really not that impressed with lictors. Have faced them and wiped them out as soon as they showed up. Will have to watch the games but that winning list does not scare me in the least...
Strictly Some of parts just like any other MSU list. I'm not scared of Scouts either. Doesn't matter how hard you hit if you can't hold all the objectives. Using 100+ points to clear 1 50 point lictor a turn is not getting your points back, and they can go to ground for 2+ cover save in ruins. Not to mention, you have to clear all his bombs even thought hey don't provide kps.
Lictors also have synergies with Mawlocs. It runs counter meta to serpents. Opponent bunches even two serpents and that's 4 Str 6 ap 2 hits that ignore cover to each serpent. He can also put all of his bombs in the blast range to get more hits per serpent. Not to mention, lictors glance serpent back armor on 4s. There is meta, and then there is counter meta.
I've seen several comments like this, You don't win out in a field of 265 of nasty lists without bringing a nasty list.
They are alot of fun when you ds them behind a serpent or skyray, then ask your opponent. ..if you want to jink
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: Petre and afew others were asking what my SW army was in the other thread but it got locked for some reason...
, it was
rune priest lvl1
rune priest lvl1
troops
10 grey hunters 2 meltas, pack leader with combi melta, guy with axe has CCW in addition to rest
drop pod storm bolter 12/12/12
10 grey hunters 2 meltas, pack leader with combi melta,
vet squad 3 melta, meltabombs demo charge
vet squad 3 melta, meltabombs demo charge
3x atrillary carridges + 8 crew
vendetta
It was great playing you man, you played a great list well, and I have a new idea for a pod list thanks to you.
Thanks to you as well, you gave my buddy who plays eldar some good ideas as well. Was a pleasure to play you as well, you are a very tough opponent, we both played our hardest that game, and you deserved that win 100% with your brilliant null deploy and strategy throughout the game.
I loved how during the game you were a tough opponent, and after the game you were a good guy to talk with, many people take their man dollies too seriously, but I feel like you would have been just as good a sport had you lost.
Thanks for the feedback, and yeah, that would have been a better way to put it, I agree. I also forgot to add in the "Do you want to keep CtA allies or Not" question. I was in a bit of a rush as I was preparing to move.
I just added in the comments that I didnt want CtA allies instead Or CtA detachments/formations, ergh.
Also one concept I was recently presente dwith that seemed more fair was something called "solo blood"
IE: if for a given game turn one person kills something and the other doesnt they get that point. Both players could achive this over the course of the game.
Definitely helps mute alpha strike type capabilities, null pod deployments, random 6's on a D roll, etc.
However, since it would further boost 2nd player turns it might require making maelstrom to be on player turn to be more fair. Dunno.
). 240 people voting.
what would you say!?!?" , but a "Oh. 
you that's why! 
