Red Corsair wrote: Wasn't Steve Sisk the winner of the BAO who had questionable interactions though. Like claiming Khan has a 3++ invuln and rolling extra attacks dice at higher WS etc etc...
I can't comment on Geoffs other games, but if he is playing against a person whos reputation for getting stats and gear wrong precedes them, you can hardly call him out for questioning the guy frequently. Doing it in a jerk tone and manner is not called for, but simply asking him politely to double check stats and rules is actually pretty smart.
EDIT: The IC thing seems a bit OTT but again its his right to politely ask a judge. I do think there becomes a point where you can be way too pedantic about it but I just want to make the distinction since some people are acting like 40k has clearly written rules. People played from several locals with different metas and interpretations remember.
Steve Sisk and Adam from the Dice Abides have actually worked out their differences at this LVO, I believe. They mostly just butted heads during their game, and it got massively overblown by the internet. I know Steve, and while he can be fairly intense and not always the most fun to play, he's not a cheater not a bad sport.
DCannon4Life wrote: I have had the (good?) fortune to have somewhere near a dozen games vs. a Lynx. Frankly, AdLance in LVO missions ('classic' book missions coupled with a D6 tactical objective table) are more meta-influencing and are the reason I added a Webway Portal Fire Dragon delivery system to my list. With my Eldar https://tinyplasticaliens.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/2014-renegade-open-day-1-condensed-battle-reports/, I have a plus score vs. the Lynx in several different mission formats. With my CSM, not so much, though I still managed to sneak a win and a draw out of about 5 games. My score vs. AdLance (in LVO-style missions) is dismal; 1 win in more than 10 games.
Mostly, when it comes to Lynxes, I'm just not afraid of them. And in a Maelstrom mission, they're a detriment. Yeah, just picking up my model(s) is a bummer, but if the model I'm picking up scored me 2 Maelstrom points...I'm winning. The Lynx can only ever reasonably expect to remove 1 target per turn. GravCents remove 1 or more targets a turn. I just get the 'feeling' that I'm participating by rolling a bajillion 4+ cover saves for my Bloodthirster (or whatever it was they shot at). If by some miracle I roll well, my model stays on the table--so I feel like I did something. But if a Lynx rolls a '1', my model stays on the table too--and there's a ~16% chance that happens. In some cases is better than being shot at by GravCents, even if I'm not 'participating'.
For the players that are unenthusiastic about including the Lynx in tournament games, I have to ask how much table time have you spent facing them?
Ironically, I think AdLance is much easier to deal with. At a cost of 1110 points for the cheapest version of the lance, at 1850 they usually can't bring along much support. Additionally, knights receive their 4++ save on only a single facing. If you have mobile AT and can shoot at a knight from multiple facings, you can negate the biggest benefit of the formation. A Lynx, by comparison, has a bonus 4+ "save" on every facing before rolling for an cover or invulnerable it might be receiving at the moment and costing only 420 points, you can bring a much stronger force to support it. I have yet to lose to an AdLance army in any mission format. I've only played against the Lynx twice in total, but my initial impression is that the holofields are too good when they can be stacked with an invulnerable save at will.
tetrisphreak wrote: Tyrant Guard. He fielded 2 individual Tyrant Guard units. Which now that I look at it, they are kind of like slower lictors but on steroids with T6 and a 3+ armor save. Not a bad goalie unit at all really.
Oh man, that is so cool! Thanks for catching that... that's even more interesting. Love it
Red Corsair wrote: Wasn't Steve Sisk the winner of the BAO who had questionable interactions though. Like claiming Khan has a 3++ invuln and rolling extra attacks dice at higher WS etc etc...
I can't comment on Geoffs other games, but if he is playing against a person whos reputation for getting stats and gear wrong precedes them, you can hardly call him out for questioning the guy frequently. Doing it in a jerk tone and manner is not called for, but simply asking him politely to double check stats and rules is actually pretty smart.
EDIT: The IC thing seems a bit OTT but again its his right to politely ask a judge. I do think there becomes a point where you can be way too pedantic about it but I just want to make the distinction since some people are acting like 40k has clearly written rules. People played from several locals with different metas and interpretations remember.
right, all I did was ask "hey I know an IC can join a unit, but can the unit join an IC?" politely as I remember the rule as rigel wrote it, and was answered in a much less polite tone then I asked in, but I waved it off as due to stress or to being upset at me for not knowing or having the same interpretation/recollection of how it works.
Didnt argue, didnt stall, took seconds to ask and answer, people can feel free to call me stupid, wrong, or noobish for asking, but simply asking isn't unsportsmanlike. I didn't berate sisk for wanting clarification on super heavies on top floors of ruins, even if he put up a bit of a fight on the judges ruling on that one, cause it sucked for him, I knew ahead of time I was denying him objectives that way, and while it might be considered cheesy to put objectives where the other guy cant get em, its just as valid as cheese units or combos to use in what is supposed to be a very competitive tourney.
Since there had been many instances before of people getting things wrong, I feel its always better to take a few seconds to ask, rather then risk having things get done wrongly. (not just in the game against sisk, I dont want to single anyone out, I dont know people south of the 48th parallel , Im not established in the communities, and I didn't know he had a reputation. I do give him the benefit of the doubt for making an honest mistake for his knights # of attacks, it happens. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and forgive him as I would like to be treated in return, who knows maybe I made mistakes too, im not perfect.)
I was defiantly looking a lot closer at things and asking many more questions then I would expect people to do so over beer and pretzels matches, but I figured that top 8 was big boy pants rules, so taking a few seconds to confirm something wouldn't be such a big deal when its that level of play.
anyways,
I think the best thing to come out of this tourney was the total lack of super heavies in the finals, the tournament defiantly rewarded people who played tactically, and to the objectives, rather then to simply table their opponent.
I believe the large terrain, and abundance of it, coupled with well designed rules for the missions allowed each turn to have some critical decisions to be made that influenced the outcome of the game, rather then it all coming down to lists/luck.
PanzerLeader wrote: Ironically, I think AdLance is much easier to deal with. At a cost of 1110 points for the cheapest version of the lance, at 1850 they usually can't bring along much support. Additionally, knights receive their 4++ save on only a single facing. If you have mobile AT and can shoot at a knight from multiple facings, you can negate the biggest benefit of the formation. A Lynx, by comparison, has a bonus 4+ "save" on every facing before rolling for an cover or invulnerable it might be receiving at the moment and costing only 420 points, you can bring a much stronger force to support it. I have yet to lose to an AdLance army in any mission format. I've only played against the Lynx twice in total, but my initial impression is that the holofields are too good when they can be stacked with an invulnerable save at will.
Going to start a Lynx v. AdLance thread.
What I consider to be the *best* AdLance list is: AdLance, Imperial Guard (2 30-man Conscript Blobs with Priests to make them Fearless and 3(?) LasCannon teams), and a VSG with extra shields.
Red Corsair wrote: Wasn't Steve Sisk the winner of the BAO who had questionable interactions though. Like claiming Khan has a 3++ invuln and rolling extra attacks dice at higher WS etc etc...
If you read it on the internet then it must be true right ?
I played Steve and it was a great game that went down to the last dice rolls. He never tried to pull anything shady.
Tiny_Titan wrote: Anyone know what Matt Roots list was? interesting to see what extent the orks had to go to get so high
He will post the battlereports the end of this week. He has a thread in the dakka battlereport section.
Basically greentide, void shield generator, tankbustas in gunwagons, Mek gunz, painboy, warboss w lucky stikk, gretchin troops. Deffkoptas to grab objectives. I dunno what else, the jist is the greentide w void shield and spreading those boyz out to claim board control. Sounds like a few players got annoyed facing a horde list w vsg. Kinda funny actually.
I watched Panzer Leader p0wn an ork Green Tide army with VSG... Saint Celestine tied them up for three turns, he dropped the VSG first turn then bombed them with his Wyverns.
right, all I did was ask "hey I know an IC can join a unit, but can the unit join an IC?" politely as I remember the rule as rigel wrote it, and was answered in a much less polite tone then I asked in, but I waved it off as due to stress or to being upset at me for not knowing or having the same interpretation/recollection of how it works.
Not quite what I saw, but whatever, I've said my piece.
Red Corsair wrote: Wasn't Steve Sisk the winner of the BAO who had questionable interactions though. Like claiming Khan has a 3++ invuln and rolling extra attacks dice at higher WS etc etc...
If you read it on the internet then it must be true right ?
I played Steve and it was a great game that went down to the last dice rolls. He never tried to pull anything shady.
Yeah, steve is a cool guy. In the game vs Adam, like I said, they just butted heads a bit. There were a couple misunderstandings, such as the 3++ on khan. Khan was attached to a command squad with storm shields, and Adam misheard something and thought Steve had rolled a 3++ on khan. The internet heard that and a few other things and just went with it.
PanzerLeader wrote: @tag883, @krootman: I think my proposed solution for Lynx's is the following: replace the Holofields rule with "Any model with holofields has a 5+ invulnerable save. This save increases to a 4+ if the model moved in the previous turn." What do you guys think having played them multiple times as well?
Having played two lists with Lynx, I'm not sure that would even make a difference. Giving it an invul is pointless, especially since most people with a Lynx were putting it on skyshields anyway. All you do at that point is save them the 75pts for the sky shield. I think the titan fields should just be a cover save instead of an invul. At least it would be threatened in melee and force the eldar player to at least turn it to a zooming flyer for a turn and not be able to use the pulsar.
I have had the (good?) fortune to have somewhere near a dozen games vs. a Lynx. Frankly, AdLance in LVO missions ('classic' book missions coupled with a D6 tactical objective table) are more meta-influencing and are the reason I added a Webway Portal Fire Dragon delivery system to my list. With my Eldar https://tinyplasticaliens.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/2014-renegade-open-day-1-condensed-battle-reports/, I have a plus score vs. the Lynx in several different mission formats. With my CSM, not so much, though I still managed to sneak a win and a draw out of about 5 games. My score vs. AdLance (in LVO-style missions) is dismal; 1 win in more than 10 games.
Mostly, when it comes to Lynxes, I'm just not afraid of them. And in a Maelstrom mission, they're a detriment. Yeah, just picking up my model(s) is a bummer, but if the model I'm picking up scored me 2 Maelstrom points...I'm winning. The Lynx can only ever reasonably expect to remove 1 target per turn. GravCents remove 1 or more targets a turn. I just get the 'feeling' that I'm participating by rolling a bajillion 4+ cover saves for my Bloodthirster (or whatever it was they shot at). If by some miracle I roll well, my model stays on the table--so I feel like I did something. But if a Lynx rolls a '1', my model stays on the table too--and there's a ~16% chance that happens. In some cases is better than being shot at by GravCents, even if I'm not 'participating'.
For the players that are unenthusiastic about including the Lynx in tournament games, I have to ask how much table time have you spent facing them?
I think I have to agree here, the Lynx is nice but not super-omg-amazing. That being said if you are not ready to face it or have never faced it or something like it, it can be very daunting, especially knowing it can '6' something out (which is just as likely as it doing nothing really). You have two choices facing it, either ignore it and feed it targets you care less about, or focus on it. Really the same when facing other super heavies (including Ad-Lance, which is arguably tougher to crack). The other thing to note about D weapons (or even other high strength weapons) is that they are much more effective the bigger the target (such as being fired at that land raider, imperial knight, multi-wound MC, or superheavy/gargantuan), fire them at a unit of scouts and its like 'pssf so what'.
I am pretty sure I was tag883's 5th opponent (I had the color changing Lynx), and I felt bad for '6'ing his big bad bug, but honestly it was either going to be the Lynx popping him or him popping the Lynx (the Lynx cannot stand up to 10str10 shots, followed by mass fire and eGrubs from tyrants). He did roll remarkably bad twice in a row as well, sitting within my voidshield and firing 24 TLstr 6 shots, hitting 20 times and then failing to confirm any of them (or glancing 1-2 times only). Math doesn't always work I guess.
Best thing to do when facing one though is just roll on the Escalation warlord chart and try and get that 4, which will allow you to ignore his 6's or make it even easier for you to kill it (if you get something else). 'Feeling like your participating because you are rolling so many saves that you almost certain not going to make it anyway, vs not feeling like you are participating because someone rolled a 6 (at less odds), is like saying you don't want to watch a movie because someone else pressed the play button on the DVD player'. The end result is the same, your still sitting there with your junk in your hand trying to figure out how your going to deal with it.
If you read it on the internet then it must be true right ?
I played Steve and it was a great game that went down to the last dice rolls. He never tried to pull anything shady.
Ditto, in my game with Steve I thought he was nothing but nice. Even as the game got extremely tight towards the end and eventual 5-5 draw he was a pleasure to play.
Dozer Blades wrote: I watched Panzer Leader p0wn an ork Green Tide army with VSG... Saint Celestine tied them up for three turns, he dropped the VSG first turn then bombed them with his Wyverns.
Dozer Blades wrote: I watched Panzer Leader p0wn an ork Green Tide army with VSG... Saint Celestine tied them up for three turns, he dropped the VSG first turn then bombed them with his Wyverns.
Sisters do have a good shot at Green Tide...
sisters actually had a really good showing at the event,
always great to see the rainbow brite sisters army again and the hello kitty army again on the table.
Wish I could find a pic of the guy who had a counts as knight all decked out in sequins and high heels too.
Several armies were also fully converted with impeccable taste, the necron mechanicus army would be my personal favorite.
blaktoof wrote: a large part of this is also how ITC rules FMC as the same as Flyers for blasts being fired at them when the rules do not state such a thing, which gives FMC an advantage that they normally would not have. If the ITC rule mirrored the actual rules of the game in this regard FMC would still be good, but not better than the rules intended them to actually be.
relevant quotes:
Flyers
Hard to Hit
Zooming Flyers are incredibly difficult targets for troops without suitably calibrated weapons and scopes. Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule). Template and Blast weapons, and any other attacks that don’t roll To Hit, cannot hit Zooming Flyers.
FMC
Hard to Hit
A Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature is a very difficult target for units without specialised weapons. Shots resolved at such a target can only be resolved as Snap Shots unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule.
ITC Faq v1.5
Template and blast weapons, and any other attacks or special rules that do not roll to hit, or hit automatically, have no effect on zooming flyers and swooping flying monstrous creatures. This is true even if the attacking unit has the skyfire rule.
The ITC ruling is not for ease of play and is a house rule that adds rules to FMC that are not stated in their actual rules to make them more viable for whatever reason unstated by the people who made the ITC 'FAQ' faq in this case is also a misnomer as this is essentially a 'house rule' or 'house erratta' and is not a question as the rules in the rulebook are clear in the wording. If the two unit types were meant to be the same the rules in the rulebook would stat the same thing, they would probably have the same movement speeds, and FMC would not start on table.
I can't believe people aren't talking about this more. The rules are amazingly clear on this subject, and because of this event a lot of tournaments are going to be playing the same way. The addition of the FMC to be immune to blasts/templates, even if they have skyfire is just asinine. This is one of the few times the rulebook was crystal clear =\
Red Corsair wrote: Wasn't Steve Sisk the winner of the BAO who had questionable interactions though. Like claiming Khan has a 3++ invuln and rolling extra attacks dice at higher WS etc etc...
I can't comment on Geoffs other games, but if he is playing against a person whos reputation for getting stats and gear wrong precedes them, you can hardly call him out for questioning the guy frequently. Doing it in a jerk tone and manner is not called for, but simply asking him politely to double check stats and rules is actually pretty smart.
EDIT: The IC thing seems a bit OTT but again its his right to politely ask a judge. I do think there becomes a point where you can be way too pedantic about it but I just want to make the distinction since some people are acting like 40k has clearly written rules. People played from several locals with different metas and interpretations remember.
Steve Sisk and Adam from the Dice Abides have actually worked out their differences at this LVO, I believe. They mostly just butted heads during their game, and it got massively overblown by the internet. I know Steve, and while he can be fairly intense and not always the most fun to play, he's not a cheater not a bad sport.
LOL, that didn't happen at all, but that's funny. I think the only words we exchanged was me asking if he made the finals and him saying "yes" while on the way to the toilet. Not that I wouldn't have a beer with him, but then again, if there's beer involved I'd keep anyone's company, regardless of how they act during a game of space dolls. I haven't shared company with him to really know much about him, besides how he acted in that one, now infamous, game we played.
Yeah, steve is a cool guy. In the game vs Adam, like I said, they just butted heads a bit. There were a couple misunderstandings, such as the 3++ on khan. Khan was attached to a command squad with storm shields, and Adam misheard something and thought Steve had rolled a 3++ on khan. The internet heard that and a few other things and just went with it.
Close, but not quite... what happened was Khan was the last model remaining at that point (last storm shield command dude died from the same blast attack) and continued to take a 3+ save against a S10 Ap2 Ignores Cover weapon (quite likely forgot it has ignores cover, though I didn't question it at the time, which I should have, but hey, marines get all sorts of 3++ saves it seems), and the other issue was saying I needed 5's to hit him in combat (with my WS3 Brass Scorpion), though I assumed Khan must be WS7 when he said that (since I play CSM, I figure if I get 3 WS7 characters, marines probably get some too), which was why he would tell me that I needed 5's to hit him after saying I was WS3. At this point I really honestly don't care about that game, but that doesn't change the details. I'm still surprised how frequently this gets raked up, the internet holds grudges far longer than I do, it takes far too much energy and effort to care that much.
PanzerLeader wrote: Ironically, I think AdLance is much easier to deal with. At a cost of 1110 points for the cheapest version of the lance, at 1850 they usually can't bring along much support. Additionally, knights receive their 4++ save on only a single facing. If you have mobile AT and can shoot at a knight from multiple facings, you can negate the biggest benefit of the formation. A Lynx, by comparison, has a bonus 4+ "save" on every facing before rolling for an cover or invulnerable it might be receiving at the moment and costing only 420 points, you can bring a much stronger force to support it. I have yet to lose to an AdLance army in any mission format. I've only played against the Lynx twice in total, but my initial impression is that the holofields are too good when they can be stacked with an invulnerable save at will.
Going to start a Lynx v. AdLance thread.
What I consider to be the *best* AdLance list is: AdLance, Imperial Guard (2 30-man Conscript Blobs with Priests to make them Fearless and 3(?) LasCannon teams), and a VSG with extra shields.
Ever run up against that version?
I haven't run into that particular version, but I don't think that'd be particularly hard to crack when compared to other AdLance builds. Its a low kill point, low objective scoring capability build. The conscripts are annoying in close combat but the rest of the list doesn't pose much a ranged threat to most of the common builds. The knights will eventually have to leave the protection of the shield and depending on how fast your AT is, you can either drop inside shield range or take your melta directly at the enemy VSG. Mission type and deployment will influence the context, naturally, but outside of kill points I wouldn't mind this draw at all.
Is there a good compilation of pics for people who took top painting scores?
Spoiler:
DarkLink wrote: He basically argued a ton of really stupid rules.
right because, just because someone says it on the Internets it must be true right?
arguing over rules is specifically *not* enough to 0 bomb someone according to the players pack, [spoiler]
What does NOT constitute a thumbs down on sports?
You argued over rules with your opponent. Your opponent beat you.
You didn’t like your opponent’s army.
Your opponent thinks the Black Lion never should have been the head of Voltron. The Green Lion was way cooler. NERD RAGE!!!
A negative mark on sportsmanship will be met with administrative action as follows:
First thumbs down: A verbal warning from a judge, up to reversing a win to a loss.
Second thumbs down: Reversing a win to a loss, up to disqualification from any prize support.
Third thumbs down: disqualification from any prize support, up to expulsion from the event with no refund of the ticket price.
Fourth thumbs down: Expulsion from the event with no refund of the ticket price.
Spoiler:
Considering that no judge felt the zero bombs were legit, or warranted even a talking to, and that prize support didn't get pulled, its a complete fabrication to claim that someone received numerous, legitimate 0 scores, when in fact they received none.
That tasty felt the need to post such a hateful, personal attack post on his blog, despite the facts not being as he said, speaks for itself. Any one can easily verify that I got my best of SW prize, which completely undermines the idea that I received multiple legit thumbs down. I mean, I caught sisk rolling extra attack dice on his knight, but im not blogging all over that hes a cheaty cheater or a bad sport, because he is not, I gave him the benefit of the doubt as I thought it was a legit oops on his part, treating him as I myself would want to be treated.
Red Corsair wrote: Wasn't Steve Sisk the winner of the BAO who had questionable interactions though. Like claiming Khan has a 3++ invuln and rolling extra attacks dice at higher WS etc etc...
I can't comment on Geoffs other games, but if he is playing against a person whos reputation for getting stats and gear wrong precedes them, you can hardly call him out for questioning the guy frequently. Doing it in a jerk tone and manner is not called for, but simply asking him politely to double check stats and rules is actually pretty smart.
EDIT: The IC thing seems a bit OTT but again its his right to politely ask a judge. I do think there becomes a point where you can be way too pedantic about it but I just want to make the distinction since some people are acting like 40k has clearly written rules. People played from several locals with different metas and interpretations remember.
Steve Sisk and Adam from the Dice Abides have actually worked out their differences at this LVO, I believe. They mostly just butted heads during their game, and it got massively overblown by the internet. I know Steve, and while he can be fairly intense and not always the most fun to play, he's not a cheater not a bad sport.
LOL, that didn't happen at all, but that's funny. I think the only words we exchanged was me asking if he made the finals and him saying "yes" while on the way to the toilet. Not that I wouldn't have a beer with him, but then again, if there's beer involved I'd keep anyone's company, regardless of how they act during a game of space dolls.
Heh. Next thing you know, the internet will have you moving in together and getting married. All from just being seen together for longer than 5 seconds.
Dozer Blades wrote: I watched Panzer Leader p0wn an ork Green Tide army with VSG... Saint Celestine tied them up for three turns, he dropped the VSG first turn then bombed them with his Wyverns.
Sisters do have a good shot at Green Tide...
sisters actually had a really good showing at the event,
always great to see the rainbow brite sisters army again and the hello kitty army again on the table.
Wish I could find a pic of the guy who had a counts as knight all decked out in sequins and high heels too.
Several armies were also fully converted with impeccable taste, the necron mechanicus army would be my personal favorite.
While I'm glad to see them represented, I've never been a fan of the silly sob armies.
blaktoof wrote: a large part of this is also how ITC rules FMC as the same as Flyers for blasts being fired at them when the rules do not state such a thing, which gives FMC an advantage that they normally would not have. If the ITC rule mirrored the actual rules of the game in this regard FMC would still be good, but not better than the rules intended them to actually be.
relevant quotes:
Flyers
Hard to Hit
Zooming Flyers are incredibly difficult targets for troops without suitably calibrated weapons and scopes. Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule). Template and Blast weapons, and any other attacks that don’t roll To Hit, cannot hit Zooming Flyers.
FMC
Hard to Hit
A Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature is a very difficult target for units without specialised weapons. Shots resolved at such a target can only be resolved as Snap Shots unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule.
ITC Faq v1.5
Template and blast weapons, and any other attacks or special rules that do not roll to hit, or hit automatically, have no effect on zooming flyers and swooping flying monstrous creatures. This is true even if the attacking unit has the skyfire rule.
The ITC ruling is not for ease of play and is a house rule that adds rules to FMC that are not stated in their actual rules to make them more viable for whatever reason unstated by the people who made the ITC 'FAQ' faq in this case is also a misnomer as this is essentially a 'house rule' or 'house erratta' and is not a question as the rules in the rulebook are clear in the wording. If the two unit types were meant to be the same the rules in the rulebook would stat the same thing, they would probably have the same movement speeds, and FMC would not start on table.
I can't believe people aren't talking about this more. The rules are amazingly clear on this subject, and because of this event a lot of tournaments are going to be playing the same way. The addition of the FMC to be immune to blasts/templates, even if they have skyfire is just asinine. This is one of the few times the rulebook was crystal clear =\
They made the choice to nerf invisibility by letting it be hit by blasts, and on the other hand they made it so that FMC could not be hit by blasts. I find it odd that everyone is so upset at invisibility being so powerful, yet they allowed FMC to exactly mirror the effects of the per-nerfed invisibility (only be hit by '6's and immune to blasts). I guess they wanted to have everyone to take the Leviathan Detachment instead of having to try to roll for invisibility, and they fail to cast it 2 out of 6 times. If that was the case, mission accomplished.
I think it was just a coincidence that the Frontline Gaming guys were taking Lynxs and Tyranids.
While I'm glad to see them represented, I've never been a fan of the silly sob armies.
fair enough, the hello kitty army was actually eldar, but it cant just be orks and grots giving everyone a good larf!
I would love to see more hilarious models, or army themes, I find lots of people really enjoy it!
I know a few people really had fun killing my pimp model, they saw the genuine sorrow in my eyes every time he got turned into a fine red mist.
Not my best paint work by far, this is almost 17 years old, so im glad that considering 90% of it is greenstuff it looks "right enough" to give people a chuckle usually.
thanks, and likewise. I think I made more tactical errors in that game than I did the rest of the tourney combined . I had game planned the lynx, and knew it could d-slap, but decided that a 1 in 3 or 1 in 6 chance was worth taking, and it sent me reeling that it happened 2 out of 2 times, but if I'm going to be dumb and lose a game, it feels much better losing to a quality opponent like you, who actually outplays me.
Unfortunately, rolling on escalation to reduce the D only helps your warlord and his unit, so Barbie still goes pop. It might have saved my warlord from your big D on turn 5, but your wraith knight would have got him anyways.
I want to start of by saying I had a great time at LVO. It was my first GT. And now I have the bug. I need to do more. I finished at 48th with a 4 win 2 loss record. And I am very happy with this. My two losses were to great 40k players who were previous major GT winners and ETC team USA members.
Here is the list I took
Tau Empire: Codex (2013) (Combined Arms Detachment)
The overall strategy I went with was have Shadowsun infiltrate with Kroot then jump into the missile squad with the other commanders on turn one to make a super resilient deathstar battlesuit unit. It worked pretty well. Super survivable and the squad was only killed off in one of my games. Other than that the plan was to use Tau shooting to blast my opponents off the board.
GreaterGouda wrote: I want to start of by saying I had a great time at LVO. It was my first GT. And now I have the bug. I need to do more. I finished at 48th with a 4 win 2 loss record. And I am very happy with this. My two losses were to great 40k players who were previous major GT winners and ETC team USA members.
Here is the list I took
Tau Empire: Codex (2013) (Combined Arms Detachment)
The overall strategy I went with was have Shadowsun infiltrate with Kroot then jump into the missile squad with the other commanders on turn one to make a super resilient deathstar battlesuit unit. It worked pretty well. Super survivable and the squad was only killed off in one of my games. Other than that the plan was to use Tau shooting to blast my opponents off the board.
This list is really good, and you played it really well. I got super lucky and pinned the buffy/shadowsun unit twice with the horror otherwise I very well may have been done for against you. Good luck at your next event, and glad to hear you caught the GT bug .
Brothererekose wrote: Still looking to find out who got Best Paint and such. Anyone got a link?
I *did* watch the twitch feed, but missed them when I went AFK during the boring parts where names were announced, and then Reece shrugged and placed the paper on the table.
Israel's Tau got the top army. I don't have a link but I was there when he got the award. His Tau were gorgeous.
I saw it & took pix. Damn near perfect.
I kibbitzed with Israel as he showed me his earth and water caste models like a proud poppa. I plan to use the 'between armor plates lighting' element he had on some crisis suits. I even had cheek enough to suggest one of the mechanics have a hood open on the tetra in the garage bay, up to his elbows.
I didn't see Alex G's though. I get to play against Mike Fox's regularly.
Stop asking that people, can't you see they're busy arguing important tournament stuff, like who made mean glances at whom and what type of smile certain people had.
blaktoof wrote: a large part of this is also how ITC rules FMC as the same as Flyers for blasts being fired at them when the rules do not state such a thing, which gives FMC an advantage that they normally would not have. If the ITC rule mirrored the actual rules of the game in this regard FMC would still be good, but not better than the rules intended them to actually be.
relevant quotes:
Flyers
Hard to Hit
Zooming Flyers are incredibly difficult targets for troops without suitably calibrated weapons and scopes. Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule). Template and Blast weapons, and any other attacks that don’t roll To Hit, cannot hit Zooming Flyers.
FMC
Hard to Hit
A Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature is a very difficult target for units without specialised weapons. Shots resolved at such a target can only be resolved as Snap Shots unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule.
ITC Faq v1.5
Template and blast weapons, and any other attacks or special rules that do not roll to hit, or hit automatically, have no effect on zooming flyers and swooping flying monstrous creatures. This is true even if the attacking unit has the skyfire rule.
The ITC ruling is not for ease of play and is a house rule that adds rules to FMC that are not stated in their actual rules to make them more viable for whatever reason unstated by the people who made the ITC 'FAQ' faq in this case is also a misnomer as this is essentially a 'house rule' or 'house erratta' and is not a question as the rules in the rulebook are clear in the wording. If the two unit types were meant to be the same the rules in the rulebook would stat the same thing, they would probably have the same movement speeds, and FMC would not start on table.
I can't believe people aren't talking about this more. The rules are amazingly clear on this subject, and because of this event a lot of tournaments are going to be playing the same way. The addition of the FMC to be immune to blasts/templates, even if they have skyfire is just asinine. This is one of the few times the rulebook was crystal clear =\
They made the choice to nerf invisibility by letting it be hit by blasts, and on the other hand they made it so that FMC could not be hit by blasts. I find it odd that everyone is so upset at invisibility being so powerful, yet they allowed FMC to exactly mirror the effects of the per-nerfed invisibility (only be hit by '6's and immune to blasts). I guess they wanted to have everyone to take the Leviathan Detachment instead of having to try to roll for invisibility, and they fail to cast it 2 out of 6 times. If that was the case, mission accomplished.
I think it was just a coincidence that the Frontline Gaming guys were taking Lynxs and Tyranids.
Take off that tin foil hat, Allen. If I recall correctly these rulings are made by several TO's, only one of whom is a 'Frontline Gaming Guy'. Of the 'Frontline Gaming Guys' I believe it was one that took a Lynx and one that took Hive Tyrant spam, neither of which finished in the top 8. Keep banging that drum though, buddy.
Dozer Blades wrote: I watched Panzer Leader p0wn an ork Green Tide army with VSG... Saint Celestine tied them up for three turns, he dropped the VSG first turn then bombed them with his Wyverns.
Sisters do have a good shot at Green Tide...
sisters actually had a really good showing at the event,
always great to see the rainbow brite sisters army again and the hello kitty army again on the table.
Wish I could find a pic of the guy who had a counts as knight all decked out in sequins and high heels too.
Several armies were also fully converted with impeccable taste, the necron mechanicus army would be my personal favorite.
What were the lists if you dont mind me asking? I always love the models over normal Marines and Have a small Force of them.
Steve was my only loss. We had a great game and even though he knew he needed a turn 6 to win he was a good sport to play against. I really needed the game to end on 5 and would've won 8-2. I'm upset to lose on a dice roll but we both played an awesome game.
They made the choice to nerf invisibility by letting it be hit by blasts, and on the other hand they made it so that FMC could not be hit by blasts. I find it odd that everyone is so upset at invisibility being so powerful, yet they allowed FMC to exactly mirror the effects of the per-nerfed invisibility (only be hit by '6's and immune to blasts). I guess they wanted to have everyone to take the Leviathan Detachment instead of having to try to roll for invisibility, and they fail to cast it 2 out of 6 times. If that was the case, mission accomplished.
I think it was just a coincidence that the Frontline Gaming guys were taking Lynxs and Tyranids.
Take off that tin foil hat, Allen. If I recall correctly these rulings are made by several TO's, only one of whom is a 'Frontline Gaming Guy.
As far as the 2 rulings about FMC or Invisibility I do not think that any other event has ruled them that way. I think Reese is on the Adepticon council and has a say in their FAQ, but they are leaving invis as is, My guess is that his friends at the shop complained about invisibility and so he sent out a poll to see if people wanted it nerfed. Since most people don't use it it was voted down like everything else would be.
Of the 'Frontline Gaming Guys' I believe it was one that took a Lynx and one that took Hive Tyrant spam, neither of which finished in the top 8. Keep banging that drum though, buddy.
I am not sure how many Frontline gaming guys took the lynx, but I think Grant Theft Auto and the person who placed 3rd at the event Tyler DeVries took it. I think that qualifies as top 8,
IMO Invis is very strong and I can see why it was nerfed, But I feel blasts should full scatter no matter what. And templates should do Half hits round up. This would make them MUCH more reasonable than now.
FMC shouldnt be hit with Blast or Templates at all from Non Flyers, A Flyer or FMC sure.. but not ground units.
Blackmoor wrote: I am not sure how many Frontline gaming guys took the lynx, but I think Grant Theft Auto and the person who placed 3rd at the event Tyler DeVries took it. I think that qualifies as top 8,
I think Tyler plays out of Minnesota; that's a sweet conspiracy theory you're working on!
Blackmoor wrote: They made the choice to nerf invisibility by letting it be hit by blasts, and on the other hand they made it so that FMC could not be hit by blasts. I find it odd that everyone is so upset at invisibility being so powerful, yet they allowed FMC to exactly mirror the effects of the per-nerfed invisibility (only be hit by '6's and immune to blasts). I guess they wanted to have everyone to take the Leviathan Detachment instead of having to try to roll for invisibility, and they fail to cast it 2 out of 6 times. If that was the case, mission accomplished.
They have a way they want the game to be played, no doubt about that. A simple look at their missions and objective placement rules will make it clear. They prefer high speed, and long range shooting rather than midfield engagement. In my local meta we go the other way preferring a game that forces wave serpents and Tau off the back board edge, and allows greater interaction between armies. We prefer army comp that limits spam more. For instance CAD + Leviathan isn't allowed unless we are using someone else's format.
So if you come to one of my tourneys in the near future, I'm sure you could say something like "I guess they hate Wave Serpents, because their rules don't favor them as much at that place over there, or They hate Crones, because I'm limited to 4 of them instead of 6." It is OK for us to all have different preferences. I hope that in the future LVO can offer events with different missions, and Army Comp rules that cater to a greater variety of play styles, and there is sign of that in the form of the Highlander Tournament this year.
In the meantime, if their rules are not to your taste, I'm sure you can either find or create events that suite your specific vision of the game better.
Blackmoor wrote: They made the choice to nerf invisibility by letting it be hit by blasts, and on the other hand they made it so that FMC could not be hit by blasts. I find it odd that everyone is so upset at invisibility being so powerful, yet they allowed FMC to exactly mirror the effects of the per-nerfed invisibility (only be hit by '6's and immune to blasts). I guess they wanted to have everyone to take the Leviathan Detachment instead of having to try to roll for invisibility, and they fail to cast it 2 out of 6 times. If that was the case, mission accomplished.
They have a way they want the game to be played, no doubt about that. A simple look at their missions and objective placement rules will make it clear. They prefer high speed, and long range shooting rather than midfield engagement. In my local meta we go the other way preferring a game that forces wave serpents and Tau off the back board edge, and allows greater interaction between armies. We prefer army comp that limits spam more. For instance CAD + Leviathan isn't allowed unless we are using someone else's format.
So if you come to one of my tourneys in the near future, I'm sure you could say something like "I guess they hate Wave Serpents, because their rules don't favor them as much at that place over there, or They hate Crones, because I'm limited to 4 of them instead of 6." It is OK for us to all have different preferences. I hope that in the future LVO can offer events with different missions, and Army Comp rules that cater to a greater variety of play styles, and there is sign of that in the form of the Highlander Tournament this year.
In the meantime, if their rules are not to your taste, I'm sure you can either find or create events that suite your specific vision of the game better.
Let's be serious. Nobody hates Crones. Crones are awful.
This guy got a gift in round 2 when they ruled that Shadows in the Warp affected every unit, and not just psychers. It never occurred to me to make that argument, and it blew my mind that judges would agree. When I saw that, I asked Reece if I could use that ruling in my future games, and he had a judges pow-wow, and decided that it was a one game only ruling, and that from then on Shadows only affected Psyker again.
Has anyone ever heard of that reading of shadows:
All enemy units and models with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers special rules suffer a -3 penalty to their Leadership whilst they are within 12 of one or more models with the Shadow in the Warp special rule.
The idea behind the interpretation is an implied seperation between "All enemy units" and "models with the Psyker..." making it apply to both all enemy units, and also all Psyker be they friendly or enemy, so a Tyrant is always at -3 leadership because it is a Psyker and in its own shadows bubble, but a Lord Commissar (despite not being a Psyker ) is only Leadership 7.
This is a huge thing for a judge to make a one of call on. Is it common for things like this to happen at large tournaments (largest I've done is Railhead Rumble at like 80 people iirc)?
I'm so flabbergasted by this I'm not sure how to put it into words. The person on the losing end of this call was robbed, even if it didn't end up mattering much as far as the final standings.
That is quite an odd interpretation, to me it reads if you are a unit or a model with the psyker rules, your affected. Not 'All Units OR models with psyker', and reading it you would affect yourself it looks like (does anyone actually play it that way? dominate a Tyrant or Barbie lately?)
How about Horrify/Terrify/Dominate the Tyrant Warlord while he is in shadows of the warp...(you won't make him run of course, but that's a -7 to LD for that dominate test, if he can't move would he land?)
edit: of course you wouldn't affect yourself, it says enemy units/models, DUH! I need my glasses
z3n1st wrote: That is quite an odd interpretation, to me it reads if you are a unit or a model with the psyker rules, your affected. Not 'All Units OR models with psyker', and reading it you would affect yourself it looks like (does anyone actually play it that way? dominate a Tyrant or Barbie lately?)
How about Horrify/Terrify/Dominate the Tyrant Warlord while he is in shadows of the warp...(you won't make him run of course, but that's a -7 to LD for that dominate test, if he can't move would he land?)
edit: of course you wouldn't affect yourself, it says enemy units/models, DUH! I need my glasses
The interpretation used in the game separated "enemy units" and "models with the Psyker rule". So the Tyrant did indeed Shadows himself.
Hollismason wrote: How did LVO end up ruling the Decurion? Special Detachment? Not Allowed? 2 Sources only? Just curious.
they didnt do an official ruling, and only top lists get checked by TO's.
I do know I played one guy with the decurion detach, + 2 of the spider/wraith/scarab "not a detachment" detachments within it(what do I call these, sub detachments? i dunno, they were part of the detachment tree under decurion).
the way my opponent explained it, they were all counted as a single detachment.
This guy got a gift in round 2 when they ruled that Shadows in the Warp affected every unit, and not just psychers. It never occurred to me to make that argument, and it blew my mind that judges would agree. When I saw that, I asked Reece if I could use that ruling in my future games, and he had a judges pow-wow, and decided that it was a one game only ruling, and that from then on Shadows only affected Psyker again.
Has anyone ever heard of that reading of shadows:
All enemy units and models with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers special rules suffer a -3 penalty to their Leadership whilst they are within 12 of one or more models with the Shadow in the Warp special rule.
The idea behind the interpretation is an implied seperation between "All enemy units" and "models with the Psyker..." making it apply to both all enemy units, and also all Psyker be they friendly or enemy, so a Tyrant is always at -3 leadership because it is a Psyker and in its own shadows bubble, but a Lord Commissar (despite not being a Psyker ) is only Leadership 7.
This is a huge thing for a judge to make a one of call on. Is it common for things like this to happen at large tournaments (largest I've done is Railhead Rumble at like 80 people iirc)?
I'm so flabbergasted by this I'm not sure how to put it into words. The person on the losing end of this call was robbed, even if it didn't end up mattering much as far as the final standings.
I dont understand why it was ruled that way only for one game?
Was a bad ruling imo. Clearly states enemy models so no the HT shouldn't have "shadowed himself." I am friends with PajamaPants and I got his argument (we talked about this actually) but this is a case in my opinion of GW writing something very poorly. The word "and" really messes it up and gives room to argue it means everybody + psychers.. but that is so incredibly redundant it can't possibly mean that. Shadows used to effect everyone.. it didn't stipulate EVERYONE PLUS PSYCHERS because that level of bad english rarely exists.
Moving forward I'd be shocked if anyone else was convinced that shadows actually works like it used to. It really should only work vs psychers.
it was also ruled that infiltrators *must* use their rule and start in reserves
so be careful if you roll the warlord trait that gives your WL infiltrate, as he has to then start in reserves (of some kind, be it infiltrate, DS, outflank, or walk on the edge)
easysauce wrote: it was also ruled that infiltrators *must* use their rule and start in reserves
so be careful if you roll the warlord trait that gives your WL infiltrate, as he has to then start in reserves (of some kind, be it infiltrate, DS, outflank, or walk on the edge)
Because that's what Infiltrate says. And it doesn't make you start in Reserves, it just forces you to deploy later than normal.
easysauce wrote: it was also ruled that infiltrators *must* use their rule and start in reserves
so be careful if you roll the warlord trait that gives your WL infiltrate, as he has to then start in reserves (of some kind, be it infiltrate, DS, outflank, or walk on the edge)
This ruling regarding Infiltrate is RaW. There is no 'may' in the Infiltrate special rule (i.e. it is not a special rule a player has the option to invoke/not invoke). If you have 'Infiltrate' you ALWAYS deploy after normal deployment. You are also ALWAYS prevented from making Turn One assaults, whether you deploy in your own DZ or not. You may choose to start a unit/model with the Infiltrate special rule in reserves, with the option to declare that you are Outflanking. You are not forced to start in reserves.
I see that you included 'of some kind', but I think that allows for unnecessary (but understandable) confusion: Deploying Infiltrators after normal deployment is complete, but before the game begins, is not Reserves.
And the 'awesome' Master of Ambush can indeed be a trap, as your Warlord and 3 non-vehicle units (of your choice) HAVE infiltrate.
agreed. The "must start in reserve" part is a horrible reading of the rule. Infiltrators just deploy after "normal deployment" so it's the last step (before scout).
iNcontroL wrote: agreed. The "must start in reserve" part is a horrible reading of the rule. Infiltrators just deploy after "normal deployment" so it's the last step (before scout).
The "must start in reserve" looks like it was easysauce's incorrect interpretation. Infiltrators don't start in reserve, they just deploy at a different time and have the option of outflanking/normal reserve at that time.
They made the choice to nerf invisibility by letting it be hit by blasts, and on the other hand they made it so that FMC could not be hit by blasts. I find it odd that everyone is so upset at invisibility being so powerful, yet they allowed FMC to exactly mirror the effects of the per-nerfed invisibility (only be hit by '6's and immune to blasts). I guess they wanted to have everyone to take the Leviathan Detachment instead of having to try to roll for invisibility, and they fail to cast it 2 out of 6 times. If that was the case, mission accomplished.
I think it was just a coincidence that the Frontline Gaming guys were taking Lynxs and Tyranids.
Take off that tin foil hat, Allen. If I recall correctly these rulings are made by several TO's, only one of whom is a 'Frontline Gaming Guy.
As far as the 2 rulings about FMC or Invisibility I do not think that any other event has ruled them that way. I think Reese is on the Adepticon council and has a say in their FAQ, but they are leaving invis as is, My guess is that his friends at the shop complained about invisibility and so he sent out a poll to see if people wanted it nerfed. Since most people don't use it it was voted down like everything else would be.
Of the 'Frontline Gaming Guys' I believe it was one that took a Lynx and one that took Hive Tyrant spam, neither of which finished in the top 8. Keep banging that drum though, buddy.
I am not sure how many Frontline gaming guys took the lynx, but I think Grant Theft Auto and the person who placed 3rd at the event Tyler DeVries took it. I think that qualifies as top 8,
Are You sure your not mistaking the major friendliness of the FLG people towards others as Pretournament association? I had a great experience with every interaction with either a player or a TO that was part of the massive workload that went into putting an event like that on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tbh I think the way FLG modified 2++ rerolls and invis was directly responsible for the variety of armies played not detrimental to it.
iNcontroL wrote: agreed. The "must start in reserve" part is a horrible reading of the rule. Infiltrators just deploy after "normal deployment" so it's the last step (before scout).
The "must start in reserve" looks like it was easysauce's incorrect interpretation. Infiltrators don't start in reserve, they just deploy at a different time and have the option of outflanking/normal reserve at that time.
im still half asleep, but you got what I was going for
main thing to take away, is that infiltrate isnt optional as many play it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tbh I think the way FLG modified 2++ rerolls and invis was directly responsible for the variety of armies played not detrimental to it.
Wilson wrote: I dont understand why it was ruled that way only for one game?
They did the right thing. The made a judging mistake in 1 game, then the head judge corrected it for the rest of the tourney. They were also prepared to give bonus battle points to the person negatively affected if it was what would keep him out of the finals.
I posted that because I am a TO, and I train judges, and on the 18 hour car ride back, I spent several hours training 3 of my judges, and used this to highlight the sort of situation where someone could make a compelling RAW argument. I posted it to the Tyranid thread because I wanted to see if it was a regional thing, and if anyone had ever encountered such an argument before. As our tournaments grow, we attract a larger diversity or people, and we need to be prepared to handle things like this.
I also imparted on my judges that FLG's solution to it was done appropriately, and as fair as could have been. Usually we can get away with a single judge, or a Judge and a Ringer at our events, but as I said, we will grow, and it is important that judges feel empowered to make decisions, and also empowered to followup on those decisions with the rest of the judging staff. We can make mistakes (Lord knows I've made mistake while judging), and we need to be willing to take the steps to correct them. Those steps were taken here.
btw blackmoor as a person that knows Reece I'm fairly surprised you keep trying to suggest he would allow things into a tourney to help a friend.. never mind the gravity of that accusation but you really really really do know that Reece HATES D/LoW and if you know him as well as I do you know he actually thinks FMC getting "toe in" etc.. is garbage too. He is one of several people on the counsel but he gets all the wrap I think because of his public availability and podcast... not sure. Most people know all these things but still hold him solely responsible.
He is one of several people on the counsel but he gets all the wrap I think because of his public availability and podcast... not sure.
I am pretty sure we have all taken our fair share over the years. It is the one constant, and it is all part of the job of caring and running a quality event.
my point wasn't that he is unique in taking crap it was that he is solely named as changing rules etc when he is a part of a counsel of people that do those things
iNcontroL wrote: btw blackmoor as a person that knows Reece I'm fairly surprised you keep trying to suggest he would allow things into a tourney to help a friend.. never mind the gravity of that accusation but you really really really do know that Reece HATES D/LoW and if you know him as well as I do you know he actually thinks FMC getting "toe in" etc.. is garbage too. He is one of several people on the counsel but he gets all the wrap I think because of his public availability and podcast... not sure. Most people know all these things but still hold him solely responsible.
iNcontroL wrote: btw blackmoor as a person that knows Reece I'm fairly surprised you keep trying to suggest he would allow things into a tourney to help a friend.. never mind the gravity of that accusation but you really really really do know that Reece HATES D/LoW and if you know him as well as I do you know he actually thinks FMC getting "toe in" etc.. is garbage too. He is one of several people on the counsel but he gets all the wrap I think because of his public availability and podcast... not sure. Most people know all these things but still hold him solely responsible.
What I think is that he heard a lot of grumbling around the shop in regards to invisibility and so he put a poll out about it. I am not saying that Reece did anything wrong or anything below the board to try to help his friends. He was trying to address a problem that he thought existed. Invisibility is reallynot a problem unless you use a few key units that a lot of the FLG guys took.
Iinvisibility scared a lot of people when 7th edition first came out. Everyone was saying how powerful it was and that it needed to be nerfed. They also said the exact same thing about demon summoning. Then after a few months went by everyone found out how hard it was to even get invisibility (other than a few units like Loth, Belakor and Tigerious) and that psychic powers take a ton of resources to cast, and they are incredibly unreliable. Not only are they hard to cast. but they can be denied, and then they also have a good chance to get Perils of the Warp.
That is why everyone was shocked when Reese stated that he was going to put out a poll about invisibility. It was such a non-factor at every major GT since 7th edition. Do you know what a major factor was at GTs? Adamantine Lance formation. If you look at the thread at the poll everyone outside of FLG did not see it coming, and they were wondering if AL was going to be addressed or included on the poll as well.
Again, FMC=Automatic Invisibility so why allow one, and not the other?
As far at the toe in terrain I hate that as well, so a nice balancing feature is that they can be hit by blasts. It it was just kept RAW it would be much better, and no one could say a thing.
Everyone saw what a huge buff Hive Tyrants received in 7th edition (Reduced grounding checks, the separation of the psychic phase and the shooting phase, ect) and added to this the Levitation Formation where you can take 3 Hive Tyrants with 120 points of troops the ruling should have been the least favorable (and RAW) to mitigate the damage that they can do. Reese says he makes some rulings by the question of "Is this fun to play against", well, I wonder how all of the opponents that were getting tabled by Hive Tyrants that they can't do anything about were having fun?
I would also say that I did not think that Reese made this ruling to help you, but rather plays this way in his shop with you, and it was just a bad rules call.
I would also like to say that whenever a TO makes a rules call 33% will hate it, 33% will love it, and 33% will not care. It was a rules call and not the end of the world. It does not matter in the big picture and I hate to detract from an event that was universally praised, but I think that rules calls should be revisited and the best time is to do it just after an event when it is still fresh in everyone's mind.
Tbh I think the way FLG modified 2++ rerolls and invis was directly responsible for the variety of armies played not detrimental to it.
How many Wave Serpents, Hive Tyrants and Imperial Knights were there at the LVO?
All this does is take away viable builds that can compete against the other heavy hitters. So my argument would be that it restricts variety, and just makes other builds dominate, rather than create diversity.
I would also like to point out that a Seer Council army won last years LVO with the modified re-roll.
It would be nice in the future if Reecius does not modify rules. I remember him saying how overpowered is Invisibility and there seemed to be some hate directed towards deathstars. I would prefer not to see ranged D allowed either... how can that be any fun to play against - only people that brought the Lynx defended it with wishy washy excuses .
To be fair I really think the rules changes to invis and 2++ helped diversify the tournament. However I think the rule regarding blasts with skyfire and flying monstrous creatures hurt the diversity.
LVO was favored to fmc because of this. Great event regardless.
honestly how many blast weapons/templates with skyfire actually exist?
gungo wrote: To be fair I really think the rules changes to invis and 2++ helped diversify the tournament. However I think the rule regarding blasts with skyfire and flying monstrous creatures hurt the diversity.
LVO was favored to fmc because of this. Great event regardless.
honestly how many blast weapons/templates with skyfire actually exist?
gungo wrote: To be fair I really think the rules changes to invis and 2++ helped diversify the tournament. However I think the rule regarding blasts with skyfire and flying monstrous creatures hurt the diversity.
LVO was favored to fmc because of this. Great event regardless.
7th edition killed Seer Council, not the LVO nerf.
The fact that Seer Council won last year, and they have not been a factor at any other major GT that does not even have the nerfed 2++ after 7th edition dropped seems to be evidence enough. You cannot build an army around unreliable psychic powers. Do you know what you can build an army around? FMC and Wave Serpents.
gungo wrote: To be fair I really think the rules changes to invis and 2++ helped diversify the tournament. However I think the rule regarding blasts with skyfire and flying monstrous creatures hurt the diversity.
LVO was favored to fmc because of this. Great event regardless.
honestly how many blast weapons/templates with skyfire actually exist?
All the ones sitting on a skyfire nexus
Again mobile blast weapons holding a mysterious objectives are hardly common site regardless.
gungo wrote: To be fair I really think the rules changes to invis and 2++ helped diversify the tournament. However I think the rule regarding blasts with skyfire and flying monstrous creatures hurt the diversity.
LVO was favored to fmc because of this. Great event regardless.
7th edition killed Seer Council, not the LVO nerf.
The fact that Seer Council won last year, and they have not been a factor at any other major GT that does not even have the nerfed 2++ after 7th edition dropped seems to be evidence enough. You cannot build an army around unreliable psychic powers. Do you know what you can build an army around? FMC and Wave Serpents.
Afaik seer council didn't own the 2+ rerollable save.
gungo wrote: To be fair I really think the rules changes to invis and 2++ helped diversify the tournament. However I think the rule regarding blasts with skyfire and flying monstrous creatures hurt the diversity.
LVO was favored to fmc because of this. Great event regardless.
honestly how many blast weapons/templates with skyfire actually exist?
Riptides and Doomscythes mostly. But more importantly, blasts scattering onto FMCs and clipping them with templates while shooting at other units.
gungo wrote: To be fair I really think the rules changes to invis and 2++ helped diversify the tournament. However I think the rule regarding blasts with skyfire and flying monstrous creatures hurt the diversity.
LVO was favored to fmc because of this. Great event regardless.
7th edition killed Seer Council, not the LVO nerf.
The fact that Seer Council won last year, and they have not been a factor at any other major GT that does not even have the nerfed 2++ after 7th edition dropped seems to be evidence enough. You cannot build an army around unreliable psychic powers. Do you know what you can build an army around? FMC and Wave Serpents.
Afaik seer council didn't own the 2+ rerollable save.
The Sceamerstar died way earlier. The fact that it does not have hit and run means that it was a gimmick list that had a lifespan of a few months.
Blackmoor wrote: The Sceamerstar died way earlier. The fact that it does not have hit and run means that it was a gimmick list that had a lifespan of a few months.
Go play Nick Nanavati and come back and say that with a straight face.
Tsilber wrote: The Seer Council that won last year was played by Alex Fennel.
The 2+ screamer was played by Nick N.
Put those list in a less experienced player and see the results.
Now put less experienced players list in Alex or Nicks hands and watch it become the next big sensation.
You can not claim things are over powered when only referencing the utilization of extremely talented players.
Also a very valid point! However, I do think that people are too quick to underestimate the remaining strength of the Chaos Daemons. Full disclosure, I do not play Chaos Daemons.
gungo wrote: To be fair I really think the rules changes to invis and 2++ helped diversify the tournament. However I think the rule regarding blasts with skyfire and flying monstrous creatures hurt the diversity.
LVO was favored to fmc because of this. Great event regardless.
7th edition killed Seer Council, not the LVO nerf.
The fact that Seer Council won last year, and they have not been a factor at any other major GT that does not even have the nerfed 2++ after 7th edition dropped seems to be evidence enough. You cannot build an army around unreliable psychic powers. Do you know what you can build an army around? FMC and Wave Serpents.
TBF, it is a lot harder to correct for GW's poor rules writing by modifying core units in an army book than it is to very slightly nerf random powers that effect everyone. As you say, psychic powers are already random rolls and you run a very large risk in relying heavily on them. However, certain armies can reasonably guarantee getting at least one power of their choosing through several routes (multiple psychers, high ML psychers, special characters that can pick powers, etc.), and 99/100 you'll go with invis. Invisibility has the ability to make very questionable units into rock stars, and you'd be a fool to not take it if it's available. The fact that every army wasn't some version of Flyrant spam/Centurion star is a testament to the balance these rules decisions have made in the game. The invis nerf helped to diversify the field, by addressing one of the more dominant builds in the game currently (centurion star).
Now, the rules didn't address FMCs, or WS's. But what do you want to have happen here? With one, GW made a bad codex. Instead of trying to spend the time and fix it with reasonable updates, they just said "Here ya go, spam the one good unit and be happy". In the other, they just made a core unit ridiculously good for the points. FLG's rules set is designed to help normalize a game that GW has obviously no interest in balancing, in order to make a competitive format possible. Is it really their fault that GW has no idea how much better a Toughness/Wounds value is than an equivalent AV? Or that snap-firing isn't that much of a deterrent when you can twinlink all your weapons anyway?
I'm really not sure what the argument is here. If you are pointing out that something needs to be done to address WS's and FMC's in addition to invis and re-rolls since FLG is already modifying rules, then that's a valid concern. I'm sure the rulings were made in order to be as conservative as possible by affecting all armies equally, which you can only do by modifying the core rules. As the FAQ's are an iterative process, pointing out weaknesses in the rule set that needs to be addressed in the future is great. However if the argument is that no rules should be bothered to be changed since changing them favors certain armies over certain others, no dice. The game is simply unplayable in a tournament setting if not modified, and the field would be incredibly bland and uninteresting w/out trying to balance certain broken units/items/builds. First and foremost, FLG is in the business of running an entertaining event that that earns them a buck. Attempting to level the playing field to encourage more people to attend their events w/out worrying about being curb-stomped by the FoTM power build in the first round is in their best interest.
Having seen the current itteration of rules in effect, I'm sure there will be talk of what to do about Flyrant spam. For instance I'm going to guess the very conservative decision on how to interpret blasts interacting with FMCs was made prior to Leviathan, when FMC spam was an oddity not the norm. Now that Flyrant spam is a thing, it absolutely needs to be addressed in some manner for next year (I honestly don't see GW releasing an uber AA unit, or other rule that makes cheap FMC spam a bad idea). But walking the line between fixing lazy rules writing and persecuting a codex is something that would take several months. In all fairness, I do believe there simply wasn't enough time to really think through a fix and play test it prior to such a huge event.
TBF, it is a lot harder to correct for GW's poor rules writing by modifying core units in an army book than it is to very slightly nerf random powers that effect everyone. As you say, psychic powers are already random rolls and you run a very large risk in relying heavily on them. However, certain armies can reasonably guarantee getting at least one power of their choosing through several routes (multiple psychers, high ML psychers, special characters that can pick powers, etc.), and 99/100 you'll go with invis. Invisibility has the ability to make very questionable units into rock stars, and you'd be a fool to not take it if it's available. The fact that every army wasn't some version of Flyrant spam/Centurion star is a testament to the balance these rules decisions have made in the game. The invis nerf helped to diversify the field, by addressing one of the more dominant builds in the game currently (centurion star).
My question to you is why have we not seen invisibility dominate tournaments? If what you say is true, and invisibility is over the top powerful, then why have we not seen the results of this?
TBF, it is a lot harder to correct for GW's poor rules writing by modifying core units in an army book than it is to very slightly nerf random powers that effect everyone. As you say, psychic powers are already random rolls and you run a very large risk in relying heavily on them. However, certain armies can reasonably guarantee getting at least one power of their choosing through several routes (multiple psychers, high ML psychers, special characters that can pick powers, etc.), and 99/100 you'll go with invis. Invisibility has the ability to make very questionable units into rock stars, and you'd be a fool to not take it if it's available. The fact that every army wasn't some version of Flyrant spam/Centurion star is a testament to the balance these rules decisions have made in the game. The invis nerf helped to diversify the field, by addressing one of the more dominant builds in the game currently (centurion star).
My question to you is why have we not seen invisibility dominate tournaments? If what you say is true, and invisibility is over the top powerful, then why have we not seen the results of this?
Reece's answer is that it's not actually about what's dominating tournaments, it's about what people have fun playing against. The players attending the LVO voted and spoke. There are plenty of internet experts who will talk about how "their poll questions were poorly worded which skewed the results" or "they missed other equally unfun problems", but at the end of the day, I didn't meet a single person at the LVO who didn't have an absolute blast. Turns out the debate on banning or not banning something like Invisibility really isn't important to running a good tournament.
Brothererekose wrote: Still looking to find out who got Best Paint and such. Anyone got a link?
I *did* watch the twitch feed, but missed them when I went AFK during the boring parts where names were announced, and then Reece shrugged and placed the paper on the table.
Israel's Tau got the top army. I don't have a link but I was there when he got the award. His Tau were gorgeous.
I saw it & took pix. Damn near perfect.
I kibbitzed with Israel as he showed me his earth and water caste models like a proud poppa. I plan to use the 'between armor plates lighting' element he had on some crisis suits. I even had cheek enough to suggest one of the mechanics have a hood open on the tetra in the garage bay, up to his elbows.
TBF, it is a lot harder to correct for GW's poor rules writing by modifying core units in an army book than it is to very slightly nerf random powers that effect everyone. As you say, psychic powers are already random rolls and you run a very large risk in relying heavily on them. However, certain armies can reasonably guarantee getting at least one power of their choosing through several routes (multiple psychers, high ML psychers, special characters that can pick powers, etc.), and 99/100 you'll go with invis. Invisibility has the ability to make very questionable units into rock stars, and you'd be a fool to not take it if it's available. The fact that every army wasn't some version of Flyrant spam/Centurion star is a testament to the balance these rules decisions have made in the game. The invis nerf helped to diversify the field, by addressing one of the more dominant builds in the game currently (centurion star).
My question to you is why have we not seen invisibility dominate tournaments? If what you say is true, and invisibility is over the top powerful, then why have we not seen the results of this?
DarkLink pretty well hit it on the head. It's really nothing to do with "is it OTT, game breaking and absolute win button". . The question really is, is it fun to play against a unit you can quite literally shoot your entire army at every turn of the game and not kill? 2++ and FMC (specifically Flyrant) spam isn't any different. The inclusion of more powerful LOW (Lynx) was a direct result of attempting to address things like AdLance. Turns out they traded one monster for another, but I'm going to guess Lynx won't be asked back to play next year either. As I stated before, the FLG guys are out to make a living and making the game both competitive and fun is the best way for them to drive people through the doors.
Also, I do think you are being a little disingenuous with the assumption that since Invis stars aren't winning every single GT that it's not that powerful. Firstly, the top table certainly did have an invis star on it. Secondly, if you look at Invis star's representation at events I think you'll find it to be an extremely common list theme. As a side note, Seer Council is still very doable under the ITC format which allows self allying, and yet it wasn't a player this year.
But, again, I think the more important point is whether it's interesting to play against. There were 240 people at that event that didn't make it to the 3rd day, FLG has a much larger burden of responsibility to them than to the 8 or so guys who would have showed up and played regardless of whatever rule set they set forth. They are the ones who voted to nerf invis,, and from all accounts very few that were present regretted that decision. If the rule for the tourney was that on day 3 you had to wear hot pink tube tops, a thong, and crocs the guys at the top tables would have still showed up, and used the thong rule to their advantage as much as it was possible. The rest spend a lot of money to show up and have fun, knowing they're as likely to win the lottery as actually make it to day 3. All they ask is to have fun, and clearly those people don't think shooting your entire army at a squad and doing one wound is fun. Playing against Flyrant spam isn't either, so I expect some effort to curb that next year as well. And I'm sure it'll open some exploitable loop hole that'll subsequently have to be quashed, but every change is an experiment and some experiments fail. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Dash2021 wrote: Now, the rules didn't address FMCs, or WS's. But what do you want to have happen here? With one, GW made a bad codex. Instead of trying to spend the time and fix it with reasonable updates, they just said "Here ya go, spam the one good unit and be happy". In the other, they just made a core unit ridiculously good for the points. FLG's rules set is designed to help normalize a game that GW has obviously no interest in balancing, in order to make a competitive format possible. Is it really their fault that GW has no idea how much better a Toughness/Wounds value is than an equivalent AV? Or that snap-firing isn't that much of a deterrent when you can twinlink all your weapons anyway?
I don't think fixing either of those is difficult in the slightest. If you don't allow people to take a Leviathan Detachment alongside a CAD, you don't have the FMC problem we saw. Also this is basic common sense, the idea that 2 CAD is bad, but Leviathan + CAD is good is silly.
Wave Serpents are slightly more challenging because of their Dedicated transport role. The way I plan to handle this at my events is with shifting the Maelstrom to primary, and altering the objective placement rules such that all Maelstrom objectives are placed in No-Man's-Land. If Serpents are forced to move off the board edge before turn 5, they lose some of their power.
Another simple solution to wave serpents would remove the ability of Scatter Lasers to Twin Link the Serpent Shield. This Nerf is less radical than the nerf to Tyrannocyte shooting, and basically no one objected to that. There are dozens, and dozens of potential fixes that would balance them, and FLG has shown they are up to the task of directly altering rules in favor of more fun and balanced games.
I'm excited about the exit polling, because I feel like in early 7th FLG was on the cutting edge of mission design, and game balance, but they haven't felt empowered enough to maintain that edge, and I hope that a solid dataset from the exit poll will make them more comfortable moving forward in a meaningful and productive way that the entire 40k community will benefit from.
Dash2021 wrote: Now, the rules didn't address FMCs, or WS's. But what do you want to have happen here? With one, GW made a bad codex. Instead of trying to spend the time and fix it with reasonable updates, they just said "Here ya go, spam the one good unit and be happy". In the other, they just made a core unit ridiculously good for the points. FLG's rules set is designed to help normalize a game that GW has obviously no interest in balancing, in order to make a competitive format possible. Is it really their fault that GW has no idea how much better a Toughness/Wounds value is than an equivalent AV? Or that snap-firing isn't that much of a deterrent when you can twinlink all your weapons anyway?
I don't think fixing either of those is difficult in the slightest. If you don't allow people to take a Leviathan Detachment alongside a CAD, you don't have the FMC problem we saw. Also this is basic common sense, the idea that 2 CAD is bad, but Leviathan + CAD is good is silly.
Wave Serpents are slightly more challenging because of their Dedicated transport role. The way I plan to handle this at my events is with shifting the Maelstrom to primary, and altering the objective placement rules such that all Maelstrom objectives are placed in No-Man's-Land. If Serpents are forced to move off the board edge before turn 5, they lose some of their power.
Another simple solution to wave serpents would remove the ability of Scatter Lasers to Twin Link the Serpent Shield. This Nerf is less radical than the nerf to Tyrannocyte shooting, and basically no one objected to that. There are dozens, and dozens of potential fixes that would balance them, and FLG has shown they are up to the task of directly altering rules in favor of more fun and balanced games.
I'm excited about the exit polling, because I feel like in early 7th FLG was on the cutting edge of mission design, and game balance, but they haven't felt empowered enough to maintain that edge, and I hope that a solid dataset from the exit poll will make them more comfortable moving forward in a meaningful and productive way that the entire 40k community will benefit from.
I dis agree with Objectives in No mans Land, at that points its just a brawl for mid, the objectives can be used to make some really good tactical game plays as well.
The Scatter Laser not giving the Shield TL however is IMO the best balancing you can do for the Wave Serpents and would make it MUCH more balance/fun to play with and against.
They fixed serpents, and allowed the shield to be considered a weapon i believe.
In either case, the argument of "this is broken", "this needs to be fixed", "this needs a nerf" ....Has little merit.
The Tourney heard what the people liked and set house rules and FAQ's. People were made aware of this, and yet 200+ people still showed up to play.
The diversity of the top list, that hold very little "powerful internet" builds in them,, or the typical cookie cutter builds shows any army, played by good players can win or do a good showing.
Enough of this is overpowered or this is broken... Let it go. Every Army has the ability to counter anything else.
Dash2021 wrote: DarkLink pretty well hit it on the head. It's really nothing to do with "is it OTT, game breaking and absolute win button". . The question really is, is it fun to play against a unit you can quite literally shoot your entire army at every turn of the game and not kill? 2++ and FMC (specifically Flyrant) spam isn't any different. The inclusion of more powerful LOW (Lynx) was a direct result of attempting to address things like AdLance. Turns out they traded one monster for another, but I'm going to guess Lynx won't be asked back to play next year either. As I stated before, the FLG guys are out to make a living and making the game both competitive and fun is the best way for them to drive people through the doors.
Also, I do think you are being a little disingenuous with the assumption that since Invis stars aren't winning every single GT that it's not that powerful. Firstly, the top table certainly did have an invis star on it. Secondly, if you look at Invis star's representation at events I think you'll find it to be an extremely common list theme. As a side note, Seer Council is still very doable under the ITC format which allows self allying, and yet it wasn't a player this year.
But, again, I think the more important point is whether it's interesting to play against. There were 240 people at that event that didn't make it to the 3rd day, FLG has a much larger burden of responsibility to them than to the 8 or so guys who would have showed up and played regardless of whatever rule set they set forth. They are the ones who voted to nerf invis,, and from all accounts very few that were present regretted that decision. If the rule for the tourney was that on day 3 you had to wear hot pink tube tops, a thong, and crocs the guys at the top tables would have still showed up, and used the thong rule to their advantage as much as it was possible. The rest spend a lot of money to show up and have fun, knowing they're as likely to win the lottery as actually make it to day 3. All they ask is to have fun, and clearly those people don't think shooting your entire army at a squad and doing one wound is fun. Playing against Flyrant spam isn't either, so I expect some effort to curb that next year as well. And I'm sure it'll open some exploitable loop hole that'll subsequently have to be quashed, but every change is an experiment and some experiments fail. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This is spot on. It was a really fun tournament.
My initial plan had been to bring Ad Lance supported by a Spiritseer and two wave serpents full of Wraithguard. However, in test/prep games leading up to the tournament, it quickly became apparent that (a) I didn't really enjoy playing it; and (b) no one enjoyed playing against it at all, whether they won or lost. So I had a series of prep games that were no fun for anyone. I wasn't going to win the tournament, so I pitched the Ad Lance and went with something different. I didn't win the tournament (duh), but I had a hell of a lot of fun, and my six opponents seemed to as well!
Tsilber wrote: They fixed serpents, and allowed the shield to be considered a weapon i believe.
In either case, the argument of "this is broken", "this needs to be fixed", "this needs a nerf" ....Has little merit.
The Tourney heard what the people liked and set house rules and FAQ's. People were made aware of this, and yet 200+ people still showed up to play.
The diversity of the top list, that hold very little "powerful internet" builds in them,, or the typical cookie cutter builds shows any army, played by good players can win or do a good showing.
Enough of this is overpowered or this is broken... Let it go. Every Army has the ability to counter anything else.
Shh! You're not supposed to let everybody know that every army can counter everything else!
The top 8 lists looked like they were very well attuned to the missions for this event and the terrain, which I think contributed a huge amount to where they placed (right after the skill level of their pilots).
I would like to see everything under 1850 that lets you stay battle forged allowed next year, a 900 or 1450 point titan won't help you with maelstrom.
Tsilber wrote: They fixed serpents, and allowed the shield to be considered a weapon i believe.
In either case, the argument of "this is broken", "this needs to be fixed", "this needs a nerf" ....Has little merit.
The Tourney heard what the people liked and set house rules and FAQ's. People were made aware of this, and yet 200+ people still showed up to play.
The diversity of the top list, that hold very little "powerful internet" builds in them,, or the typical cookie cutter builds shows any army, played by good players can win or do a good showing.
Enough of this is overpowered or this is broken... Let it go. Every Army has the ability to counter anything else.
Shh! You're not supposed to let everybody know that every army can counter everything else!
The top 8 lists looked like they were very well attuned to the missions for this event and the terrain, which I think contributed a huge amount to where they placed (right after the skill level of their pilots).
I would like to see everything under 1850 that lets you stay battle forged allowed next year, a 900 or 1450 point titan won't help you with maelstrom.
I would invert the skill level and the list considerations. Sean played almost the exact same list at Templecon two weeks prior and also did well even though the mission format (ETC) could not be more different.
The fact that Seer Council won last year, and they have not been a factor at any other major GT that does not even have the nerfed 2++ after 7th edition dropped seems to be evidence enough. You cannot build an army around unreliable psychic powers. Do you know what you can build an army around? FMC and Wave Serpents.
I made a list with unreliable psychic powers and did ok.
The Sceamerstar died way earlier. The fact that it does not have hit and run means that it was a gimmick list that had a lifespan of a few months.
Nick Nanavanti was running two mini screamerstars in his list.
8 screamers and a Tzherald does not, a mini-screamerstar make. That's like saying 8 scouts and Sgt. Telion is a mini Scoutstar. He was, however, effectively using 2 squads of screamers with heralds to harass enemies and score objectives.
Vegas was a great time. Tournament was overall well run and very exciting. Being on the live feed for two rounds was very cool and was very cool to watch when I got home.
Next time I need to plan my travel better. With time changes and late night flights my body was thrown all out of whack. Was very tired my first two days in vegas and then have been very sick since getting home. Still worth it.... fear the Lictor.
The Sceamerstar died way earlier. The fact that it does not have hit and run means that it was a gimmick list that had a lifespan of a few months.
Nick Nanavanti was running two mini screamerstars in his list.
8 screamers and a Tzherald does not, a mini-screamerstar make. That's like saying 8 scouts and Sgt. Telion is a mini Scoutstar. He was, however, effectively using 2 squads of screamers with heralds to harass enemies and score objectives.
There is a difference between using screamers and a screamerstar. Screamers are still a good all-around unit that can kill infantry and vehicles. The fact that he has 2 of them means that he can only grimore one of them is proof that this is not a screamers star,
Okay Brother, we gotta get together soon with the rest of the team. Formulate a plan for the next GT, keep it rolling!
Get some practice games in. Resending my phone number PM to ya, new phone.
Of the tourney, what army did you face, that you thought was your biggest challenge, or most challenging pre-game when you first saw opposing list/army.
I heard the orks 9th place list was some green tide/void shield generator list where he just daisy chained the guys from the safety of the shields everywhere. Is that true? Because that dosent sound like how it should be allowed to be played.
Orock wrote: I heard the orks 9th place list was some green tide/void shield generator list where he just daisy chained the guys from the safety of the shields everywhere. Is that true? Because that dosent sound like how it should be allowed to be played.
Those Large yellow knights I have seen on several of the picture threads. What model range are they or are they scratch built? I have attached a photo.
I played the dreamforge leviathans he backed em up with eldar and had his farseer summoning demons. I had a slim chance of pulling something out hopefully dividing the ad lance then I drop podded 10 inches from the board edge and roled 11 inches in that direction. Slim chance turned into no chance =P.
Orock wrote: I heard the orks 9th place list was some green tide/void shield generator list where he just daisy chained the guys from the safety of the shields everywhere. Is that true? Because that dosent sound like how it should be allowed to be played.
Which is one of the most ridiculous rulings I've seen in a long time. I played a greentide with the same thing. Most greentides at the event had one.
In the spirit of altering certain rules to be "more fun" this should be at the top of the list.
At one point the guy had boyz 36ish inches up the table with a couple lone dudes in the back within 12in of the shield... come on...
Orock wrote: I heard the orks 9th place list was some green tide/void shield generator list where he just daisy chained the guys from the safety of the shields everywhere. Is that true? Because that dosent sound like how it should be allowed to be played.
Orock wrote: I heard the orks 9th place list was some green tide/void shield generator list where he just daisy chained the guys from the safety of the shields everywhere. Is that true? Because that dosent sound like how it should be allowed to be played.
Which is one of the most ridiculous rulings I've seen in a long time. I played a greentide with the same thing. Most greentides at the event had one.
In the spirit of altering certain rules to be "more fun" this should be at the top of the list.
At one point the guy had boyz 36ish inches up the table with a couple lone dudes in the back within 12in of the shield... come on...
Well, it is RAW. It is just like GW though to not see the consequences of combing an enormous unit with the void shield generator.
It's the same behavior as the old Ork kff giving all units within a certain distance a save. The old kff was sorta worse since all people did was put the Mek into a battle wagon to make it a mobile av14 aoe that gave everything within 6in a cover save.
Regardless it wasn't used much in LVO because the field was dominated by msu and mc which don't really benefit as much as a large unit.
Furthermore its a single av12 shield that you can get up to 3x that only works vs shooting. Is avoidable of you are within 12 of the genrator. It works on every unit within 12in including your opponents and does not work in assault.
Finally in a tournament where you saw superheavies flyers on landing pads shooting 2x str d ranged weapons and taking advantage of double saves by shimming around the platform. Summoning spam, gating centurion Stars w invis stacking, fmc spam, drop pods spam blocking objectives, decorian wraiths spam with t5, 3++, 4+++, wave serpent spam, ad-lance, and a plethora of msu denial or tarpit units. You can hardly call a large blob of ork boys with at most 3 av12 shields unfun or broken. Since when did a unit with 3hp at av12 become difficult or unfun? The ork player will still pick up handfuls of boyz each turn.
Breazeal wrote: Those Large yellow knights I have seen on several of the picture threads. What model range are they or are they scratch built? I have attached a photo.
Orock wrote: I heard the orks 9th place list was some green tide/void shield generator list where he just daisy chained the guys from the safety of the shields everywhere. Is that true? Because that dosent sound like how it should be allowed to be played.
Which is one of the most ridiculous rulings I've seen in a long time. I played a greentide with the same thing. Most greentides at the event had one.
In the spirit of altering certain rules to be "more fun" this should be at the top of the list.
At one point the guy had boyz 36ish inches up the table with a couple lone dudes in the back within 12in of the shield... come on...
I'm glad people think outside the box, it's what makes the game interesting. Void shields really aren't that big of a deal if you handle them properly, and they can actually be a real waste of the points. People are always going to find a way around rules or to bend them, I'm glad certain rules got nerfed, because everyone was abusing them. I don't think someone manipulating the void shield is on that same level, though, not in the least. So what if an Ork player had a chance at winning? When was the last time that happened? I say don't fix what isn't broken or we will just return to the days of boring tournaments where everyone brings the same thing.
Shh! You're not supposed to let everybody know that every army can counter everything else!
The top 8 lists looked like they were very well attuned to the missions for this event and the terrain, which I think contributed a huge amount to where they placed (right after the skill level of their pilots).
I would like to see everything under 1850 that lets you stay battle forged allowed next year, a 900 or 1450 point titan won't help you with maelstrom.
I would invert the skill level and the list considerations. Sean played almost the exact same list at Templecon two weeks prior and also did well even though the mission format (ETC) could not be more different.
Sorry if it wasn't clear, I meant that as player skill first and lists tailored for missions + terrain after that. Very interested to see how these players tweak things for Adepticon and wish I could make it out.
Dozer Blades wrote: I loved watching one Green Tide army get nuked by Wvyerns after the Guard player dropped the VSG on turn 1... boys were packed in tight too .
Yeah, it's a good trick, but if someone has good anti-tank and good anti-horde, they are going to get hits in on the Boys.
Dozer Blades wrote: I loved watching one Green Tide army get nuked by Wvyerns after the Guard player dropped the VSG on turn 1... boys were packed in tight too .
I think the Wyverns got 36 hits on turn one. Good thing for the tide player some his boys were rocking the 4+ armor.
Blackmoor wrote: Well, it is RAW. It is just like GW though to not see the consequences of combing an enormous unit with the void shield generator.
Well, so is Invisibility...
If Orks had access to invisibility then you would be correct and have a valid argument for changing it. Orks do not have access to it though, and now you are just trolling.
Finally in a tournament where you saw superheavies flyers on landing pads shooting 2x str d ranged weapons and taking advantage of double saves by shimming around the platform. Summoning spam, gating centurion Stars w invis stacking, fmc spam, drop pods spam blocking objectives, decorian wraiths spam with t5, 3++, 4+++, wave serpent spam, ad-lance, and a plethora of msu denial or tarpit units. You can hardly call a large blob of ork boys with at most 3 av12 shields unfun or broken. Since when did a unit with 3hp at av12 become difficult or unfun? The ork player will still pick up handfuls of boyz each turn.
+1
With all of the brutal builds at the LVO everyone is upset at orks rocking the VSG?
Ouch you comment made me realize you can stack a vsg and invisibility. Since you roll to hit versus your target but resolve the hit versus the av12 shield that means a chaos renegade list could be even more durable then the ork greentide.
Blackmoor wrote: Well, it is RAW. It is just like GW though to not see the consequences of combing an enormous unit with the void shield generator.
Well, so is Invisibility...
If Orks had access to invisibility then you would be correct and have a valid argument for changing it. Orks do not have access to it though, and now you are just trolling.
Not trolling at all, and accusing me of doing so is pretty damn rude.
There are lists that can mix a VSG and Invis, but that wasn't my point (but you knew that).
My point was that Invis was changed because it was 'unfun' and people were shocked GW left it like that.
The VSG (when combined with horde units) can be 'unfun' (re: this thread) and people are shocked GW left it like that.
With all of the brutal builds at the LVO everyone is upset at orks rocking the VSG?
Upset? Not really. Annoyed that one power was changed because it was 'unfun' and a silly rule, but another was left just fine, sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
adamsouza wrote: Evidently, anything that prevents you from instaganking your opponent is "unfun"
See also: Terminator Armor, Invisibility, Flyers, Reanimation Prototcols
Yeah, because that's exactly what people are saying. Thanks for clarifying. You've done a great job!
He's upset invisibility was adjusted and is picking fights to start an argument. I think he failed to realize that invisibility is still extremely competitve and made it into the top 8 of LVO. Would of made it into the top 4 and beat the blood angel scout player had his draigo star not decided to gate, badly scatter, mishap and roll a 1 on the mishap chart and wipe out his entire draigo star in the 5th round.
You know because a unit you can only hit with a 6 no matter what is the same as a unit that has a shield that drops when you hit it with an str 6+ round or the dozen other ways you can circumvent it. Such as assault, shooting it within 12in, taking advantage of it yourself so your opponent can't shoot you unless they drop their own shield, or just knocking it down with anyone of he dozens of weapons that are str6 or higher.
Just as an aside, not to jump in too much, but what's unfun or not has very little to do with who finishes in the top, where player skill matters and clever ways to circumvent problem units are well known.
MVBrandt wrote: Just as an aside, not to jump in too much, but what's unfun or not has very little to do with who finishes in the top, where player skill matters and clever ways to circumvent problem units are well known.
While I can't suggest the top 8 would have been any different, and player skill is surely the most important overall factor, what is "unfun" is explicitly why no ranged D, invis nerf, and various other changes were made in the ITC FAQ (LVO rules). These rules changes can have profound impacts on the meta, ergo impact the match ups and the way games are played. I would contend that it had more than "very little" impact on some of the top 8 finishes.
Sorry. Typing mobile. My point wasn't that. My point was to refute the claim of all these ways people should figure out how to beat a void tide, or jet star, or invisible centurions, or whatever.
Just because top players can beat and or win with things, doesn't make them fun/fair or not, respectively, with respect to most attendees.
Ya at that point fun is completely subjective.
The reason I beleived things such as 2+ rerollables and invisibility was nerfed was because there were ways to stack those abilities so that it became a very low probability of actually doing anything to those units where as other setups such as a void tide has many tactical choices or counters to them.
It may be my subjective opinion but when someone puts an army across the table and in the first roll of psychic powers and warlord traits you realize there is almost nothing you can do to win this game the game ends up to be Unfun. If it's going to be a hard game but you have at least a marginal chance to win. It's still fun. If you can look back at a game and go darn I messed up I shouldn't of done that or I made a mistake and I lost. That's fun. If you finish a game and you can say I had good rolls I played a great game I had a very competitve list and there was nothing I could do to win that game and I got curbstomped by a unkillable unit. That's usually not fun.
This LVO was generally considered a major success because so many lists and Codexs and factions were able to compete. And the people who made it to the top tables beat the random dice gods and just flat out played better then most. That's why it was fun.
Does anyone know how Nick runs the Nurgle Heralds in his list?
They seem kitted out to go with the Plague Drones (and that seems the sensible location for them) but at the same time don't seem fast enough to really work with the unit.
At the same time, it seems like replacing one of the Heralds with Epidemius would work great - you do lose out on 2 ML but I assume those drones are going to be the workhorse of the army so scoring 14 wounds in short order shouldn't really be a problem.
gungo wrote: He's upset invisibility was adjusted and is picking fights to start an argument.
I'm really not. I was responding to someone saying "Well, it's RAW so deal with it." when FLG decided to change RAW because it was unfun for some people. From posts in this thread, the orks+VSG was unfun.
I think he failed to realize that invisibility is still extremely competitve and made it into the top 8 of LVO.
No, I understand it's still good. That was never - ever - my point.
You know because a unit you can only hit with a 6 no matter what is the same as a unit that has a shield that drops when you hit it with an str 6+ round or the dozen other ways you can circumvent it. Such as assault, shooting it within 12in, taking advantage of it yourself so your opponent can't shoot you unless they drop their own shield, or just knocking it down with anyone of he dozens of weapons that are str6 or higher.
Did I say there were no ways to deal with it? Pretty sure I didn't.
Read the thread. People have complained about the 100 orks + VSG. That's all I was talking about.
rigeld2 wrote: From posts in this thread, the orks+VSG was unfun.
In all honestly, I don't think anyone who competed in LVO said that. There was just knee jerk bitching about it the instant that tactic was mentioned in this thread.
rigeld2 wrote: From posts in this thread, the orks+VSG was unfun.
In all honestly, I don't think anyone who competed in LVO said that. There was just knee jerk bitching about it the instant that tactic was mentioned in this thread.
Someone that competed in LVO actually said that like half thread ago IIRC.
Orock wrote: I heard the orks 9th place list was some green tide/void shield generator list where he just daisy chained the guys from the safety of the shields everywhere. Is that true? Because that dosent sound like how it should be allowed to be played.
Which is one of the most ridiculous rulings I've seen in a long time. I played a greentide with the same thing. Most greentides at the event had one.
In the spirit of altering certain rules to be "more fun" this should be at the top of the list.
At one point the guy had boyz 36ish inches up the table with a couple lone dudes in the back within 12in of the shield... come on...
adamsouza wrote:
rigeld2 wrote: From posts in this thread, the orks+VSG was unfun.
In all honestly, I don't think anyone who competed in LVO said that. There was just knee jerk bitching about it the instant that tactic was mentioned in this thread.
No, someone who competed at the LVO - and faced one of the Green Tide + VSG lists - said that.
I recall him complaining that the Ork Tide players movement was sloppy, that he didn't record his kills, and that it cost him the 2 points he needed, but not about the shields actually making that match unfun.
I think the idea of fun is just a bad argument. It's way to subjective.
Alot of people think ad-lance is unfun. And I mostly agree with them. It's really hiwever just another spam list and it's able to be dealt with by every codex. So I wouldn't bother nerfing it in tournaments cause it's not fun for some people.
Right now I think fmc are one of the most powerful units in game, however I wouldn't nerf them either. However I do find it odd the ITC effectively buffed them by rewording the brb regarding skyfire and blasts. When it really wasn't needed, few units have access to that combo and the ones that do such as tau seems like that can use the help.
2++ rerollable and invis both form the backbone of combos that make a unit nearly untouchable. If later down the line GW makes a broken reliable combo such as 2++ and rerolls 1s on a high offense unit. I would hope tournament organizers adjust it.
And you can make them semi immune to shooting and overwatch with a void shield generator giving them 3 av12 regerating shields that the entire tide gets to keep as long as 1 ork is within 12 inches of the generator. .
This is probably the worst ruling in any gt currently. 150 ork boys spread out to all 4 courners of the board with 1 boy way in the back under the shield giving the whole mob protection.
Ridiculous.
Spoke with several people who were complaining about it.
Budzerker wrote:
Orock wrote: I heard the orks 9th place list was some green tide/void shield generator list where he just daisy chained the guys from the safety of the shields everywhere. Is that true? Because that dosent sound like how it should be allowed to be played.
Which is one of the most ridiculous rulings I've seen in a long time. I played a greentide with the same thing. Most greentides at the event had one.
In the spirit of altering certain rules to be "more fun" this should be at the top of the list.
At one point the guy had boyz 36ish inches up the table with a couple lone dudes in the back within 12in of the shield... come on...
adamsouza wrote:I recall him complaining that the Ork Tide players movement was sloppy, that he didn't record his kills, and that it cost him the 2 points he needed, but not about the shields actually making that match unfun.
That was someone else in the thread. I've quoted both of that persons posts in this thread for your perusal.
You can ignore him if you want, but him (and apparently "several" people at the event) were complaining about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: I think the idea of fun is just a bad argument. It's way to subjective.
And yet Invisibility objectively had to be nerfed? Don't misunderstand - changing Invis doesn't bother me. But one of the reasons it was changed (and the 2++ reroll) was because playing against it wasn't fun.
I just don't get why it being unfun isn't enough in one situation, but is in others.
While unfun was part of the decision. I'm sure That wasn't the only reason. 2++ and invis are unique because they create the reliable combo of a nearly untouchable unit. If there was a reliable combo on a high offense unit such as 2++ and rerolls 1. It should be adjusted as well for tournaments. Cover ignoring d weapon and hellfire templates were completely not allowed for similar reasons.
The main thing to take away was the the LVO was fun and relatively fair. Would making fmc susceptible to skyfire and blasts make it more balanced and "fun"? Maybe, it could of also made fmc a lot less competitive or at best just made the guy who played the 10th place nid/tau list a lot stronger vs the current meta.
A simpler fix to the fear of FMC's would be to remove the ability to run a Hive Fleet Detachment alongside a CAD. If most armies only have access to a single Hive Tyrant, they wouldn't be nearly as popular, as frightening, or as unbalanced.
I find playing certain people "unfun" and so I refuse to play them. Perhaps applying the same idea to the tournaments you attend or don't is a good idea. Don't like LVO rules, don't attend it.
Locally we only use LVO/ITC rulings for events specifically designed to help our player base prep for a tournament using those rules; otherwise we don't use it because we don't like it and choose to play 7th edition with only minor restrictions on some units or not depending on the format we want for that month. The result? People have fun. Game Empire Pasadena has been running 40k tournaments every second Saturday of the month for over 8 years straight. It may not be GT level but you can't argue with a scene that has success of that magnitude over 4 editions of this game. They must be doing something right, that something is providing a rich and diverse set of tournament formats.
Arguing about what is fun and "unfun" on the internet as a basis for making or un-making rules changes doesn't work. All you can do is play events with the format you like, not play those you dislike, and vote in the ITC/LVO questionnaires whenever you're given the opportunity. How many minds have been changed by threads like this?
tag8833 wrote: A simpler fix to the fear of FMC's would be to remove the ability to run a Hive Fleet Detachment alongside a CAD. If most armies only have access to a single Hive Tyrant, they wouldn't be nearly as popular, as frightening, or as unbalanced.
"A simple Fix", "Nerf this", "FAQ that" , "remove X"....
How about, dont agree with what the tourney is running or allowing to be run dont play in it...
As said, they took a poll, made some changes, and made people aware of the changes. They put the changes out prior to people paying to play, 200+ people still showed.
Find a way to counter, adapt, overcome. Be solution oriented during the game itself, prepare for the next time. Heck even hate on a guy who came up with the idea or fielded the list you could not think of.
But to constantly make arguments of statements of things being unfair or broken, when you know the rules and FAQ prior to going to the event. Is like moving next to a Pig farm, and then complaining it smells like pigs after you move in.
Back to the Tourney itself, At the end the video on twitch went out, what was the big space marine trophy for that was sitting on the table?
Also, was the list posted of the green tide army? Was it in deed just one big unit of boyz? did he have any suppot units? What HQ's were in the tide. I'd be interested in knowing that.
Fxeni wrote: Man, all these people complaining about VSG! (I was one of the guys running Green Tide with it)
I had planned to bring one until the FAQ that granted Void Shields to an entire unit, not just models in range. I did 80-90% of my prep with a VSG in my list. But the FAQ turned it into a liability for my highly mobile, low model count army. Retrospectively that was a mistake, because it would have saved me from Lynxes, and I never saw a single unit larger than 18-20 Orks in all of my games, and those Orks were in a battlewagon.
Would you have brought one if the FAQ had gone the other way, and only protected those models in range?
Fxeni wrote: Man, all these people complaining about VSG! (I was one of the guys running Green Tide with it)
I had planned to bring one until the FAQ that granted Void Shields to an entire unit, not just models in range. I did 80-90% of my prep with a VSG in my list. But the FAQ turned it into a liability for my highly mobile, low model count army. Retrospectively that was a mistake, because it would have saved me from Lynxes, and I never saw a single unit larger than 18-20 Orks in all of my games, and those Orks were in a battlewagon.
Would you have brought one if the FAQ had gone the other way, and only protected those models in range?
Good question. Honestly? I'm not sure - the VSG really only mainly did anything in the first game turn - after that it was pretty meh (but I expected as much).
It was quite nice to protect against the alpha strike for things like my Tankbustas, my Mek Guns, and my grots though. So, I'm not sure if I would have taken it without the FAQ - I hadn't tested it that way, so I'm not sure if it would have been worth the points.
Yeah that VSG is the perfect counter to alpha D weapons for certain, each D hit is just a loss of 1 shield. That is the ultimate ---- block lol. So unless your opponent has a reliable way to drop the shields before they drop the D...its Beta Strike time!
Also note if you fill the shield area, you are also denying haywire, and Grav attacks against your units, which prevents the Centstar (and others) from being as effective that 1st turn.
gungo wrote: He's upset invisibility was adjusted and is picking fights to start an argument.
I'm really not. I was responding to someone saying "Well, it's RAW so deal with it." when FLG decided to change RAW because it was unfun for some people. From posts in this thread, the orks+VSG was unfun.
I think he failed to realize that invisibility is still extremely competitve and made it into the top 8 of LVO.
No, I understand it's still good. That was never - ever - my point.
You know because a unit you can only hit with a 6 no matter what is the same as a unit that has a shield that drops when you hit it with an str 6+ round or the dozen other ways you can circumvent it. Such as assault, shooting it within 12in, taking advantage of it yourself so your opponent can't shoot you unless they drop their own shield, or just knocking it down with anyone of he dozens of weapons that are str6 or higher.
Did I say there were no ways to deal with it? Pretty sure I didn't.
Read the thread. People have complained about the 100 orks + VSG. That's all I was talking about.
As one of the ORK players with a green tide, and i think there were 3 or 4 of us at most that means a total of 24 people could have thought the games were unfun.
Since i played another tide it drops to 22. I went 4-2 so down to 20.
The top ork was 5-1 i think so its 19. the other orks went about .500 percent so down to about 10 possible people that thought it was unfun out of 256+.
If you beat the tide its a challenge and a good win, your opinion does not count, you won.
So since the orks have crap for shooting, nothing that ignores cover and no access to telepathy , why cant we have one thing????????
Playing charge of the slow moving brigade while getting pounded by indirect is a drag.
anyways just about every tournament besides LVO has there own version of COMP by saying you can only use these three buildings out of stronghold assult. Reese may make some rule changes but at least we can almost use the whole rules for stronghold as GW wrote them.
z3n1st wrote: Yeah that VSG is the perfect counter to alpha D weapons for certain, each D hit is just a loss of 1 shield. That is the ultimate ---- block lol. So unless your opponent has a reliable way to drop the shields before they drop the D...its Beta Strike time!
Also note if you fill the shield area, you are also denying haywire, and Grav attacks against your units, which prevents the Centstar (and others) from being as effective that 1st turn.
If you can't glance down 3 AV12 before firing your D, you might have a problem larger than VSG.
How many times have you fired an entire army at a Rhino and failed to do ANYTHING to it? Just saying it happens, defense is about layers of protection, if there is a rock to your scissors, then mitigate it as best you can, or bring your own rock and hope you get to toss it first.
Id add that, after reading this thread it's a great example of why I stopped playing after 4th. But some friends went to the BAO last year and told me "it was awesome, there was a giant 40k tournament and the Internet stayed home" and I trusted them, and went to the LVO. It was amazingly fun and Im glad I went. TBH I didn't meet anyone who didn't have fun.
gungo wrote: He's upset invisibility was adjusted and is picking fights to start an argument.
I'm really not. I was responding to someone saying "Well, it's RAW so deal with it." when FLG decided to change RAW because it was unfun for some people. From posts in this thread, the orks+VSG was unfun.
I think he failed to realize that invisibility is still extremely competitve and made it into the top 8 of LVO.
No, I understand it's still good. That was never - ever - my point.
You know because a unit you can only hit with a 6 no matter what is the same as a unit that has a shield that drops when you hit it with an str 6+ round or the dozen other ways you can circumvent it. Such as assault, shooting it within 12in, taking advantage of it yourself so your opponent can't shoot you unless they drop their own shield, or just knocking it down with anyone of he dozens of weapons that are str6 or higher.
Did I say there were no ways to deal with it? Pretty sure I didn't.
Read the thread. People have complained about the 100 orks + VSG. That's all I was talking about.
As one of the ORK players with a green tide, and i think there were 3 or 4 of us at most that means a total of 24 people could have thought the games were unfun.
Since i played another tide it drops to 22. I went 4-2 so down to 20.
The top ork was 5-1 i think so its 19. the other orks went about .500 percent so down to about 10 possible people that thought it was unfun out of 256+.
If you beat the tide its a challenge and a good win, your opinion does not count, you won.
So since the orks have crap for shooting, nothing that ignores cover and no access to telepathy , why cant we have one thing????????
Playing charge of the slow moving brigade while getting pounded by indirect is a drag.
anyways just about every tournament besides LVO has there own version of COMP by saying you can only use these three buildings out of stronghold assult. Reese may make some rule changes but at least we can almost use the whole rules for stronghold as GW wrote them.
WAAAAAAA ORK
You played another Tide? Would it happened to have been in Round 2 for KP? That was where my Tide faced off against another Tide.
Trasvi wrote: Does anyone know how Nick runs the Nurgle Heralds in his list?
They seem kitted out to go with the Plague Drones (and that seems the sensible location for them) but at the same time don't seem fast enough to really work with the unit.
At the same time, it seems like replacing one of the Heralds with Epidemius would work great - you do lose out on 2 ML but I assume those drones are going to be the workhorse of the army so scoring 14 wounds in short order shouldn't really be a problem.
Youtube battlerep of that list here. I believe he runs the speed spell that allows for Fleet on the heralds. Not sure if that works with slow and purposeful. I haven't watched it in depth.
gungo wrote: He's upset invisibility was adjusted and is picking fights to start an argument.
I'm really not. I was responding to someone saying "Well, it's RAW so deal with it." when FLG decided to change RAW because it was unfun for some people. From posts in this thread, the orks+VSG was unfun.
I think he failed to realize that invisibility is still extremely competitve and made it into the top 8 of LVO.
No, I understand it's still good. That was never - ever - my point.
You know because a unit you can only hit with a 6 no matter what is the same as a unit that has a shield that drops when you hit it with an str 6+ round or the dozen other ways you can circumvent it. Such as assault, shooting it within 12in, taking advantage of it yourself so your opponent can't shoot you unless they drop their own shield, or just knocking it down with anyone of he dozens of weapons that are str6 or higher.
Did I say there were no ways to deal with it? Pretty sure I didn't.
Read the thread. People have complained about the 100 orks + VSG. That's all I was talking about.
As one of the ORK players with a green tide, and i think there were 3 or 4 of us at most that means a total of 24 people could have thought the games were unfun.
Since i played another tide it drops to 22. I went 4-2 so down to 20.
The top ork was 5-1 i think so its 19. the other orks went about .500 percent so down to about 10 possible people that thought it was unfun out of 256+.
If you beat the tide its a challenge and a good win, your opinion does not count, you won.
So since the orks have crap for shooting, nothing that ignores cover and no access to telepathy , why cant we have one thing????????
Playing charge of the slow moving brigade while getting pounded by indirect is a drag.
anyways just about every tournament besides LVO has there own version of COMP by saying you can only use these three buildings out of stronghold assult. Reese may make some rule changes but at least we can almost use the whole rules for stronghold as GW wrote them.
WAAAAAAA ORK
You played another Tide? Would it happened to have been in Round 2 for KP? That was where my Tide faced off against another Tide.
I played a Green Tide in round 2 and it was everything I hoped for. One long assault phase starting at the bottom of 1. Even had a Stompa join in the massive brawl. Loved every second of it.
gungo wrote: While unfun was part of the decision. I'm sure That wasn't the only reason. 2++ and invis are unique because they create the reliable combo of a nearly untouchable unit. If there was a reliable combo on a high offense unit such as 2++ and rerolls 1. It should be adjusted as well for tournaments. Cover ignoring d weapon and hellfire templates were completely not allowed for similar reasons.
The main thing to take away was the the LVO was fun and relatively fair. Would making fmc susceptible to skyfire and blasts make it more balanced and "fun"? Maybe, it could of also made fmc a lot less competitive or at best just made the guy who played the 10th place nid/tau list a lot stronger vs the current meta.
I can help clarify part of why it feels like there is some discrepancy, even though I'm sure the answer still won't please people.
The actual FAQ that you can download from Frontline gaming (the ITC FAQ) is a collaborative document that, 99% of which is shared between Frontline & Adepticon. The rulings made in that document tend to be more from a general answering of what we think the rules say/what we think the rules are trying to say/general tournament logistics perspective.
The rulings Frontline made outside of that document (nerfing 2++, invisibility, limiting certain Lords of War, etc) were made solely by Frontline, based on Reece's personal experience and input he personally received, as obviously is his right as a T.O.
The ruling making the 'Hard to Hit' rule behave the same between both Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures is in the FAQ, and was made more from the point of view that the differences in that rule between the two unit types is likely a typo because it creates a strange dichotomy between how Flyers and FMCs are targeted, without any explicit reason given why that should be the case.
So whether or not Reece will or should decide to nerf FMCs in future events is obviously something I'm sure he will continue to consider, but that's why what seems like a discrepancy to you exists: because the FAQ is a group effort focused on one point of view and the other rulings are more just Reece's call alone focusing on addressing the issues he sees with game balance and completely unfun player experiences (in his opinion, and then voted on by attendees).
I can see why it was done or thought maybe it was a typo. I am not sure the game was made better by the decision though. Not like there is a lot of access to skyfire and blasts Mostly just tau. I could also be horribly wrong and fmc become to weak.
I think the decision for 2+ rerolls and invis was great too at least in practice they were still highly competitive armies lists and mostly balanced. Reece has his exit poll and I'm sure the many people will provide feedback to use. Don't get me wrong for the first major gt this went by resoundly well with close matches and fun had by all. Thanks again to all who set it up.
However, with him taking the Hivefleet Leviathan formation as a Flyrant delivery system, and literally half of his opponents doing the same, I'm not sure that FAQ tweak to FMC is a good one. It'd be really, really nice to see tyranids doing more than allying in flyrants and mucolids to a large percentage of the armies at an event!
RiTides wrote: However, with him taking the Hivefleet Leviathan formation as a Flyrant delivery system, and literally half of his opponents doing the same, I'm not sure that FAQ tweak to FMC is a good one. It'd be really, really nice to see tyranids doing more than allying in flyrants and mucolids to a large percentage of the armies at an event!
IMHO, FAQ rulings (and I mean straight up FAQ rulings on frequently asked questions) should not be made based on the power levels of the current meta. The ruling in the ITC FAQ on FMCs was not made considering whether or not it would make FMCs more or less powerful, but rather based on the fact that the discrepancy of the 'hard to hit' rule between flyers and FMCs seems likely (to those of us voting) to be a typo, and has a really good possibility to confuse players at a large event.
So if Reece or any other T.O. wants to nerf FMCs in general, that is obviously fine, but the ruling in the ITC FAQIMHO is still the 'right one' because FAQ rulings in general should not be made based on powering up or nerfing units.
I agree and it makes perfect sense and regardless if fmc are a strong choice right now in the Meta. They are not that bad. I am sure many other tournament organizers will look at the LVO and how well it went and take note.
Even Sean's nid list wasn't undefeated or any demon fmc lists.
I honestly think balance was about as good as it can get if any tourny organizer was keeping track of that. Although I have a feeling Lynx on sky shields won't be a common sight at future tournys.
It takes a level head to make the best FAQs. There are different levels from clarification to straight up changing the rules. Personally I'm against change because it's not fair. Clarifications on the other hand help to silence the rules lawyers.
Honestly the community FAQS are the only thing you're going to get and if your group adopts them good, our group did and it's made play a ton easier. GW obviously does not care about the rules from a rules standpoint, and are very rarely if at all updting faqs and concerns of the community.
I actually can't think of a time ITC or Adepticon FAQEd something then it came out that it was a complete opposite ruling from an official GW.
IMO the TO can do what they want but I don't think it's a typo between flyers and fmc's. It's also a ruling that happens in a tournament with D weapons and super heavies, my guess is a lot of fmc's were spared splash damage.
I think it's a sore point because of the nerf to invisible. It is a bit hard to swallow IMO because you essentially took the better part of invis and gave it to fmc's.
Most fmc's for los purposes aren't very high, no nearly as high as a flyer model. I think the only exceptions are the nid flyer on a flying stand. Put it this way, belakor and a storm raven are at a much different height, hence gw's intention of one being able to be hit by blasts and the other not being able to be hit.
I think the 2++ is the only change I think makes sense.
Hollismason wrote: I actually can't think of a time ITC or Adepticon FAQEd something then it came out that it was a complete opposite ruling from an official GW.
think its really all about fun vs not fun to play against like others have said. spamming invisibility might not be fun, neither is playing rerolling 2++, If Baron was still around the it was a true reroll you'd see plenty of that in CtA armies still. Meta is meta, nids are hot because of Flyrants and 45pts worth of troops to get 3 of them. I would think FAQ both help and hinder but at the same time how many people would bring nids or demons or lynx if CtA was the actual fix by either nerfing it to a roll of a 1-3 or more then 12 " deployment(good question is how many people actually roll for the effect of it) or going so far to ban CtA allies?
Hence why Frontline bases any rules changes on polls. They won't make any change unless they first hear enough complaints for them to view it as an issue, then for it to pass their bs meter, then for the players at their events to give it a firm approval. And so far, I've yet to hear anyone who actually attended have any real complaints about Frontline's rules or FAQ's.
I don't know what was up with Nova and their 270 degree serpent shield firing arc, though...
RiTides wrote: However, with him taking the Hivefleet Leviathan formation as a Flyrant delivery system, and literally half of his opponents doing the same, I'm not sure that FAQ tweak to FMC is a good one. It'd be really, really nice to see tyranids doing more than allying in flyrants and mucolids to a large percentage of the armies at an event!
IMHO, FAQ rulings (and I mean straight up FAQ rulings on frequently asked questions) should not be made based on the power levels of the current meta. The ruling in the ITC FAQ on FMCs was not made considering whether or not it would make FMCs more or less powerful, but rather based on the fact that the discrepancy of the 'hard to hit' rule between flyers and FMCs seems likely (to those of us voting) to be a typo, and has a really good possibility to confuse players at a large event.
So if Reece or any other T.O. wants to nerf FMCs in general, that is obviously fine, but the ruling in the ITC FAQIMHO is still the 'right one' because FAQ rulings in general should not be made based on powering up or nerfing units.
That certainly makes sense as a FAQ design philosophy. However, if making tweaks (as some were made here) with balance / etc in mind, it certainly seems that this is something that should be considered. Especially if the original wording of the rule (guessed typo or not) would lead to it being played in a more balanced way.
Using polls is as good a method as any for this, I think (and as flawed as any!)... I appreciate Frontline's transparency with this, and think they're doing a good job with a very hard task!
Yeah, the polls they do aren't going to get perfect statistical results, but it really doesn't actually matter if they do or not. Frontline will hear arguments out, and be as transparent as possible, with the goal not to arbitrarily balance the game but to make their event as fun as possible for the people attending. Monday morning internet quarterbacking aside, by all accounts they've done a phenomenal job.
bunkermonkey9 wrote: I want to see the Dark Angel list and the Space Wolves list.
Brandon was a great player and a good gent. Had one of my funnest games with him and I lost! From memory as I'm at the airport right now heading home he had.
DA Libby PFG
Libby PFG
10 Tacs Drop Pod (Metla I think)
10 Tacs Drop Pod (Melta again I think)
5 Assault Drop Pod 2 Flamers
IG 2 Priests
30 Conscripts
30 Conscripts
Platoon Command Squad
2 10 Man Guardsmen 1 Lascannon
Platoon Command Squad
2 10 Man Guardsmen 1 Lascannon
Leman Russ Vanquisher
2 Leman Russ (ones with the 20 rending shots) 1 with Pask.
It was unusual for sure, but Brandon played it tight and in an objective heavy field, had a ton of bodies to throw around the table. I made a big mistake near the end that cost me the game. he was my only loss.
bunkermonkey9 wrote: I want to see the Dark Angel list and the Space Wolves list.
Brandon was a great player and a good gent. Had one of my funnest games with him and I lost! From memory as I'm at the airport right now heading home he had.
DA Libby PFG
Libby PFG
10 Tacs Drop Pod (Metla I think)
10 Tacs Drop Pod (Melta again I think)
5 Assault Drop Pod 2 Flamers
IG 2 Priests
30 Conscripts
30 Conscripts
Platoon Command Squad
2 10 Man Guardsmen 1 Lascannon
Platoon Command Squad
2 10 Man Guardsmen 1 Lascannon
Leman Russ Vanquisher
2 Leman Russ (ones with the 20 rending shots) 1 with Pask.
It was unusual for sure, but Brandon played it tight and in an objective heavy field, had a ton of bodies to throw around the table. I made a big mistake near the end that cost me the game. he was my only loss.
Is something missing? This only comes to 1750?
Was he running the librarians with the 30 mam blobs? The PFG effects the models within 3 inches not units within 3 inches, those librarians with PFG seem of little use in this list to me. Unless I am missing something?
3" covers a lot of area. He doesnt have to put the libby in the back, just behind enough models he feels is sufficient. Lets assume hes a smart player and planned for incoming fire.
When Hand 2 hand begins. Same rules apply, Libby towards front to cover models closest to enemy.
OverwatchCNC wrote: Was he running the librarians with the 30 mam blobs? The PFG effects the models within 3 inches not units within 3 inches, those librarians with PFG seem of little use in this list to me. Unless I am missing something?
He was my Round 1 opponent. He placed one libby smack in the middle of each conscript blob. I did chop the edges off those units, but not enough to do any real damage.
OverwatchCNC wrote: Was he running the librarians with the 30 mam blobs? The PFG effects the models within 3 inches not units within 3 inches, those librarians with PFG seem of little use in this list to me. Unless I am missing something?
He was my Round 1 opponent. He placed one libby smack in the middle of each conscript blob. I did chop the edges off those units, but not enough to do any real damage.
So how was he playing the PFG? I really don't see how it was beneficial with only a 3 inch radius protecting only the models within 3 inches. How did the rest of the army work against you? I am thinking he was a good player vs having a super strong list.
OverwatchCNC wrote: Was he running the librarians with the 30 mam blobs? The PFG effects the models within 3 inches not units within 3 inches, those librarians with PFG seem of little use in this list to me. Unless I am missing something?
He was my Round 1 opponent. He placed one libby smack in the middle of each conscript blob. I did chop the edges off those units, but not enough to do any real damage.
So how was he playing the PFG? I really don't see how it was beneficial with only a 3 inch radius protecting only the models within 3 inches. How did the rest of the army work against you? I am thinking he was a good player vs having a super strong list.
I would think that the PFG is just icing on the cake, offering a little more protection to some models (maybe even the tanks). The unit is mostly meant to tie things up and hold objectives in the middle of the field. Keeping assault units away from the pask-star. Definitely more of a finesse, objective based list than something that blows the other guy off the table.
OverwatchCNC wrote: So how was he playing the PFG? I really don't see how it was beneficial with only a 3 inch radius protecting only the models within 3 inches. How did the rest of the army work against you? I am thinking he was a good player vs having a super strong list.
Better player than me, for certain. I forgot to use bubble-wrap strategy for the Serpents and he went first alpha striking with two Drop Pods. I don't recall as PFG really came into play, as I never recovered from Turn 1.
My Turn 2, S-Hawks and Spiders Deep Striked (Struck?) where they could shoot, but too close to the blob in center table. I had shot at it a lot, hoping to budge the libby, but couldn't do enough. Even with Battle Focus and Spidery jumping away, both units were caught in h2h on his Turn 3 and eliminated.
So, 3 Serpents down, Spiders and Hawks gone, my jetbikes, WK and last Serpent couldn't get it done. I think he earned a full 10 points.
Looks like CTA allies might be on the chopping block. I wouldnt mind. I am actually a bit of a fluff guy myself and seeing nids with eldar and necrons all fighting for the same cause just makes my skin crawl!
Looks like CTA allies might be on the chopping block. I wouldnt mind. I am actually a bit of a fluff guy myself and seeing nids with eldar and necrons all fighting for the same cause just makes my skin crawl!
CTA is actually a good thing for the game. Makes it very very hard to build one list that can counter everything. IMO when not playing with ranged d, the competitive side of this game is more player skill based then it has ever been before. Building a great list is not enough to get you through a gt anymore.
Tyran wrote: It's competitive play in a tournament, the only thing that matters is winning.
Going to have to disagree here... I love winning as much as the next guy but I would like to enjoy a win or a loss in the process. Kind of holding back from D weapons as they can suck the fun right out of the game. I would rather just beat you with my ability to play the game rather then my list being the best money can buy... . Competitive 40k is quickly becoming about the people that have the money to buy the latest and greatest toys.
Well yes, balance is an important factor. But CtA doesn't really affects balance like a rerolleable 2++ or invisibility or ranged D. I believe no one of the top 8 list had CtA allies.
Fluff on the other hand isn't really important in a competitive tournament.
Tyran wrote: It's competitive play in a tournament, the only thing that matters is winning.
Going to have to disagree here... I love winning as much as the next guy but I would like to enjoy a win or a loss in the process. Kind of holding back from D weapons as they can suck the fun right out of the game. I would rather just beat you with my ability to play the game rather then my list being the best money can buy... . Competitive 40k is quickly becoming about the people that have the money to buy the latest and greatest toys.
You can play tough as nails armies and still win. Some of the best gt games I have are vs good players with great armies, its all about both players mindsets....
Tyran wrote:Well yes, balance is an important factor. But CtA doesn't really affects balance like a rerolleable 2++ or invisibility or ranged D. I believe no one of the top 8 list had CtA allies.
Fluff on the other hand isn't really important in a competitive tournament.
I agree about the fluff, in a gt setting fluff is not a concern. There are plenty of fluff centertic events to play in if that is what you enjoy. Cta allies actually are a great thing in terms of game balance.
CTA is actually a good thing for the game. Makes it very very hard to build one list that can counter everything. IMO when not playing with ranged d, the competitive side of this game is more player skill based then it has ever been before. Building a great list is not enough to get you through a gt anymore.
I am going to disagree. When you allow everything people just take whatever the latest and greatest formation is. How many Adamantine Lance formations were there at the Nova Open, and how many Leviathan formations were at the LVO?
It is becoming less skill based because if you do not take one of the few top armies you will have no chance no matter how good you are.
Blackmoor wrote: When you allow everything people just take whatever the latest and greatest formation is. How many Adamantine Lance formations were there at the Nova Open, and how many Leviathan formations were at the LVO?
I know there's always churn to the latest good build, but yeah, seeing all those Flyrants tacked onto completely unrelated armies for the LVO isn't that great for the game as a whole, imo, even if it provides "balance" by letting everyone take the best FMC...
I don't have a solution, just wanted to agree with that point.
So many people go to GTs to have fun. I have to say I've seen lots of people roll their eyes when they see those types of armies. I hope Reecius will make a command decision. It was only like 20 percent of the attendees who responded to the poll.
CTA is actually a good thing for the game. Makes it very very hard to build one list that can counter everything. IMO when not playing with ranged d, the competitive side of this game is more player skill based then it has ever been before. Building a great list is not enough to get you through a gt anymore.
I am going to disagree. When you allow everything people just take whatever the latest and greatest formation is. How many Adamantine Lance formations were there at the Nova Open, and how many Leviathan formations were at the LVO?
It is becoming less skill based because if you do not take one of the few top armies you will have no chance no matter how good you are.
Well accept for the fact, plenty of the "not few top armies" scored high and did well at LVO....
CTA makes as much sense as games where people bring 2 or 3 named characters... Why would Tigurius, Calgar, and Loth be at this small skirmish of 50 to 100 men?
in either case, its part of the game, and again you are made aware of the rules prior to paying for the tourney, dont agree with it, dont go.
Well accept for the fact, plenty of the "not few top armies" scored high and did well at LVO....
Again, I disagree. (Except for the Orks that were a counter-meta army, and I think only one of them did well)
A lot of people look at the packaging and think that the top armies are different. Do you think that spending 300 points out of 1850 on lictors makes your army a lictor army when you spend about that much on one hive tyrant? Sean's list was hive tyrants and mawlocs. Those 6 models were 2/3 of his points and they did most of the killing. Everything else helped, and synergized well, but the TMCs did all of the heavy lifting.
Nick's scout army had less than 500 points of scouts in it, but what it really was is a centurion star featuring rock hard HQ/ICs and centurions to do most of the killing.
Don't get confused by what tangential units are around the killing units.
Well accept for the fact, plenty of the "not few top armies" scored high and did well at LVO....
Again, I disagree. (Except for the Orks that were a counter-meta army, and I think only one of them did well)
A lot of people look at the packaging and think that the top armies are different. Do you think that spending 300 points out of 1850 on lictors makes your army a lictor army when you spend about that much on one hive tyrant? Sean's list was hive tyrants and mawlocs. Those 6 models were 2/3 of his points and they did most of the killing. Everything else helped, and synergized well, but the TMCs did all of the heavy lifting.
Nick's scout army had less than 500 points of scouts in it, but what it really was is a centurion star featuring rock hard HQ/ICs and centurions to do most of the killing.
Don't get confused by what tangential units are around the killing units.
Alan, if you think this game is about killing things, you're more lost than I'd hoped.
CTA is actually a good thing for the game. Makes it very very hard to build one list that can counter everything. IMO when not playing with ranged d, the competitive side of this game is more player skill based then it has ever been before. Building a great list is not enough to get you through a gt anymore.
I am going to disagree. When you allow everything people just take whatever the latest and greatest formation is. How many Adamantine Lance formations were there at the Nova Open, and how many Leviathan formations were at the LVO?
It is becoming less skill based because if you do not take one of the few top armies you will have no chance no matter how good you are.
For how many Leviathan and Adlance there were, it's amazing that the top 8 wasn't pure IKs and Flyrants. Except, it wasn't. Almost as if there's more to the game than taking what's percieved as a cheesy army..,
Well accept for the fact, plenty of the "not few top armies" scored high and did well at LVO....
Again, I disagree. (Except for the Orks that were a counter-meta army, and I think only one of them did well)
A lot of people look at the packaging and think that the top armies are different. Do you think that spending 300 points out of 1850 on lictors makes your army a lictor army when you spend about that much on one hive tyrant? Sean's list was hive tyrants and mawlocs. Those 6 models were 2/3 of his points and they did most of the killing. Everything else helped, and synergized well, but the TMCs did all of the heavy lifting.
Nick's scout army had less than 500 points of scouts in it, but what it really was is a centurion star featuring rock hard HQ/ICs and centurions to do most of the killing.
Don't get confused by what tangential units are around the killing units.
But in neither of those cases it was CtA allies. Yes list building is still important, but simply adding 3 Flyrants to the army doesn't makes it a top army.
Why would EVERY daemon army have Fatey or Be'lakor ? They should come with the codex now .
...Not EVERY Daemon army, some Daemon players just use lords of change or regular daemon princes.
So your argument is already irrelevant
Now if you meant it as, why would the 2 named DP's show up to a battlefield skirmish (such as 1850 game)?
Then i agree, and say the same thing why the Greatest libbies and Big ole Chapter Masters in the imperuim be showing up.
Im unclear to your argument, as you yourself use a list with Draigo and Loth in it. Are you mad about named showing up or support it?
My argument is that a single named to show up, sure... for 2+ named to show up; thats as ridiculous as CTA allies.
Well accept for the fact, plenty of the "not few top armies" scored high and did well at LVO....
Again, I disagree. (Except for the Orks that were a counter-meta army, and I think only one of them did well)
A lot of people look at the packaging and think that the top armies are different. Do you think that spending 300 points out of 1850 on lictors makes your army a lictor army when you spend about that much on one hive tyrant? Sean's list was hive tyrants and mawlocs. Those 6 models were 2/3 of his points and they did most of the killing. Everything else helped, and synergized well, but the TMCs did all of the heavy lifting.
Nick's scout army had less than 500 points of scouts in it, but what it really was is a centurion star featuring rock hard HQ/ICs and centurions to do most of the killing.
Don't get confused by what tangential units are around the killing units.
You names 2 armies...
The top 12 had 14 factions/codex.
I understand your point about Seans list using tyrants and scout army had some cents... but its their own flavor added to the list. So some units in some books are really good, you see them a lot. I guess with infinite players, its going to happen....
Plus, Sean Also lost 1 week earlier to a Tau list at Templecon in his 4th round.
14 factions, with allies, meaning the same "top armies" are not always winning. Every Book has a chance to give enough to help someone win a tourney.
There truly was incredible variety among the top lists at the LVO. Glad to see that the game is as much about being an outstanding general as what list you bring, and that there are no dominant outliers in the LVO format. Truly enjoying that point system
The only cta army in the top 8 was a single inq in a chaos list. While I'm all for banning cta from a fluff perspective it's virtually impossible in the current rules to ban them. You will always have demonology and shenanigans like eldar summoning demons of they wanted. So what's really the point?
Daemon summoning is not the same thing as CtA. It is a specific set of psychic powers. It's incorrect to say they are allies. It's just one of those really crazy things in the game now.
Tyran wrote: It's competitive play in a tournament, the only thing that matters is winning.
Going to have to disagree here... I love winning as much as the next guy but I would like to enjoy a win or a loss in the process. Kind of holding back from D weapons as they can suck the fun right out of the game. I would rather just beat you with my ability to play the game rather then my list being the best money can buy... . Competitive 40k is quickly becoming about the people that have the money to buy the latest and greatest toys.
what major tournament this year were you watching that the latest and greatest was winning? Scouts vs lictors? 1 knight in the top 10. Very few new models or units in any codex made the top 10.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dozer Blades wrote: Daemon summoning is not the same thing as CtA. It is a specific set of psychic powers. It's incorrect to say they are allies. It's just one of those really crazy things in the game now.
They follow all the rules for cta allies when summoned. It is a lot more flexible then you give it credit for by allowing demons to ally with virtually any psychic faction and gives those armies access to many different demon units.
My point is of you ban cta you basically create a rule for every other faction except demons.
gungo wrote: The only cta army in the top 8 was a single inq in a chaos list. While I'm all for banning cta from a fluff perspective it's virtually impossible in the current rules to ban them. You will always have demonology and shenanigans like eldar summoning demons of they wanted. So what's really the point?
I'm a fan of CTA allies. I think it's something that can be done even with the fluff in mind. I have a piece I'm working on for why the Silent King decides to have his Necron underlings ally with the Tyranid threat.....for now (yes I've read the new codex).
FWIW there was also a CTA force that came in ninth, so it definitely has some potential. But I think the fluff bunnies are more of the reason for why it's typically disallowed rather than the fear of cheese/spam. The best shenanigans really require battle brothers for psychic support/IC shenanigans
Tyran wrote: It's competitive play in a tournament, the only thing that matters is winning.
Going to have to disagree here... I love winning as much as the next guy but I would like to enjoy a win or a loss in the process. Kind of holding back from D weapons as they can suck the fun right out of the game. I would rather just beat you with my ability to play the game rather then my list being the best money can buy... . Competitive 40k is quickly becoming about the people that have the money to buy the latest and greatest toys.
what major tournament this year were you watching that the latest and greatest was winning? Scouts vs lictors? 1 knight in the top 10. Very few new models or units in any codex made the top 10.
I'm going to disagree here. The finals was NOT scouts vs. Lictors. It was Centstar vs. Flyrant spam.
A cheeseburger with a slice of pineapple is still a cheeseburger, not pineapple.
So, the fact that one list contained, what, 4 Centurions, and the other was playing effectively 300pts down because according to the internet Lictors suck and obviously the only thing that mattered in the entire army was his three flyrants, and despite the fact that there were tons of far nastier armies in attendance (at least, nasty according to the internet) that these guys had to beat out to win, skill had absolutely nothing to do with it and they only won because they were playing cheesy netlists.
Edit: 3 Centurions, not 4. And he didn't have Tigirius or Loth or Draigo. Yet someone actually thinks that his army was just a "Centstar" list? WTF?
Niether of which is the latest and greatest. Centurions have been around for almost 2 years and flyrants have been around forever. The idea of a centurion star is hardly a new concept putting a strong independsnt character into a tough unit.
Also neither of which is decidedly a spam list. 3 flyrants does not a spam list make. Furthermore mawlocs and lictors and spore mines are hardly popular units either.
You make the wrong assumption that because a list consists of a strong unit that unit makes the entire list. The reason people call those lists a scout or lictor list was because if you read most of the battle reports those units were the ones that won most of his matches. They earned the most points. Those units made the most advantage of the maelstrom missions. Not the three centaurians or the 3 flyrants.
DarkLink wrote: So, the fact that one list contained, what, 4 Centurions, and the other was playing effectively 300pts down because according to the internet Lictors suck and obviously the only thing that mattered in the entire army was his three flyrants, and despite the fact that there were tons of far nastier armies in attendance (at least, nasty according to the internet) that these guys had to beat out to win, skill had absolutely nothing to do with it and they only won because they were playing cheesy netlists.
Edit: 3 Centurions, not 4. And he didn't have Tigirius or Loth or Draigo. Yet someone actually thinks that his army was just a "Centstar" list? WTF?
gungo wrote: Niether of which is the latest and greatest. Centurions have been around for almost 2 years and flyrants have been around forever. The idea of a centurion star is hardly a new concept putting a strong independsnt character into a tough unit.
Also neither of which is decidedly a spam list. 3 flyrants does not a spam list make. Furthermore mawlocs and lictors and spore mines are hardly popular units either.
You make the wrong assumption that because a list consists of a strong unit that unit makes the entire list. The reason people call those lists a scout or lictor list was because if you read most of the battle reports those units were the ones that won most of his matches. They earned the most points. Those units made the most advantage of the maelstrom missions. Not the three centaurians or the 3 flyrants.
Scouts scored maelstrom points because the opponent had to contend with a huge amount of in your face threats from turn 1. In order just to survive these threats needed to be engaged and the cheap, hidden scouts could sit on maelstrom objectives in peace. The scouts did nothing on their own except to occupy space.
Yes 3 Flyrants do make spam because up until recently in the world of 40k most everyone was allowed only 2 HQ's. Three HQ's of over 750pts is called spam.
Yes Mawlocs have been popular since 6th edition. At least in Chicago and in the lists of Americas ETC team. Lictors do the same thing scouts do. They sit on objectives and hide and score maelstrom points while the real offensive threat of the lists, the Flyrants and Mawlocs, engage the enemy and keep the pressure off the Cheaper units who score points.
Why did OrdoSean add in a 3rd Flyrant for this tourney and reduce the number of Lictors he takes if he thought it was the Lictors who do the heavy lifting?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: He has a point though even if you fail to accept it. Having 3 centaurians is NOT a cent star.
Having 3 centurions with a 250pt Lysander and a 175pt Mephiston and a level 2 librarian (3 HQ's to attach is) is a Centurion Deathstar. Almost half your armies entire points are tied into one unit and you don't call that a deathstar? Do we play the same game?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Look all I said was the finals was not a battle vs. lictors and scouts it was a battle of Centstar vs. Flyrant spam. That's all I said, but a couple of LVO apologists are in shark feeding frenzy mode right now and can't even acknowledge basic strategy of 40k.
Take a deep breath and go PM Blackmore if you want to keep fighting.
DarkLink wrote: So, the fact that one list contained, what, 4 Centurions, and the other was playing effectively 300pts down because according to the internet Lictors suck and obviously the only thing that mattered in the entire army was his three flyrants, and despite the fact that there were tons of far nastier armies in attendance (at least, nasty according to the internet) that these guys had to beat out to win, skill had absolutely nothing to do with it and they only won because they were playing cheesy netlists.
Edit: 3 Centurions, not 4. And he didn't have Tigirius or Loth or Draigo. Yet someone actually thinks that his army was just a "Centstar" list? WTF?
Straw meet Man. Have fun together. Goodbye.
The strawman fallacy requires that I intentionally misrepresent your argument in order to make it look like nonsense. Your claim literally consistes of the claim that Nick played a Centstar (the rest of my comment was not specifically directed at you). I don't think you actually know what a strawman argument actually is.
DarkLink wrote: So, the fact that one list contained, what, 4 Centurions, and the other was playing effectively 300pts down because according to the internet Lictors suck and obviously the only thing that mattered in the entire army was his three flyrants, and despite the fact that there were tons of far nastier armies in attendance (at least, nasty according to the internet) that these guys had to beat out to win, skill had absolutely nothing to do with it and they only won because they were playing cheesy netlists.
Edit: 3 Centurions, not 4. And he didn't have Tigirius or Loth or Draigo. Yet someone actually thinks that his army was just a "Centstar" list? WTF?
Straw meet Man. Have fun together. Goodbye.
The strawman fallacy requires that I intentionally misrepresent your argument in order to make it look like nonsense. Your claim literally consistes of the claim that Nick played a Centstar (the rest of my comment was not specifically directed at you). I don't think you actually know what a strawman argument actually is.
You did misrepresent what I said. You still don't know what a Centstar is and now you are trying to passive-aggressive backpedal out of the hole you dug. Go PM Blackmoor with your fight. Stop the feeding frenzy.
I still enjoyed Chip's comment to Alan about this game not being about killing units. Which is odd, since you will not win without killing units. And no that does not mean tabling. You need units that can deal with the best and brightest in the game. Ignore Flyrants and try to win. Ignore Knights and try to win. Goodluck with that.
As far as CtA goes, it is part of the game and let it go. Deployment is the most important part (to me) of the game and that 12'' bubble could prove to be huge. And LVO cannot be the measuring stick for eliminating CtA as they seemed to have no impact on the Top 8.
Yes, the Flyrants did the heavy lifting, that's obvious. But they are still not even half of the army. Everything in Sean's list contributed to his victories, and how he used the Lictors and Spore Mines is impressive. And I don't see what Sean's list has to do with CtA.
lol please having 3 hq's is not a spam list not is attaching two hq's to 3 tough units a cent star. You are the only one here interested in arguing and making false claims such as calling people apologist or claiming they are making straw man arguments simply because they not only disagree with you but make valid claims how the units you dismiss are actually the units that scored the most points in thier lists. So stop calling people names because your he only one here fighting and being insulting.
Well accept for the fact, plenty of the "not few top armies" scored high and did well at LVO....
Again, I disagree. (Except for the Orks that were a counter-meta army, and I think only one of them did well)
A lot of people look at the packaging and think that the top armies are different. Do you think that spending 300 points out of 1850 on lictors makes your army a lictor army when you spend about that much on one hive tyrant? Sean's list was hive tyrants and mawlocs. Those 6 models were 2/3 of his points and they did most of the killing. Everything else helped, and synergized well, but the TMCs did all of the heavy lifting.
Nick's scout army had less than 500 points of scouts in it, but what it really was is a centurion star featuring rock hard HQ/ICs and centurions to do most of the killing.
Don't get confused by what tangential units are around the killing units.
Alan, if you think this game is about killing things, you're more lost than I'd hoped.
It is the easiest way to win in any format. If your opponents army cease to exist then most tournaments award you the victory for tabling your opponent. However, if your army is also getting slaughter it is hard to capture and/or hold those objectives. His point is valid. Those listed were named lictor shame, and a scout list but neither had those models doing the heavy lifting. Even the eldar list that was near the top featured Range D! Thy grey knight list also had a centurion star with draigo to escort them around.
CTA is actually a good thing for the game. Makes it very very hard to build one list that can counter everything. IMO when not playing with ranged d, the competitive side of this game is more player skill based then it has ever been before. Building a great list is not enough to get you through a gt anymore.
I am going to disagree. When you allow everything people just take whatever the latest and greatest formation is. How many Adamantine Lance formations were there at the Nova Open, and how many Leviathan formations were at the LVO?
It is becoming less skill based because if you do not take one of the few top armies you will have no chance no matter how good you are.
Whereas putting CtA on the chopping block will only allow SOME armies (determined most likely randomly by GW at the time of the allymatrix publishing) to take the latest and greatest formation.
IMO this will only reduce the number of top armies that have the best chance at winning (and implicitly list variety at the very top) as they limit what codexes get access to the best stuff.
DarkLink wrote: So, the fact that one list contained, what, 4 Centurions, and the other was playing effectively 300pts down because according to the internet Lictors suck and obviously the only thing that mattered in the entire army was his three flyrants, and despite the fact that there were tons of far nastier armies in attendance (at least, nasty according to the internet) that these guys had to beat out to win, skill had absolutely nothing to do with it and they only won because they were playing cheesy netlists.
Edit: 3 Centurions, not 4. And he didn't have Tigirius or Loth or Draigo. Yet someone actually thinks that his army was just a "Centstar" list? WTF?
Straw meet Man. Have fun together. Goodbye.
The strawman fallacy requires that I intentionally misrepresent your argument in order to make it look like nonsense. Your claim literally consistes of the claim that Nick played a Centstar (the rest of my comment was not specifically directed at you). I don't think you actually know what a strawman argument actually is.
You did misrepresent what I said. You still don't know what a Centstar is and now you are trying to passive-aggressive backpedal out of the hole you dug. Go PM Blackmoor with your fight. Stop the feeding frenzy.
? I don't think you know what passive aggressive means, either. Bluntly stating that you're misusing a logical fallacy isn't exactly passive. Though you are right, I should stop feeding the trolls. Since I'm sure you'll just come back with another accusation of me being a strawman and that you're right and I'm wrong because reasons, well, congratulations. You win. I'll stop feeding the trolls.
I will say this, though. Google centurion star. You'll find a bunch of articles and forum posts about relatively large units of centurions with Invisibililty attached, primarily via Tigirius or Loth, along with combat character, almost always Draigo for Gate of Infinity. I mean, I suppose if you want to get really pedantic, you could stretch the meaning to include any unit of Centurions with attached ICs, but without Invisibility it frankly doesn't really qualify. Centurions are too easy to kill for that, especially a unit of 3. It's a bit of a deathstar, but definitely not a typical Centurionstar.
Of course, now I'm getting sucked into a pointless circle jerk of when arbitrarily applied and defined labels apply or don't apply. Suffice to say that if you genuinely think that Nick only won the LVO because he took a netlist, you probably don't understand the top lists or the players or the game as well as you think you do. None of the top players just grabbed a random netlist and painted up the models to play for the LVO. They thought up a list, practiced with it, tweaked it, practiced some more, threw out half the tweaks and added new ones, then more practice, played the missions, practiced against other common armies and builds, and then practiced some more. The list itself, so long as it has adequate tools to handles all comers, is by no means the primary determinate of success, something show with how diversified the top tables were and how little those armies conformed to much of the internet's wisdom (no matter how much the internet wants to retroactively claim prescience). Any solid list in the hands of a good player has a good shot, with a little luck (this is a dice game, after all. Even the best player with the cheesiest army can't win if he misses every shot and fails every save).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SCP Yeeman wrote: Ignore Flyrants and try to win. Ignore Knights and try to win. Goodluck with that.
Well.... I've watched several games in which one player stuck to the mission while ignoring Flyrants and won because they held the objectives and the Flyrants didn't manage to table them. And since I don't think I saw a single nidz army that didn't have 3 or 5 Tyrants (ok, I'm sure there was at least one, but I swear there were more Flyrants at the LVO than attendees), yet Nidz had a surprisingly low win rate, I'd say the idea that the mission doesn't matter at all is completely unfounded.
Banning CtA allies, as much as I disdain them, will only hurt some armies and leave others completely unhurt.
The question also arises of how it would affect Summoning. Can Eldar units then not summon? And if they can, why do they get CtA allies and no one else does?
There is so much in this game that is unbalanced, it seems odd that non-imperial factions should have to take the brunt of the nerf-block - because they're the ones that take CtA more the most.
This is coming from a guy who only takes pure Orks and doesn't even RUN CtA allies.
I will say this, though. Google centurion star. You'll find a bunch of articles and forum posts about relatively large units of centurions with Invisibililty attached, primarily via Tigirius or Loth, along with combat character, almost always Draigo for Gate of Infinity. I mean, I suppose if you want to get really pedantic, you could stretch the meaning to include any unit of Centurions with attached ICs, but without Invisibility it frankly doesn't really qualify. Centurions are too easy to kill for that, especially a unit of 3. It's a bit of a deathstar, but definitely not a typical Centurionstar.
You are very dogmatic in your thinking. A Centstar needs Drago and Tigerious or it is not a Centstar? The way you laid out the way a Centstar is built was so 2014 when their was not even the new Blood Angels codex,
Why does a Centstar need Drago?
#1. He has Gate. You need Gate to move the Centurians around because they are slow and have a short range.
#2. He is a beatstick in assault.
What Nick did to solve the movement problem was to take Drop Pods instead of needing Gate. That let him take cheap scouts for his troops instead of expensive grey knights that are horrible now, and then it lets him take Lysander who synergizes with the scouts, and fills the beatstick role.
Tigerious for invisibility? You don't need it for your durability. You have Lysander and Mephiston so assaulting them would be bad, and you are talking about a toughness 5 unit with 2+ saves. This unit is hard as a rock and does not need invisibility.
'
Nick's list definitely featured a CentStar. I watched one of his games. Characters drop down in one pod, cents in another then they attach during the movement phase. Three Cents are very good. 3-4 is typical too.
Cents dropped with Mephiston as he is in Artificer armor and can ride in the pod.
Lysander stayed with the Command squad to protect them and get FNP from the Sang Initiate in there.
While yes the list used Centurions as the heavy lifting killing unit - Lysander didn't join up with it. Nick's list used 2 heavy hammers that armies tried to deal with when most of the time - killing the scouts would have been a better idea. Also the scouts - being Sentinels of Terra would hit a lot better at close range with the TWL ability. This made them a better choice then Marines etc as they were cheaper.
The list was designed to have lose able big threats and still be able to win the secondary missions and hold objectives. It is a massed MSU concept with 1 extreme killing unit (Cents) and one surgical unit - Melta command squad with Lysander. Meph being a lvl 3 psyker can get ahold of perfect timing and prescience - causing the Cents to be a lot more effective at all parts of the game.
The Crazy thing is the regular Devastators were rocking it as people forgot they had Tank Hunting. They did a great job of removing vehicle threats and walking on the board edge and snap firing their way into everyone's hearts.
But oh well - I play Nick too much and know - kill the damned scouts.
CTA is actually a good thing for the game. Makes it very very hard to build one list that can counter everything. IMO when not playing with ranged d, the competitive side of this game is more player skill based then it has ever been before. Building a great list is not enough to get you through a gt anymore.
I am going to disagree. When you allow everything people just take whatever the latest and greatest formation is. How many Adamantine Lance formations were there at the Nova Open, and how many Leviathan formations were at the LVO?
It is becoming less skill based because if you do not take one of the few top armies you will have no chance no matter how good you are.
Infact it is becoming more skill based, every player from the east coast that I practiced with for lvo could reliably deal with adlance. In testing I was 0 and 6 playing adlance. Also just because you take the latest and greatest thing doesn't mean you will win. You dont think anyone who practiced for this event didnt practice with, and against these lists. In face I played about 5 games with nids allied with levi before lvo to get an idea of what it could and couldn't do in the format...so I was quite ready to play them with MY SINGLE CAD eldar list.
Well accept for the fact, plenty of the "not few top armies" scored high and did well at LVO....
Again, I disagree. (Except for the Orks that were a counter-meta army, and I think only one of them did well)
A lot of people look at the packaging and think that the top armies are different. Do you think that spending 300 points out of 1850 on lictors makes your army a lictor army when you spend about that much on one hive tyrant? Sean's list was hive tyrants and mawlocs. Those 6 models were 2/3 of his points and they did most of the killing. Everything else helped, and synergized well, but the TMCs did all of the heavy lifting.
Nick's scout army had less than 500 points of scouts in it, but what it really was is a centurion star featuring rock hard HQ/ICs and centurions to do most of the killing.
Don't get confused by what tangential units are around the killing units.
What you are not taking into consideration is the synergy these lists have, if you listen to how he won some of those games, he wouldnt have been able to win with out his hive guard deck charing objectives, or his lictors tieing up key units at key turns, list synergy will win you games. My wraith knights and serpents do the majority of heavy lifting in my lists...but I wouldnt have won the majority of my games if it wasn't for my jetbike units....
luke1705 wrote:There truly was incredible variety among the top lists at the LVO. Glad to see that the game is as much about being an outstanding general as what list you bring, and that there are no dominant outliers in the LVO format. Truly enjoying that point system
This is why CTA allies and 2 source limit is so fantastic for the game. I will agree with the fact that you literally need to know what almost everything in the game does if you want a real chance at winning a gt, but the game has never been more skill based then it is now. (Dont get me wrong there is still a ton of luck involved too)
DarkLink wrote:So, the fact that one list contained, what, 4 Centurions, and the other was playing effectively 300pts down because according to the internet Lictors suck and obviously the only thing that mattered in the entire army was his three flyrants, and despite the fact that there were tons of far nastier armies in attendance (at least, nasty according to the internet) that these guys had to beat out to win, skill had absolutely nothing to do with it and they only won because they were playing cheesy netlists.
Edit: 3 Centurions, not 4. And he didn't have Tigirius or Loth or Draigo. Yet someone actually thinks that his army was just a "Centstar" list? WTF?
I think alot of people will just toss the star lable (myself included) to anything that has multiple characters joining said unit.
Well accept for the fact, plenty of the "not few top armies" scored high and did well at LVO....
Again, I disagree. (Except for the Orks that were a counter-meta army, and I think only one of them did well)
A lot of people look at the packaging and think that the top armies are different. Do you think that spending 300 points out of 1850 on lictors makes your army a lictor army when you spend about that much on one hive tyrant? Sean's list was hive tyrants and mawlocs. Those 6 models were 2/3 of his points and they did most of the killing. Everything else helped, and synergized well, but the TMCs did all of the heavy lifting.
Nick's scout army had less than 500 points of scouts in it, but what it really was is a centurion star featuring rock hard HQ/ICs and centurions to do most of the killing.
Don't get confused by what tangential units are around the killing units.
Alan, if you think this game is about killing things, you're more lost than I'd hoped.
It is the easiest way to win in any format. If your opponents army cease to exist then most tournaments award you the victory for tabling your opponent. However, if your army is also getting slaughter it is hard to capture and/or hold those objectives. His point is valid. Those listed were named lictor shame, and a scout list but neither had those models doing the heavy lifting. Even the eldar list that was near the top featured Range D! Thy grey knight list also had a centurion star with draigo to escort them around.
again it is all about list synergy, and it is very very hard to table a quality opponent with a quality list anymore.
CTA is actually a good thing for the game. Makes it very very hard to build one list that can counter everything. IMO when not playing with ranged d, the competitive side of this game is more player skill based then it has ever been before. Building a great list is not enough to get you through a gt anymore.
I am going to disagree. When you allow everything people just take whatever the latest and greatest formation is. How many Adamantine Lance formations were there at the Nova Open, and how many Leviathan formations were at the LVO?
It is becoming less skill based because if you do not take one of the few top armies you will have no chance no matter how good you are.
Whereas putting CtA on the chopping block will only allow SOME armies (determined most likely randomly by GW at the time of the allymatrix publishing) to take the latest and greatest formation.
IMO this will only reduce the number of top armies that have the best chance at winning (and implicitly list variety at the very top) as they limit what codexes get access to the best stuff.
Exactly, I was going to attend a single source event a few weeks ago and realized for all the comp they put in, my lvo list was 100% legal, the exact lists they were trying to prevent were still legal in their event. At least by allowing everything (minus non character low) in a 2 source cta format, you take alot of the power away from list building.
SCP Yeeman wrote:I still enjoyed Chip's comment to Alan about this game not being about killing units. Which is odd, since you will not win without killing units. And no that does not mean tabling. You need units that can deal with the best and brightest in the game. Ignore Flyrants and try to win. Ignore Knights and try to win. Goodluck with that.
As far as CtA goes, it is part of the game and let it go. Deployment is the most important part (to me) of the game and that 12'' bubble could prove to be huge. And LVO cannot be the measuring stick for eliminating CtA as they seemed to have no impact on the Top 8.
Ingore flyrants is exactly what I mostly did at lvo when I played 5 flyrants in kps....and I was able to win.
LVO cant be the only measuring stick for eliminating CTA, but it is a great indicator for what cta allies currently mean to this game. Also you can not go off the top 8 results as determining factors, the games leading up to the top 8 were so close that one dice difference could see a complete difference in the standings. IMO you have to look at the 5 and 1 players and see what % of armies were what builds. I think the # of different builds in the top 32 show how healthy the game is right now.
IMHO I don't think it matters what rules you make there are people out there that are just very good at gaming the system. By diminishing one thing you increase another and it can never be equally done. LVO sounds like a success and an event I would love to go to but the shifts in the rules keep me and others away as I just don't have time to paint up an army for one event. You can never pick and choose what you want and expect everything to come out even.
I fail to see how taking 3 Flyrants makes one a more tactical player. It's spamming a good unit that's all. To a lot of people there is more to the game in general than being WAAC.
Man we can go on and on about what to nerf or whats to powerful or whats to fair.
1 person claims X, this persons says no thats not true.
1 person says Y, another person says no thats not fair...
LVO did a Q&A before making a mission packet, people were aware and signed up for the tourney, 200+. It was a good showing.
Its getting to the point that why should they cater to every little issue thats really not big deal.
Just dont go if you dont like it. But honestly all this time searching google, doing math hammer, writing long articles about how GW is unfair, and making up definitions for nerd terms we invented, then arguing over it.... Seriously perhaps that time should be spent practicing or coming up with list. Or simply some people should accept the fact they probably are just not as good as they think they are, and should stop digging for reasons why its someone else fault.
Dozer Blades wrote:I fail to see how taking 3 Flyrants makes one a more tactical player. It's spamming a good unit that's all. To a lot of people there is more to the game in general than being WAAC.
That is my point it doesn't sure 2 people who took 3 flyrants landed in the top 10, but thats because they built their list around the flyrants and tested the gak out of them. You can't just add 3 flyrants into a list and expect it to be good.
Tsilber wrote:Man we can go on and on about what to nerf or whats to powerful or whats to fair.
1 person claims X, this persons says no thats not true.
1 person says Y, another person says no thats not fair...
LVO did a Q&A before making a mission packet, people were aware and signed up for the tourney, 200+. It was a good showing.
Its getting to the point that why should they cater to every little issue thats really not big deal.
Just dont go if you dont like it. But honestly all this time searching google, doing math hammer, writing long articles about how GW is unfair, and making up definitions for nerd terms we invented, then arguing over it.... Seriously perhaps that time should be spent practicing or coming up with list. Or simply some people should accept the fact they probably are just not as good as they think they are, and should stop digging for reasons why its someone else fault.
Exactly, the only way you will do well in these huge events is play testing and practicing! Now obviously everyone has lives and schedules outside this game, and other things they care about so the amount of practice time will vary. I know myself and the majority of the guys I went to lvo with got between 9 to 50 practice games in before the event over the course of a few months.
All good guys = team up for the greater good (Batman and Spiderman find common ground)
All bad guys = can't team up to get along. (Joker and Carnage would try to murder each other first, but isnt this the keep the one eye open rule?)
Two of my favorite things about coming back to 40k recently:
1) I am now able to convert everything to Chaos...Chaos Knights, Chaos Tau.
2) With CTA allies, it makes all purchases of splinter armies fun, b/c you know that you can use them somewhere
Isn't the issue really the Leviathan detachment? Didn't we have this before with AdLance and wave serpents? Only now, we can get rid of something we don't like under the flag of "We are being fluffy"? What about the people that can't decide on an army, or the evil race enthusiasts? They aren't allowed their own fluff?
The Ally matrix as it is now is very one sided towards the Imperium even giving them battle brothers.
Maybe Mucolids could be removed as troops for the purpose of the Leviathan detachment? At least tax harder for taking 3x Flyrants.
Tsilber wrote: Man we can go on and on about what to nerf or whats to powerful or whats to fair.
1 person claims X, this persons says no thats not true.
1 person says Y, another person says no thats not fair...
LVO did a Q&A before making a mission packet, people were aware and signed up for the tourney, 200+. It was a good showing.
Its getting to the point that why should they cater to every little issue thats really not big deal.
Just dont go if you dont like it. But honestly all this time searching google, doing math hammer, writing long articles about how GW is unfair, and making up definitions for nerd terms we invented, then arguing over it.... Seriously perhaps that time should be spent practicing or coming up with list. Or simply some people should accept the fact they probably are just not as good as they think they are, and should stop digging for reasons why its someone else fault.
This is a very good point. There are a million things we can argue about to tweak but I doubt with a game this big and as many variables and combinations that wh40k has you will ever find perfect balance.
While there are things I would like seen adjusted I guess the main question to ask is.
If people are claiming this last LVO was as balanced as we have ever seen it. If it's not broke why are we arguing about fixing it?
Is banning cta at next years lVO making the game more balanced? According to the current years results it doesn't.
Personally I find the 2+ rerollable rule a bit unneeded. A 2+ armour save even with a reroll is completely irrelevant when faced with ap2, rending and a slew of other rules. If anything that rule could be tweaked to just work on 2+ invulnerables which is way more restrictive.
The invisibility nerf is also a bit overhanded because it makes blasts immensely better vs invis. Bs1 large blasts have a very good chance at hitting its invis target. If the idea was to allow blasts to be relevant to invis units then a better ruling should of been to allow blasts to target invis units but always scatter 2d6.
But then you go back to the point above. If it's not broke why fix it?
GoatboyBBMA wrote: Cents dropped with Mephiston as he is in Artificer armor and can ride in the pod.
Lysander stayed with the Command squad to protect them and get FNP from the Sang Initiate in there.
While yes the list used Centurions as the heavy lifting killing unit - Lysander didn't join up with it. Nick's list used 2 heavy hammers that armies tried to deal with when most of the time - killing the scouts would have been a better idea. Also the scouts - being Sentinels of Terra would hit a lot better at close range with the TWL ability. This made them a better choice then Marines etc as they were cheaper.
The list was designed to have lose able big threats and still be able to win the secondary missions and hold objectives. It is a massed MSU concept with 1 extreme killing unit (Cents) and one surgical unit - Melta command squad with Lysander. Meph being a lvl 3 psyker can get ahold of perfect timing and prescience - causing the Cents to be a lot more effective at all parts of the game.
The Crazy thing is the regular Devastators were rocking it as people forgot they had Tank Hunting. They did a great job of removing vehicle threats and walking on the board edge and snap firing their way into everyone's hearts.
But oh well - I play Nick too much and know - kill the damned scouts.
GoatboyBBMA wrote: Cents dropped with Mephiston as he is in Artificer armor and can ride in the pod.
Lysander stayed with the Command squad to protect them and get FNP from the Sang Initiate in there.
While yes the list used Centurions as the heavy lifting killing unit - Lysander didn't join up with it. Nick's list used 2 heavy hammers that armies tried to deal with when most of the time - killing the scouts would have been a better idea. Also the scouts - being Sentinels of Terra would hit a lot better at close range with the TWL ability. This made them a better choice then Marines etc as they were cheaper.
The list was designed to have lose able big threats and still be able to win the secondary missions and hold objectives. It is a massed MSU concept with 1 extreme killing unit (Cents) and one surgical unit - Melta command squad with Lysander. Meph being a lvl 3 psyker can get ahold of perfect timing and prescience - causing the Cents to be a lot more effective at all parts of the game.
The Crazy thing is the regular Devastators were rocking it as people forgot they had Tank Hunting. They did a great job of removing vehicle threats and walking on the board edge and snap firing their way into everyone's hearts.
But oh well - I play Nick too much and know - kill the damned scouts.
Very informative post, thanks for that!
My favorite part was how it went ignored by all the posters it was relevant to. guys.
GoatboyBBMA wrote: Cents dropped with Mephiston as he is in Artificer armor and can ride in the pod.
Lysander stayed with the Command squad to protect them and get FNP from the Sang Initiate in there.
While yes the list used Centurions as the heavy lifting killing unit - Lysander didn't join up with it. Nick's list used 2 heavy hammers that armies tried to deal with when most of the time - killing the scouts would have been a better idea. Also the scouts - being Sentinels of Terra would hit a lot better at close range with the TWL ability. This made them a better choice then Marines etc as they were cheaper.
The list was designed to have lose able big threats and still be able to win the secondary missions and hold objectives. It is a massed MSU concept with 1 extreme killing unit (Cents) and one surgical unit - Melta command squad with Lysander. Meph being a lvl 3 psyker can get ahold of perfect timing and prescience - causing the Cents to be a lot more effective at all parts of the game.
The Crazy thing is the regular Devastators were rocking it as people forgot they had Tank Hunting. They did a great job of removing vehicle threats and walking on the board edge and snap firing their way into everyone's hearts.
But oh well - I play Nick too much and know - kill the damned scouts.
Very informative post, thanks for that!
My favorite part was how it went ignored by all the posters it was relevant to. guys.
How are they supposed to get into a major internets argument over it though?!?!
GoatboyBBMA wrote: Cents dropped with Mephiston as he is in Artificer armor and can ride in the pod.
Lysander stayed with the Command squad to protect them and get FNP from the Sang Initiate in there.
While yes the list used Centurions as the heavy lifting killing unit - Lysander didn't join up with it. Nick's list used 2 heavy hammers that armies tried to deal with when most of the time - killing the scouts would have been a better idea. Also the scouts - being Sentinels of Terra would hit a lot better at close range with the TWL ability. This made them a better choice then Marines etc as they were cheaper.
The list was designed to have lose able big threats and still be able to win the secondary missions and hold objectives. It is a massed MSU concept with 1 extreme killing unit (Cents) and one surgical unit - Melta command squad with Lysander. Meph being a lvl 3 psyker can get ahold of perfect timing and prescience - causing the Cents to be a lot more effective at all parts of the game.
The Crazy thing is the regular Devastators were rocking it as people forgot they had Tank Hunting. They did a great job of removing vehicle threats and walking on the board edge and snap firing their way into everyone's hearts.
But oh well - I play Nick too much and know - kill the damned scouts.
Very informative post, thanks for that!
My favorite part was how it went ignored by all the posters it was relevant to. guys.
How are they supposed to get into a major internets argument over it though?!?!
It's something we snicker at quite often at our FLGS. If you make a reasoned, well thought out post, intended to end debate amicably it goes ignored for pages. If you make an extreme emotionally evocative and partly derogatory post that makes no real attempt at stopping the controversy the wars begin.
GoatboyBBMA wrote: Cents dropped with Mephiston as he is in Artificer armor and can ride in the pod.
Lysander stayed with the Command squad to protect them and get FNP from the Sang Initiate in there.
While yes the list used Centurions as the heavy lifting killing unit - Lysander didn't join up with it. Nick's list used 2 heavy hammers that armies tried to deal with when most of the time - killing the scouts would have been a better idea. Also the scouts - being Sentinels of Terra would hit a lot better at close range with the TWL ability. This made them a better choice then Marines etc as they were cheaper.
The list was designed to have lose able big threats and still be able to win the secondary missions and hold objectives. It is a massed MSU concept with 1 extreme killing unit (Cents) and one surgical unit - Melta command squad with Lysander. Meph being a lvl 3 psyker can get ahold of perfect timing and prescience - causing the Cents to be a lot more effective at all parts of the game.
The Crazy thing is the regular Devastators were rocking it as people forgot they had Tank Hunting. They did a great job of removing vehicle threats and walking on the board edge and snap firing their way into everyone's hearts.
But oh well - I play Nick too much and know - kill the damned scouts.
Very informative post, thanks for that!
My favorite part was how it went ignored by all the posters it was relevant to. guys.
How are they supposed to get into a major internets argument over it though?!?!
It's something we snicker at quite often at our FLGS. If you make a reasoned, well thought out post, intended to end debate amicably it goes ignored for pages. If you make an extreme emotionally evocative and partly derogatory post that makes no real attempt at stopping the controversy the wars begin.
Goatboy was just explaining how the list worked, but we knew that already. The Centstar killed things while the rest of the army worked on objectives and the secondary missions. The difference between him and the rest of the centstars was his play. Nick is one of the best players in the country and proved it again here.
I will say that the LVO really favored MSU armies. If you look and Nick's and Sean's armies they have a ton of units.
I heard a rumor there is a bugger on the end of krootman's finger in his avatar... Don't know if it's true but anyways good job on Goat for setting the record straight.
GoatboyBBMA wrote: Cents dropped with Mephiston as he is in Artificer armor and can ride in the pod.
Lysander stayed with the Command squad to protect them and get FNP from the Sang Initiate in there.
While yes the list used Centurions as the heavy lifting killing unit - Lysander didn't join up with it. Nick's list used 2 heavy hammers that armies tried to deal with when most of the time - killing the scouts would have been a better idea. Also the scouts - being Sentinels of Terra would hit a lot better at close range with the TWL ability. This made them a better choice then Marines etc as they were cheaper.
The list was designed to have lose able big threats and still be able to win the secondary missions and hold objectives. It is a massed MSU concept with 1 extreme killing unit (Cents) and one surgical unit - Melta command squad with Lysander. Meph being a lvl 3 psyker can get ahold of perfect timing and prescience - causing the Cents to be a lot more effective at all parts of the game.
The Crazy thing is the regular Devastators were rocking it as people forgot they had Tank Hunting. They did a great job of removing vehicle threats and walking on the board edge and snap firing their way into everyone's hearts.
But oh well - I play Nick too much and know - kill the damned scouts.
Very informative post, thanks for that!
My favorite part was how it went ignored by all the posters it was relevant to. guys.
How are they supposed to get into a major internets argument over it though?!?!
It's something we snicker at quite often at our FLGS. If you make a reasoned, well thought out post, intended to end debate amicably it goes ignored for pages. If you make an extreme emotionally evocative and partly derogatory post that makes no real attempt at stopping the controversy the wars begin.
Goatboy was just explaining how the list worked, but we knew that already. The Centstar killed things while the rest of the army worked on objectives and the secondary missions. The difference between him and the rest of the centstars was his play. Nick is one of the best players in the country and proved it again here.
I will say that the LVO really favored MSU armies. If you look and Nick's and Sean's armies they have a ton of units.
If it were true that everyone already knew how the list worked there would have been no need for Goatboy to jump in and explain. It was the very fact that how Nick played the list was being misconstrued that prompted such a post from Goatboy in the first place. Anyway, I digress and have no real stake in any of this since I was unable to attend the LVO. I'm just here to watch the
Dozer Blades wrote: I heard a rumor there is a bugger on the end of krootman's finger in his avatar... Don't know if it's true but anyways good job on Goat for setting the record straight.
All this talk about practice games... I often go to GT's with less then 3 practice games for the event. I will be playing at adepticon with necrons pure for the first time and adepticon will be my first tournament in 7th edition and like my 3rd actual game on the table top starting game 1. Just pointing out that list building is still a very big part of winning events. Even with all the crazy builds I think I have a list that puts me in the top 32 at the minimum. Unless the dice gods truely curse me! Also my list will feature 0 allies. Codex pure with no 2nd source!
Tomb King wrote: All this talk about practice games... I often go to GT's with less then 3 practice games for the event. I will be playing at adepticon with necrons pure for the first time and adepticon will be my first tournament in 7th edition and like my 3rd actual game on the table top starting game 1. Just pointing out that list building is still a very big part of winning events. Even with all the crazy builds I think I have a list that puts me in the top 32 at the minimum. Unless the dice gods truely curse me! Also my list will feature 0 allies. Codex pure with no 2nd source!
You must be a better player then me, because I need lots of practice games to do well. Adepticon champs is so different I think most people just winging it.
List building is still important and a big part of this game, however it won't carry you like it could in 5th and even 6th
Tomb King wrote: All this talk about practice games... I often go to GT's with less then 3 practice games for the event. I will be playing at adepticon with necrons pure for the first time and adepticon will be my first tournament in 7th edition and like my 3rd actual game on the table top starting game 1. Just pointing out that list building is still a very big part of winning events. Even with all the crazy builds I think I have a list that puts me in the top 32 at the minimum. Unless the dice gods truely curse me! Also my list will feature 0 allies. Codex pure with no 2nd source!
Tomb King wrote: All this talk about practice games... I often go to GT's with less then 3 practice games for the event. I will be playing at adepticon with necrons pure for the first time and adepticon will be my first tournament in 7th edition and like my 3rd actual game on the table top starting game 1. Just pointing out that list building is still a very big part of winning events. Even with all the crazy builds I think I have a list that puts me in the top 32 at the minimum. Unless the dice gods truely curse me! Also my list will feature 0 allies. Codex pure with no 2nd source!
So your practice games on Vassel don't count?
I had 3 or 4 vassal games. They count for overall view of the board but playing on the table top is a whole different beast. You dont get that top down view that vassal affords you. In addition, the terrain is more of a issue on the table top. Vassal is good for testing the army out via rolling the dice and how certain units handle combat etc...
krootman. wrote:
Tomb King wrote: All this talk about practice games... I often go to GT's with less then 3 practice games for the event. I will be playing at adepticon with necrons pure for the first time and adepticon will be my first tournament in 7th edition and like my 3rd actual game on the table top starting game 1. Just pointing out that list building is still a very big part of winning events. Even with all the crazy builds I think I have a list that puts me in the top 32 at the minimum. Unless the dice gods truely curse me! Also my list will feature 0 allies. Codex pure with no 2nd source!
You must be a better player then me, because I need lots of practice games to do well. Adepticon champs is so different I think most people just winging it.
List building is still important and a big part of this game, however it won't carry you like it could in 5th and even 6th
I actually think list building is more important then it ever was in 5th or 6th edition. As mentioned before it is harder to account for all the various builds out there. You need to build a list that can handle Grimstars, Adlance, centstar, wave serpent spam, MC spam, and Bikewolf stars. Just to name a couple. You all need to be able to take maelstrom objectives. The current meta and format has really killed some of the GEQ armies out there as people seek more resilient/fast moving troops.
I actually think list building is more important then it ever was in 5th or 6th edition. As mentioned before it is harder to account for all the various builds out there. You need to build a list that can handle Grimstars, Adlance, centstar, wave serpent spam, MC spam, and Bikewolf stars. Just to name a couple. You all need to be able to take maelstrom objectives. The current meta and format has really killed some of the GEQ armies out there as people seek more resilient/fast moving troops.
I agree list builing is still a very important component, but you can no longer net list your wag to victory. Look at the top 20 lists and see how many of them are stright up spam. Alot of the lists show very creative outside the box thinking. Synergy is more important them ever. Whicj usually is a result of good testing and tactics, which is all skill based
I just love how everyone is talking about my list having a centurion star... I didn't know running three guys as a basic unit counted as a star. I think in all my games meph was with them maybe three times otherwise they were alone.
BTW, the question with regards to banning CtA allies - I'm pretty sure they are referring only to building your list with CtA allies and not to CtA allies through daemon summoning.
BTW II, congrats Darkwynn on a fine performance indeed.
Darkwynn wrote: I just love how everyone is talking about my list having a centurion star... I didn't know running three guys as a basic unit counted as a star. I think in all my games meph was with them maybe three times otherwise they were alone.
And I hate you Thomas...
You totally joined a character to it once....so it's a star, duh!
jy2 wrote: BTW, the question with regards to banning CtA allies - I'm pretty sure they are referring only to building your list with CtA allies and not to CtA allies through daemon summoning.
What would be the point of banning CtA allies? Is it just to get rid of the Leviathan Formation?
jy2 wrote: BTW, the question with regards to banning CtA allies - I'm pretty sure they are referring only to building your list with CtA allies and not to CtA allies through daemon summoning.
What would be the point of banning CtA allies? Is it just to get rid of the Leviathan Formation?
Agreed, Restrict Leviathan to Nids only and leave CtA be. The ally matrix is completely fluff based and unfairly limits the options of the "evil" armies. The 12" deployment and keep one eye open restrictions are already pretty nasty.
OR, make all faction specific detachments that act as CAD count as a CAD as this would get rid of CAD + Leviathan
I really don't understand the fluff argument if Eldar can summon demons at a cheaper cost, but demons aren't allowed to have wraithguard friends?
jy2 wrote: BTW, the question with regards to banning CtA allies - I'm pretty sure they are referring only to building your list with CtA allies and not to CtA allies through daemon summoning.
What would be the point of banning CtA allies? Is it just to get rid of the Leviathan Formation?
Agreed, Restrict Leviathan to Nids only and leave CtA be. The ally matrix is completely fluff based and unfairly limits the options of the "evil" armies. The 12" deployment and keep one eye open restrictions are already pretty nasty.
OR, make all faction specific detachments that act as CAD count as a CAD as this would get rid of CAD + Leviathan
I really don't understand the fluff argument if Eldar can summon demons at a cheaper cost, but demons aren't allowed to have wraithguard friends?
Why would you ban nids plus levi. It won 2 events piloted by an excellent plAyer. It's a good list but far far from unbeatable...
Darkwynn wrote: I just love how everyone is talking about my list having a centurion star... I didn't know running three guys as a basic unit counted as a star. I think in all my games meph was with them maybe three times otherwise they were alone.
And I hate you Thomas...
You totally joined a character to it once....so it's a star, duh!
When I played Dark it was only three alone, so its was a death-triangle.
Even with the character its only a death square/rhombus,
RAW is that you need at least 5 points before its a star, GW added this to the FAQ in one of their regular updates
Darkwynn wrote: I just love how everyone is talking about my list having a centurion star... I didn't know running three guys as a basic unit counted as a star. I think in all my games meph was with them maybe three times otherwise they were alone.
And I hate you Thomas...
You totally joined a character to it once....so it's a star, duh!
When I played Dark it was only three alone, so its was a death-triangle.
Even with the character its only a death square/rhombus,
RAW is that you need at least 5 points before its a star, GW added this to the FAQ in one of their regular updates
Darkwynn wrote: I just love how everyone is talking about my list having a centurion star... I didn't know running three guys as a basic unit counted as a star. I think in all my games meph was with them maybe three times otherwise they were alone.
And I hate you Thomas...
You totally joined a character to it once....so it's a star, duh!
And obviously, because you ran a unit of centurions with an attached IC, you must have just took a netlist and kicked some baby seals with it and there's no actual skill involved in the game at all...
jy2 wrote: BTW, the question with regards to banning CtA allies - I'm pretty sure they are referring only to building your list with CtA allies and not to CtA allies through daemon summoning.
What would be the point of banning CtA allies? Is it just to get rid of the Leviathan Formation?
Agreed, Restrict Leviathan to Nids only and leave CtA be. The ally matrix is completely fluff based and unfairly limits the options of the "evil" armies. The 12" deployment and keep one eye open restrictions are already pretty nasty.
OR, make all faction specific detachments that act as CAD count as a CAD as this would get rid of CAD + Leviathan
I really don't understand the fluff argument if Eldar can summon demons at a cheaper cost, but demons aren't allowed to have wraithguard friends?
Why would you ban nids plus levi. It won 2 events piloted by an excellent plAyer. It's a good list but far far from unbeatable...
The idea being that everyone has an issue with leviathan plus cad and not come the apocalypse.
jy2 wrote: BTW, the question with regards to banning CtA allies - I'm pretty sure they are referring only to building your list with CtA allies and not to CtA allies through daemon summoning.
What would be the point of banning CtA allies? Is it just to get rid of the Leviathan Formation?
Agreed, Restrict Leviathan to Nids only and leave CtA be. The ally matrix is completely fluff based and unfairly limits the options of the "evil" armies. The 12" deployment and keep one eye open restrictions are already pretty nasty.
OR, make all faction specific detachments that act as CAD count as a CAD as this would get rid of CAD + Leviathan
I really don't understand the fluff argument if Eldar can summon demons at a cheaper cost, but demons aren't allowed to have wraithguard friends?
Why would you ban nids plus levi. It won 2 events piloted by an excellent plAyer. It's a good list but far far from unbeatable...
The idea being that everyone has an issue with leviathan plus cad and not come the apocalypse.
I don't understand why, it's no better or worse then any other good data slate, detchment, or formation That is out there.
With limited detschments cta is balanced. If anything lVO showed that. There is absolutely no reason any tournsmrnt organizer needs to take any overreaching steps to nerf it. This isn't 5th edition grey Knights, 6th edition eldar dominance. People forget Sean lost at LVO and he was the only flyrant or tyranid list to even make thr championship and nicks Game was so close he probably should have won if he didn't nerf himself. If anything needed to be done with flyrants I'd say play fmc as the rules are written and just left skyfire blasts hit them. But even still I have a feeling that in another week after adepticon unless a chaos flying demon or tyranid list wins people will be crying about nerfing necrons or whatever lists wins that tourney. But in regards to LVO that tournament had a fairly balanced playing field.
gungo wrote: With limited detschments cta is balanced. If anything lVO showed that. There is absolutely no reason any tournsmrnt organizer needs to take any overreaching steps to nerf it. This isn't 5th edition grey Knights, 6th edition eldar dominance. People forget Sean lost at LVO and he was the only flyrant or tyranid list to even make thr championship and nicks Game was so close he probably should have won if he didn't nerf himself. If anything needed to be done with flyrants I'd say play fmc as the rules are written and just left skyfire blasts hit them. But even still I have a feeling that in another week after adepticon unless a chaos flying demon or tyranid list wins people will be crying about nerfing necrons or whatever lists wins that tourney. But in regards to LVO that tournament had a fairly balanced playing field.
You can't take data at adepticon too seriously, their army construction is so far off the accepted gt norm (2 sources) that any 3-5 source crazy list you see at adepticon you will never see again this gt season, they are also allowing lords of war like the typhon which are banned at every other event for a reason.
gungo wrote: With limited detschments cta is balanced. If anything lVO showed that. There is absolutely no reason any tournsmrnt organizer needs to take any overreaching steps to nerf it. This isn't 5th edition grey Knights, 6th edition eldar dominance. People forget Sean lost at LVO and he was the only flyrant or tyranid list to even make thr championship and nicks Game was so close he probably should have won if he didn't nerf himself. If anything needed to be done with flyrants I'd say play fmc as the rules are written and just left skyfire blasts hit them. But even still I have a feeling that in another week after adepticon unless a chaos flying demon or tyranid list wins people will be crying about nerfing necrons or whatever lists wins that tourney. But in regards to LVO that tournament had a fairly balanced playing field.
You can't take data at adepticon too seriously, their army construction is so far off the accepted gt norm (2 sources) that any 3-5 source crazy list you see at adepticon you will never see again this gt season, they are also allowing lords of war like the typhon which are banned at every other event for a reason.
Depends on the result. I have a feeling that crazy 5 source lists won't win the tournament and at best you see a 3 source list win. And even that 3 source list I doubt would be much worse then two full detachments and a single model detachment. The loWs allowed list is entirely another matter. A major tournament like this is good to see how detrimental to balance it will be to increase the amount of detschments from 2-3, which I believe is the next logical progression for tournaments.
Dozer Blades wrote: So why not just allow unbound lists and be done with it ?
Detachment limits are more about making people make trade offs in list building than anything else. 2 detachments means I have to choose between having an allied/2nd detachment OR a Knight OR an assassin in an army. The higher you set the limit, the less trade offs there are to make and the more frustrating an event gets to manage. With 3 deachments, the servo-skull inquisitor becomes an auto-add for me. At 2 detachments, I tend to value my allied AM more highly.
That said, I used to allow unbound lists with pre-approval at RTTs I used to run. The idea was to allow people with thematic lists to bring their cool stuff (i.e. something like greggle's Ork walkers or a locals all-jump pack Night Lords) while preventing people from using unbound to bypass the detachment limitations.
gungo wrote: With limited detschments cta is balanced. If anything lVO showed that. There is absolutely no reason any tournsmrnt organizer needs to take any overreaching steps to nerf it. This isn't 5th edition grey Knights, 6th edition eldar dominance. People forget Sean lost at LVO and he was the only flyrant or tyranid list to even make thr championship and nicks Game was so close he probably should have won if he didn't nerf himself. If anything needed to be done with flyrants I'd say play fmc as the rules are written and just left skyfire blasts hit them. But even still I have a feeling that in another week after adepticon unless a chaos flying demon or tyranid list wins people will be crying about nerfing necrons or whatever lists wins that tourney. But in regards to LVO that tournament had a fairly balanced playing field.
You can't take data at adepticon too seriously, their army construction is so far off the accepted gt norm (2 sources) that any 3-5 source crazy list you see at adepticon you will never see again this gt season, they are also allowing lords of war like the typhon which are banned at every other event for a reason.
LVO allowed the Lynx, which placed third and ruined a lot of people's days from the sound of it. What makes the Typhon so much worse?
Dozer Blades wrote: Let's be real - I don't think most people here advocating CtA want it to build themed armies - in fact just the opposite .
To be fair the only cta in the championship at LVO was technically a themed list. An inqusitor with demons can be and is kinda fluffy according to lore.
I also feel Knights in chaos lists are fliffy as well. Mostly because there should be chaos Knights and it's taking forever for gw to make them.
However you are correct most people at that level in a tournament are there to make the best list possible to win. However the rules for allies tend to promote certain builds more then others as battle brothers are infinitely better for allying then cta. I do feel that the 12in deployment hinderence was to weak for cta. Should of added something else such as negative leadership modifiers when within 12in or something.
Like I said everyone has an opinion and it's not like Chaos must have a Knight with the Lord of Skulls. Some people might try to make a case for Nids and AM as BB so they field stealer cult armies (rolls eyes).
Dozer Blades wrote: Like I said everyone has an opinion and it's not like Chaos must have a Knight with the Lord of Skulls. Some people might try to make a case for Nids and AM as BB so they field stealer cult armies (rolls eyes).
Well according to hasting rumours genestealer cults aren't far off.
jy2 wrote: BTW, the question with regards to banning CtA allies - I'm pretty sure they are referring only to building your list with CtA allies and not to CtA allies through daemon summoning.
What would be the point of banning CtA allies? Is it just to get rid of the Leviathan Formation?
From a competitive perspective, there is no point. CtA allies will never be as good as BB allies in terms of synergy and combos. It's more of a fluff ban than anything else.
If you consider the background of the LVO/BAO/ITC, daemon summoning was never in question. It has always been allowed in all of their tournaments and without issues (other than a warning that you probably won't finish your game in time). However, what is new is the Come the Apocalyse allies that was allowed for the very first time in the ITC tournaments with the LVO. That is the issue that they are looking for input.
Dozer Blades wrote: Like I said everyone has an opinion and it's not like Chaos must have a Knight with the Lord of Skulls. Some people might try to make a case for Nids and AM as BB so they field stealer cult armies (rolls eyes).
I can run my Nids with a Warlord Titan, it is in the fluff!!! (Nids actually infested and used a Warlord Titan in the fluff).
My score vs. AdLance (in 
.
.
wars begin.
