Right on i like the format team zero comp will for sure show our support. Are you guys going to make it out to the bay area open this year we sure hope so its going to be a lot of fun.
This, many of us want to give you Golden Throne people money, but you won't let us.
Well, I'm not one to deny people what they want. Tickets are now on sale! You can pay via Paypal on the website or in person at Heroes on Paper in Stockton, CA.
Sounds good, looks a lot like the BAO format, which is awesome because it means we actually get to play in an event with that format instead of just running them.
We've just announced A Hero's Stand, our two-day Golden Throne warmup event. We'll play five Golden Throne rounds plus a top two playoff over two days on May 12-13, 2012. The event will be held at Heroes on Paper in Stockton, California. We've got space for 30+ players and we're taking signups now.
If 6th edition hits on or before July 02, 2012, we'll update the scenarios to use the new rules. If it hits after that we'll stick with 5th edition rules. It wouldn't be fair of us to implement sweeping changes to the rules so close to the event.
How much space is left? I wont know if I can have the days off work as normally they can only afford me to take 1 day off. Missed out on several tournaments this year because of it,
Bought my ticket today! This will be my first GT. It is about time I unleash my Tigress Sisters of Battle.
so a few quick questions as I have never done this before. If this is in the wrong place I apologize
Do I need to supply the objectives for seize ground/control missions?
How many copies of my list do I need? Typed? (as I don't own army builder)
Display Board?
whitespirit wrote:Bought my ticket today! This will be my first GT. It is about time I unleash my Tigress Sisters of Battle.
Cool, hope to see you there with my Necrons.
whitespirit wrote:so a few quick questions as I have never done this before. If this is in the wrong place I apologize.
I'll try to answer your questions.
whitespirit wrote:Do I need to supply the objectives for seize ground/control missions?
It can't hurt to have them just in case.
whitespirit wrote:How many copies of my list do I need? Typed? (as I don't own army builder)
As long as the list is legible, it's fine. As for number of copies, one for the judges, one for you and one for each of your opponents is what I take to tourneys.
whitespirit wrote:Display Board?
It can't hurt just for moving your army from game to game. Mine is an $8 wooden tray from Target, nothing fancy. I do want to spice it up a bit when I'm gainfully employed once again.
whitespirit wrote:Bought my ticket today! This will be my first GT. It is about time I unleash my Tigress Sisters of Battle.
Great! I'm excited to see you there!
whitespirit wrote:so a few quick questions as I have never done this before. If this is in the wrong place I apologize
Do I need to supply the objectives for seize ground/control missions?
Yes; the Seize Ground objectives should be on 25mm bases and the Capture and Control should be on 40mm bases.
whitespirit wrote:How many copies of my list do I need? Typed? (as I don't own army builder)
You need one copy to give to us; one copy to give to each of your opponents; and one copy for yourself. That's a total of 9 copies. Your list doesn't have to be constructed using Army Builder, but it must be typed, show all units, upgrades, and their individual point costs. It also needs to have your name on it.
whitespirit wrote:Display Board?
Display boards are not a requirement. That being said, you can probably imagine that unloading your army from your transport before each game and reloading it after each game can get pretty old pretty fast. Lots of players bring something as simple as a cookie sheet or corkboard to carry their army from game to game.
The only thing keeping me from coming up for this is the uncertainty about the next edition coming out. I might not have enough book time if it comes out 4 weeks before the event to play with any kind of clue. Will wait and see...
The release of the new, sixth edition ruleset for Warhammer 40,000 is confirmed for June 30, 2012. Based on that date, we’re going to be using SIXTH EDITION rules for the Golden Throne Grand Tournament. We will be supporting players in their efforts to learn the new rules by posting weekly articles on our website.
robpace wrote:If 6th edition hits on or before July 02, 2012, we'll update the scenarios to use the new rules. If it hits after that we'll stick with 5th edition rules. It wouldn't be fair of us to implement sweeping changes to the rules so close to the event.
For those of you asking about the possibility of sixth edition. It looks like we'll be sticking with fifth, since sixth is likely to drop in early to mid-July.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Defeatmyarmy wrote:Are refunds available if unable to attend the event? Working full time, Ive missed 2 of the last GTs because of limited coverage at work.
Unfortunately not.
Well then, take a risk and throw my money in the pool I will lol. $50 isnt a lot to me, it is still a good amount of cash though.
The release of the new, sixth edition ruleset for Warhammer 40,000 is confirmed for June 30, 2012. Based on that date, we’re going to be using SIXTH EDITION rules for the Golden Throne Grand Tournament. We will be supporting players in their efforts to learn the new rules by posting weekly articles on our website.
Janthkin wrote:That disappoints me, actually. If we see the new rules at the end of June, I'd rather not have to return mentally to 5e over a month later.
We've just gotten official word from the head of Trade Sales that the official release date of sixth edition is June 30. We're going to go with sixth edition for the Golden Throne. More details on the way!
Automatically Appended Next Post: We will begin offering a bundled deal of 1 Golden Throne Singles Ticket + 1 Sixth Edition Rulebook on June 18, when the price for the new book is officially announced. If you've already bought a ticket, you'll still be able to pick up the rulebook at the discounted price.
We'll also be posting articles breaking down the rules of the new edition on our website following its release. We'll do everything we can to be certain this event runs smoothly and provides tons of fun to everyone who attends!
So it is 6th after all? Well then, that will make this the first gt with 6th Ed rules. Here's to hoping they don't suck! It will be interesting to see the data from this event. It will.give us a good idea of what is to come with the new edition.
Reecius wrote:So it is 6th after all? Well then, that will make this the first gt with 6th Ed rules. Here's to hoping they don't suck! It will be interesting to see the data from this event. It will.give us a good idea of what is to come with the new edition.
Yes, we're using 6th edition rules. With an official confirmation from GW of June 30 for the new book, we're now confident in officially committing to that new ruleset. We'll be supporting the use of 6th edition rules by offering a discounted 6th edition rulebook to anyone who purchases a Golden Throne ticket and by posting articles explaining the new rules on our website.
I am excited to give the 6th ed rules a try and see how the play out. It's cool you guys get first crack at it (I don't think the ATC are using 6th ed) so this will be a great way to gather some data on how 6th will change the meta.
Frankie, Will, myself....I think all of the Team are going that can. Probably ChristianA, Raw Dogger, Stave Stiff, and any of the other guys in Northen Cali. I would guess that there will be 6-10 of us there.
Reecius wrote:Frankie, Will, myself....I think all of the Team are going that can. Probably ChristianA, Raw Dogger, Stave Stiff, and any of the other guys in Northen Cali. I would guess that there will be 6-10 of us there.
Will won his ticket at our in-store primer event, after going 6-0 with Chaos Daemons. I really hope that he brings them to the Golden Throne so that we can see what a good player can do at a big event like this.
Looking forward to this one. You may have one of the first major 6th edition events out there, and it'll be interesting to see how things shake out. I love the period in games where what is and isn't good is not fully understood, so people try out lots of crazy stuff, and that looks to be exactly what we'll get here.
We're now offering the Sixth Edition Core Rulebook for just $55.68 with the purchase of a Golden Throne Singles Ticket! That's 25% off the regular price for the book! If you're not in Northern California or don't feel like making the trip out to Stockton to pick up your book in-store, we'll ship it for just $7 (about half the actual shipping cost).
UPDATE: We will ONLY be offering the core rulebook for shipped orders. The Gamer's Edition and Collector's Edition are both low-margin items for us and we would be selling them at a loss if we shipped them.
Well, decided this event is not worth using my PTO on, not gonna waste my time going to this event. There's just too many new things I have going on right now to learn a 200+ page book on rules in a month and working full time and painting my army to a high quality level. Due to the fact that you changed it to 6th after I payed with no refunds allowed is just too much of a headache so Im going to just let that go since thats only 3 hours pay.
$50 wasted, lesson learned: always pay last minute, cause anything can happen, like my 2 co-workers who were supposed to cover my shift: 1 quit, the otehr one fired for being an idiot. Frontline Games this weekend is going to be my last tournament until the BAO.. Best of luck to all who can attend, really wanted to go to this.
Defeatmyarmy wrote:Well, decided this event is not worth using my PTO on, not gonna waste my time going to this event. There's just too many new things I have going on right now to learn a 200+ page book on rules in a month and working full time and painting my army to a high quality level. Due to the fact that you changed it to 6th after I payed with no refunds allowed is just too much of a headache so Im going to just let that go since thats only 3 hours pay.
$50 wasted, lesson learned: always pay last minute, cause anything can happen, like my 2 co-workers who were supposed to cover my shift: 1 quit, the otehr one fired for being an idiot. Frontline Games this weekend is going to be my last tournament until the BAO.. Best of luck to all who can attend, really wanted to go to this.
I'm sorry that you feel that way. For what it's worth, we're putting a huge amount of effort into making it easy to play sixth edition at this event, including prepping articles and videos about the new rules that we'll be publishing on our website next week, selling the core rulebook at 25% off with the purchase of a singles ticket, and eliminating the paint requirement entirely.
If you haven’t already heard, the Golden Throne Grand Tournament will be the first major event in the United States to use the Warhammer 40,000 sixth edition ruleset. After careful consideration, we’ve made the following adjustments to our tournament format:
We will play six Swiss rounds (four on Saturday, two more on Sunday), and the top four players following those rounds will play two bracketed single elimination games to determine final standings and the overall tournament champion.
The main event will be played at 1500 points. We will allot 2 hours and 15 minutes per round.
We will be using BRB scenarios, which will be finalized and posted tomorrow, July 4.
The Team Tournament format has been adjusted as well; 750pts per player, 1500pts per team. We'll post the scenarios tomorrow, July 4.
We have completely eliminated our paint requirement; if you want to build an entirely new army based on the new rules, go for it. We won’t penalize you in any way for not being painted.
Allies and fortifications are allowed per the sixth edition rulebook. For instructions on how fortifications are deployed please refer to our Scenarios page.
Mysterious Forest and Mysterious River rules are in effect, with the following modification: the first player to encounter mysterious terrain rolls on the appropriate table (BRBpg 102-103), and thereafter all terrain of the same type is treated the same. For example, if a player encounters a Mysterious Forest and rolls a 4 – Ironbark Forest, all forests on the board will be treated as Ironbark Forests for the remainder of the game.
We will not use special rules for Battlefield debris (BRBpg 104-105; specifically Reserves modification, benefits from statues, etc.), but we will apply cover saves as noted on those pages.
We’re still selling the sixth edition rulebook at 25% off MSRP with the purchase of a Golden Throne ticket.
Games Workshop has updated the FAQs for all legal armies to comply with sixth edition rules.
We will be posting articles explaining the new ruleset on our website beginning July 4.
We are currently building a sixth edition FAQ of our own to deal with uncommon rules interactions that have not been spelled out in official documents. Have a question? Ask us, and we’ll add it to the FAQ!
Please send any rules questions you have to me through dakka's PM system or email at rpace@heroesonpaper.com. We'll answer them quickly and next week we'll release an event-specific FAQ.
So I have purchased my ticket and now trying to see how to get the rulebook at 25% off. Is there a link I missed? if so sorry. What information do I need to give? or is the rulebook an at the door purchase?
whitespirit wrote:So I have purchased my ticket and now trying to see how to get the rulebook at 25% off. Is there a link I missed? if so sorry. What information do I need to give? or is the rulebook an at the door purchase?
We have a rulebook + ticket bundle on the website at the same place you bought your ticket. If you missed that, PM me your email address and I'll send you a Paypal invoice.
What's the deadline on new stuff being allowed? For instance, if Codex: Dark Angels or Codex: Chaos drops July 30th or August 1st, will it be allowed at this event, or will you guys go with the old rules in such cases?
Fetterkey wrote:What's the deadline on new stuff being allowed? For instance, if Codex: Dark Angels or Codex: Chaos drops July 30th or August 1st, will it be allowed at this event, or will you guys go with the old rules in such cases?
No new releases will be used this time around. I highly doubt that's going to be an issue; it's unlikely GW will release a new codex within a month of the new edition.
Amerikon wrote:Is there a forum where we can discuss the FAQ or would this be an appropriate venue for that?
Our Facebook group would probably be the best place; you can find that here. You can also call the store at (209) 473-4999 or use the email link on the FAQ itself if you have questions or concerns.
Hey Rob, we've got a pretty big group coming from out store and the Team. How are you guys doing pairings? Can we not play each other first round? That is always a bummer when you travel to an event and have to play someone you play all the time, first round.
Reecius wrote:Hey Rob, we've got a pretty big group coming from out store and the Team. How are you guys doing pairings? Can we not play each other first round? That is always a bummer when you travel to an event and have to play someone you play all the time, first round.
We will offer pairings breaks for the first round so that you won't have to play someone that you came with. For every other round pairings will depend entirely on standings.
I have a couple questions regarding your FAQ for this event:
Q: Does Rending apply to Hammer of Wrath attacks?
A: No, because pg 37 of the BRB states that HoW attacks are resolved at AP -.
Why wouldn't Rending apply if a model's, as an example a Necron Wraith, attacks are already AP -? Rending is triggered on the to wound roll, not the to hit roll, and is a special rule for that model that is not dependant on the AP value of any weapons it has. Why shouldn't a model get the special rules given to it?
Q: Is Dante’s Axe Mortalis an Unusual Power Weapon (AP3)?
A: No. Dante’s Axe Mortalis has no special rules aside from being Master-Crafted, and is therefore a Power Axe.
I have to disagree with this. Because Dante's Axe has the Master Crafted special rule then it is classified as an Unusual Power Weapon. If the Axe was just a plain Power Weapon with no additional rules attached then you look at the weapon to see what kind of weapon it is...in the case of Dante it would be classified as a Power Axe if it wasn't Master Crafted.
Zathras wrote:Why wouldn't Rending apply if a model's, as an example a Necron Wraith, attacks are already AP -? Rending is triggered on the to wound roll, not the to hit roll, and is a special rule for that model that is not dependant on the AP value of any weapons it has. Why shouldn't a model get the special rules given to it?
Hammer of Wrath attacks are resolved at a model's base strength and AP - regardless of wargear. These attacks are reflective of models colliding at high speed, and not tactical strikes in close combat.
I have to disagree with this. Because Dante's Axe has the Master Crafted special rule then it is classified as an Unusual Power Weapon. If the Axe was just a plain Power Weapon with no additional rules attached then you look at the weapon to see what kind of weapon it is...in the case of Dante it would be classified as a Power Axe if it wasn't Master Crafted.
Giving a common special rule to a weapon does not make it Unusual. Dante's Axe Mortalis has no special rules aside from Master-Crafted, and is therefore a Master-Crafted Power Axe.
A: will you be incorporating the possible BAO style warlord traits roll (IE: a roll of 4 on the warlord table would let you take a #4 roll from one of the three)?
B: Can a Necron Doomscythe's death ray, which marks a point (never specifying if that point can be on an enemy model or not) withing 12" of the gun fire at other flyers as well? nowhere in the FAQ or the codex does it state that it cannont, not does it say that the weapon is a "template" weapon anywhere either. All further information state that it's a 1mm wide beam and that the tesla destructor can then target one of the units under the line to fire at.
IronfrontAlex wrote:A: will you be incorporating the possible BAO style warlord traits roll (IE: a roll of 4 on the warlord table would let you take a #4 roll from one of the three)?
No. We have made minimal changes to the already-quite-level playing field of sixth edition. The changes we've made are:
-Players should first roll off to place objectives, then roll off to choose deployment zones. The only situation in which a player should know their deployment zone prior to placing objectives is when playing The Emperor’s Will.
-Prior to deployment, and beginning with the player deploying first, each player must deploy any Fortifications they may have in their own deployment zones. Fortifications may not be placed within 3″ of a board edge. If it is impossible to deploy a Fortification, the controlling player may adjust one piece of terrain the minimum distance necessary for their Fortification to be deployed.
-The first time a Mysterious table roll is made in any game (for Mysterious Forests, Rivers, and Objectives), the result is applied to all applicable targets on the board. For example, if the first player to encounter a forest discovers that it is an Ironbark Forest, the same rule will apply to all forests on the board.
B: Can a Necron Doomscythe's death ray, which marks a point (never specifying if that point can be on an enemy model or not) withing 12" of the gun fire at other flyers as well? nowhere in the FAQ or the codex does it state that it cannont, not does it say that the weapon is a "template" weapon anywhere either. All further information state that it's a 1mm wide beam and that the tesla destructor can then target one of the units under the line to fire at.
We'll research this and post an answer in our FAQ and here on Monday.
We're excited to announce Bounty Matches at the Golden Throne San Jose! Each round we'll select two matches to place bounties on, and the winner of those matches walks away with a 4-pack of Armory Spray Primer courtesy of GTM Magazine!
Want to play in a bounty match? Tell us why we should pick you! We'll base our selections on anything from an innovative army build to a great paint scheme or cool conversions.
Are you guys going to put up updated FAQs anytime soon? I still haven't seen a ruling on those Scythes, and this can be very critical information for those of us that are trying to get lists together.
Fetterkey wrote:Are you guys going to put up updated FAQs anytime soon? I still haven't seen a ruling on those Scythes, and this can be very critical information for those of us that are trying to get lists together.
The next update goes up Sunday. What's your specific question?
"B: Can a Necron Doomscythe's death ray, which marks a point (never specifying if that point can be on an enemy model or not) withing 12" of the gun fire at other flyers as well? nowhere in the FAQ or the codex does it state that it cannont, not does it say that the weapon is a "template" weapon anywhere either. All further information state that it's a 1mm wide beam and that the tesla destructor can then target one of the units under the line to fire at. "
It isn't a template weapon, nothing in its description makes, lists, or names it as one or even like one. I've been playing in mini tourneys where we just keep it in the limbo where it effects everything (feth it IS a DEATH RAY after all) But I saw a thread o dakka earlier giving good ideas on how to deliberate on it.
but yes this is incredibly important call to make.
robpace wrote:Today's FAQ update was delayed due to a break-in at our retail store. We'll have it up early tomorrow morning instead. Sorry for the wait!
Thanks for the well-wishes, guys. It was a group of YuGiOh players who were smart enough to burglarize a store they knew had a camera system, so they've all been identified and should be sporting some snazzy new bracelets soon.
robpace wrote:Thanks for the well-wishes, guys. It was a group of YuGiOh players who were smart enough to burglarize a store they knew had a camera system, so they've all been identified and should be sporting some snazzy new bracelets soon.
Sounds good, glad to hear the thieves were identified! People like that are a drain on the hobby.
I don't see answers to two questions I had submitted (one regarding Signums/Voice of Experience and flyers, and one regarding Bastion weapon upgrades). These are fairly important issues for my army composition-- any chance of an update before the event?
Fetterkey wrote:I don't see answers to two questions I had submitted (one regarding Signums/Voice of Experience and flyers, and one regarding Bastion weapon upgrades). These are fairly important issues for my army composition-- any chance of an update before the event?
Those are being debated at the moment and will be finalized tonight.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Updates to our FAQ:
Q: Can a Necron Doom Scythe’s Death Ray hit a Flyer in Zoom Mode?
A: Yes; the controlling player must elect to use Skyfire prior to shooting, and during that turn the Death Ray may not hit anything except for Flyers.
Q: How does a Space Marine Signum interact with Snap Shot?
A: If a Signum is used, the controlling player should roll off to determine which final value modifier is applied first (for example, a roll of 1-3 would mean that you fire at BS1 and a roll of 4-6 would mean that you fire at BS5). This holds true for all final value modifiers.
Q: Do Icarus lascannons or quad-guns taken by a bastion count as gun emplacements or as emplaced guns?
A: They are treated as emplaced guns and may not be targeted separately from the building.
Q: Do fortifications count as vehicles for the purposes of shooting (Lance, Haywire, Melta, etc.)?
A: Yes.
Q: If I shoot my opponent’s vehicle during my Shooting Phase and wreck it, can the squad that emergency disembarks launch an assault during its next turn?
A: No. It will also count as having moved for the purposes of shooting during its next Shooting Phase.
When a necron night scythe gets downed, do the occupants take the S10 hit first and then go into reserves or do they bypass the damage and go directly into reserves?
I believe in last edition (5E), they went into reserves instead of taking damage from an explosion result.
Also, if they do take the hit, how would you resolve Morale and Reanimation Protocols if they are in reserves?
When a necron night scythe gets downed, do the occupants take the S10 hit first and then go into reserves or do they bypass the damage and go directly into reserves?
I believe in last edition (5E), they went into reserves instead of taking damage from an explosion result.
Also, if they do take the hit, how would you resolve Morale and Reanimation Protocols if they are in reserves?
Thanks.
I'll add the answer to this one tonight (they go back into Reserves without suffering damage).
Now this is how the tables look like after they put terrain on them.
If a TO wants to run a large event they need to make a lot of terrain like Mike Brandt at the NOVA Open, or limit the numbers of entrants like the 11th Company does for their tournaments.
I'll admit that the terrain was a bit sparse, but that shot makes it look extra bad. There was always some BLOS in the middle (which I found universally annoying so it must have been doing its job) and even the most barren table had at least 6 terrain features.
I think the biggest problem (and I've seen this before, not just at this GT) was the fact that the terrain didn't account well for the Hammer and Anvil deployment pattern. In that case, the middle terrain piece was largely negated. I think that's part of the 6E learning process though.
Overall, I think the tournament was a great success especially as a new tourney and the first to operate under the new rules.
Now this is how the tables look like after they put terrain on them.
If a TO wants to run a large event they need to make a lot of terrain like Mike Brandt at the NOVA Open, or limit the numbers of entrants like the 11th Company does for their tournaments.
I apologize, but I took this picture before they finished setting up all the terrain.
There was actually more terrain than that, though it still wasn't really up to the 25% standard of 5E (and I'm guessing up to the standards of 6E as well).
But I took advantage of every little terrain piece that there was, especially against Amerikon's Battle Sisters and Christian's Grey Knights.
Blackmoor wrote:
If a TO wants to run a large event they need to make a lot of terrain like Mike Brandt at the NOVA Open, or limit the numbers of entrants like the 11th Company does for their tournaments.
Yeah, that photo shows the terrain being unloaded, not actually set. Each table had roughly 25% coverage (although we did have an issue with someone repeatedly removing two ruins from table 18 and putting them on an empty table in the back of the room).
Top four finishers, in order:
Necrons
Grey Knights
Eldar/Dark Eldar
Sisters of Battle
Thanks for coming, everyone! We had a great time. We'll be posting an in-depth tournament breakdown sometime this week.
robpace wrote:Yeah, that photo shows the terrain being unloaded, not actually set. Each table had roughly 25% coverage (although we did have an issue with someone repeatedly removing two ruins from table 18 and putting them on an empty table in the back of the room).
I had quite a bit of fun at this tournament, and I greatly appreciate the effort that you & your crew put into the event, Rob. Excepting the "cash only" nature of the adjacent (beer-selling!) snack bar, the venue was fantastic, and once we got started, everything seemed to run pretty smoothly. I ran into a few first-major-event players, and they were very happy with the experience, so you've brought some fresh blood into the fold. Please accept my sincere thanks, and my sincere congratulations.
But that wasn't 25%. 25% of a 6x4 table is 6 square feet of terrain; most of the tables might have had half of that. Worse, most of the hills tended to be lurking towards the edges of the boards (or up against the edges, as with those otherwise nice large hills with one completely flat edge), where they had zero game impact. A fair number of the tables had zero area terrain (because the ruins had no bases, there were zero forests, and the few rivers/lakes aren't area terrain in 6e), which presents a unique problem for Tyranids - "lurking" Tyranids have no where to run to (and it's not a great situation for my poor Ymgarl, either).
Janthkin wrote:But that wasn't 25%. 25% of a 6x4 table is 6 square feet of terrain; most of the tables might have had half of that. Worse, most of the hills tended to be lurking towards the edges of the boards (or up against the edges, as with those otherwise nice large hills with one completely flat edge), where they had zero game impact. A fair number of the tables had zero area terrain (because the ruins had no bases, there were zero forests, and the few rivers/lakes aren't area terrain in 6e), which presents a unique problem for Tyranids - "lurking" Tyranids have no where to run to (and it's not a great situation for my poor Ymgarl, either).
The lack of bases on ruins is something we'll address prior to future events. We fully planned on basing each ruin (you probably noticed that a number were based, but the Shrine of the Aquila kits weren't), but we spent the past week dealing with insurance and police over a burglary at the store and that put us way behind schedule on terrain. Construction of additional area terrain also got cut, and for the same reason. Future events will feature a more balanced selection of terrain on each board.
Thanks for coming, and I appreciate the feedback. We had a great weekend, and I'm glad you enjoyed yourself!
Tyranids vs. Sam Hain Eldar (with Dark Eldar biker & Venom-mounted allies).
Top of turn 2, the Eldar jetbike Seer council approaches the one mysterious forest on the table (possibly in the entire hall), and discovers that it is a Carnivorous Forest.
Bottom of turn 2, Ymgarl Genestealers erupt from the forest, Gargoyles fly over & through it, and lock the Seer Council into combat, in the carnivorous forest, for the rest of the game. For a while, the forest had a higher body count than the two sets of combatants combined.
Reecius wrote:As we predicted the top lists were MSU, Flyers and Deathstars.
I'm having a rough time figuring out what else there is in the game. Help?
Hybrid/Foot Sisters?
Tyranids.
I was just going to add Nidzilla . Tyranids are not too , Vince was pretty high up on the last round wasn't he? What place did you end up finishing in?
Reecius wrote:As we predicted the top lists were MSU, Flyers and Deathstars.
Weren't the top lists balanced Necrons (four flyers is not a spam), non-MSU Grey Knights/IG (all ten-man squads), balanced Sisters, and deathstar Eldar/Dark Eldar? Aside from the one Eldar list, I'd say the tournament was more than anything a victory for balanced armies...
Yeah, Nids were kicking ass, too. I was going to bring Nids as well, but I just didn't have time to put them together.
And Amerikon's sisters I think are a good representation of a solid 6th list as well, with a majority of skirmishing infantry units on foot. Celestine in book missions is crazy good, too.
@Robpace
Are you being sarcastic or was that a literal question? There are tons of other builds. Those three were the builds we were thinking would be the top and they were, that was my only point.
It was good to see a lot of the theory applies in a tournament setting as a lot of the stuff we were worried about turned out to be no big deal and a lot of the stuff we thought to be crappy, really were.
It definitely affected how we will structure our events gong forward as I thought it would. The more experience we get, the better the format we can build.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Fetterkey
No really. The GK list was hard core MSU, the Crons were Flyer/Wraith spam, and the Dark Harliestar list was what it was.
The Sisters army was the only one I think you could call balanced, TBH.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I guess you could call say that 4 flyers wasn't spamming, but at 1500 pts it was more than anyone could deal with. He only had 4 minimum sized warrior squads for troops and wraiths. It was not what I would consider a "balanced" list per se, but that is pretty subjective.
Are you being sarcastic or was that a literal question? There are tons of other builds. Those three were the builds we were thinking would be the top and they were, that was my only point.
It was good to see a lot of the theory applies in a tournament setting as a lot of the stuff we were worried about turned out to be no big deal and a lot of the stuff we thought to be crappy, really were.
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm just having a hard time following you. In the top four we literally had one deathstar army, one Flyer army, one MSU army, and one 'standard' army. Each of those armies made it to the top four through exceptional play -- Jim in particular was interesting to watch, because his mastery of his Flyers was fantastic. I think we may just have different ways of thinking about things. No big deal. I'm glad to hear that you're not worried about sixth being difficult to play competitively anymore.
Just to clarify, Christian Alessi's MSU army was the Grey Knights, and he finished in second place. Julian's army was the IG/GK allies.
Nope, it was Chrsitian's Coteaz GK, with 3 man units in Psybacks, Psyfilmen dreads, 5 man purifier squads and a Dreadknight. Like 19 KP or something crazy?
It was a bummer because the last mission was Jy2 vs. Christian for the second time. Christian beat him in an objective mission round 6 of the event, and then Rob said the finals would be KP. Jim only had 11 KP, 4 of which were flyers, and 2 of which were Wraith squads. Wasn't much of a game which stinks as the 2 semi-final games were incredible, both came down to the last toss of the dice.
I really don't think KP is a good choice for a final game in 6th (or any edition, really). It is too imbalanced of a mission, and it is only 1/6 of book missions. I think choosing the least common mission for the final game of a GT is a poor choice. It would be like choosing dawn of war, cap and control for a final mission in 5th, IMO.
I can see his logic though, as game 7 was just straight objectives, and the finals were straight KP. It was just a bit of a bummer to see such a lopsided final game as Christian had nowhere to hide on the table (first year tournaments suffer from a lack of terrain as we know all too well) and just got shot up by flyers.
Rob also made a really questionable rules call in that game that essentially gave the game to Jy2. He ruled mid-game that Coteaz couldn't use his special rule to shoot units coming in from reserves from inside a vehicle after both players had decided to play that you could, and Christian had geared his entire strategy around it.
After rolling 4 6's to hit an incoming flyer, Rob said he couldn't complete the action despite the fact that the two players had already been playing it that way and Christian had completed a shooting action using that rule form inside his Rhino once that turn already. He also wouldn't allow Christian to get his unit out of the transport which he could have done had he known that was the way the game was going to be played from the start.
After both players had already agreed to go one way, that was a bad call, IMO. I am not at all trying to throw Rob under the bus here, but as an observer it felt like a really, really bad way to rule it as neither player even asked about it. I think it was too late and far too harsh on Chrsitian to go that route literally, mid action. Had he at least been able to get out of his transport (which he would have done had he known that was the ruling that would be made) it would have been somewhat fair. But having just rolled 4 6's to hit an incoming flyer with psycannons and then being told you couldn't do it was rough. At that point it was game over as Chrsitian was completely over-extended in Jim's deployment zone and his entire plan fell apart as he and Jim had been playing that he could in fact do that.
Jim came in from reserves with some Wraiths thinking he could assault, but found out he couldn't, and wasn't allowed to change his move, which was Rob's counter, but I don't think that was a good analog. That is a basic rule book rule that Jim forgot, while Christian's ruling was based off of the Necron FAQ, I believe, and not so clear cut. Both players had agreed to it pre-game as well.
At any rate, I don't want to bog this down, and there are no hard feelings on any of our side as we understand rulings have to be made, but we did feel that that was a really bad call and it essentially decided the game.
Reecius wrote:I really don't think KP is a good choice for a final game in 6th (or any edition, really). It is too imbalanced of a mission, and it is only 1/6 of book missions. I think choosing the least common mission for the final game of a GT is a poor choice. It would be like choosing dawn of war, cap and control for a final mission in 5th, IMO.
I can see his logic though, as game 7 was just straight objectives, and the finals were straight KP. It was just a bit of a bummer to see such a lopsided final game as Christian had nowhere to hide on the table (first year tournaments suffer from a lack of terrain as we know all too well) and just got shot up by flyers.
My understanding is that the two final missions were determined randomly ahead of time, but kept secret.
Are you being sarcastic or was that a literal question? There are tons of other builds. Those three were the builds we were thinking would be the top and they were, that was my only point.
It was good to see a lot of the theory applies in a tournament setting as a lot of the stuff we were worried about turned out to be no big deal and a lot of the stuff we thought to be crappy, really were.
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm just having a hard time following you. In the top four we literally had one deathstar army, one Flyer army, one MSU army, and one 'standard' army. Each of those armies made it to the top four through exceptional play -- Jim in particular was interesting to watch, because his mastery of his Flyers was fantastic. I think we may just have different ways of thinking about things. No big deal. I'm glad to hear that you're not worried about sixth being difficult to play competitively anymore.
Just to clarify, Christian Alessi's MSU army was the Grey Knights, and he finished in second place. Julian's army was the IG/GK allies.
Must be a disconnect here as we essentially said the same thing.
We predicted MSU, Deathstars and Flyer based lists would be the lists to beat.
In the finals we had:
MSU Flyer based list
Deathstar
Standard list
Pretty much the exact results we anticipated are what we got.
I am not in any way trying to say the lists won (I never say that, and 2 of those guys were my teammates, haha) just that those were the builds we felt would be most powerful. Combine that with good players and you get somewhat predictable results.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amerikon wrote:
Reecius wrote:I really don't think KP is a good choice for a final game in 6th (or any edition, really). It is too imbalanced of a mission, and it is only 1/6 of book missions. I think choosing the least common mission for the final game of a GT is a poor choice. It would be like choosing dawn of war, cap and control for a final mission in 5th, IMO.
I can see his logic though, as game 7 was just straight objectives, and the finals were straight KP. It was just a bit of a bummer to see such a lopsided final game as Christian had nowhere to hide on the table (first year tournaments suffer from a lack of terrain as we know all too well) and just got shot up by flyers.
My understanding is that the two final missions were determined randomly ahead of time, but kept secret.
I don't know how they were determined and could only speculate (which is what I was doing, maybe I wasn't clear enough in that). I was assuming it was decided ahead of time, but I do not know that.
Why they were kept secret I don't know, there's no reason to.
And I want to be crystal clear, we are not even insinuating that anything improper was going on, but when we're all gearing up for the finals and they announce it's KP in a really bad match-up for our guy, it is a bit of a bummer, obviously. It is what it is, and I was offering my opinions on it as a final mission (whether intentional or not). Honestly, even if it was random, the final game in a GT shouldn't have a random mission, IMO.
Reecius wrote:Nope, it was Chrsitian's Coteaz GK, with 3 man units in Psybacks, Psyfilmen dreads, 5 man purifier squads and a Dreadknight. Like 19 KP or something crazy?
It was a bummer because the last mission was Jy2 vs. Christian for the second time. Christian beat him in an objective mission round 6 of the event, and then Rob said the finals would be KP. Jim only had 11 KP, 4 of which were flyers, and 2 of which were Wraith squads. Wasn't much of a game which stinks as the 2 semi-final games were incredible, both came down to the last toss of the dice.
I really don't think KP is a good choice for a final game in 6th (or any edition, really). It is too imbalanced of a mission, and it is only 1/6 of book missions. I think choosing the least common mission for the final game of a GT is a poor choice. It would be like choosing dawn of war, cap and control for a final mission in 5th, IMO.
I can see his logic though, as game 7 was just straight objectives, and the finals were straight KP. It was just a bit of a bummer to see such a lopsided final game as Christian had nowhere to hide on the table (first year tournaments suffer from a lack of terrain as we know all too well) and just got shot up by flyers.
Rob also made a really questionable rules call in that game that essentially gave the game to Jy2. He ruled mid-game that Coteaz couldn't use his special rule to shoot units coming in from reserves from inside a vehicle after both players had decided to play that you could, and Christian had geared his entire strategy around it.
After rolling 4 6's to hit an incoming flyer, Rob said he couldn't complete the action despite the fact that the two players had already been playing it that way and Christian had completed a shooting action using that rule form inside his Rhino once that turn already. He also wouldn't allow Christian to get his unit out of the transport which he could have done had he known that was the way the game was going to be played from the start.
After both players had already agreed to go one way, that was a bad call, IMO. I am not at all trying to throw Rob under the bus here, but as an observer it felt like a really, really bad way to rule it as neither player even asked about it. I think it was too late and far too harsh on Chrsitian to go that route literally, mid action. Had he at least been able to get out of his transport (which he would have done had he known that was the ruling that would be made) it would have been somewhat fair. But having just rolled 4 6's to hit an incoming flyer with psycannons and then being told you couldn't do it was rough. At that point it was game over as Chrsitian was completely over-extended in Jim's deployment zone and his entire plan fell apart as he and Jim had been playing that he could in fact do that.
Jim came in from reserves with some Wraiths thinking he could assault, but found out he couldn't, and wasn't allowed to change his move, which was Rob's counter, but I don't think that was a good analog. That is a basic rule book rule that Jim forgot, while Christian's ruling was based off of the Necron FAQ, I believe, and not so clear cut. Both players had agreed to it pre-game as well.
At any rate, I don't want to bog this down, and there are no hard feelings on any of our side as we understand rulings have to be made, but we did feel that that was a really bad call and it essentially decided the game.
Reece, a whole bunch of that post is a fabrication, and the tone's pretty damn offensive.
I was not watching the match when Jim walked onto the board with his Wraiths and asked me if Christian could Overwatch from a transport. I told him that he couldn't assault from Reserves, which he either didn't know or had forgotten. When determining how far past moving those models on the board the game had progressed, Christian told me that he'd already fired with Coteaz at them. At that point I made it clear that 1) both players had agreed that the Wraiths were on the board and moved past that action, so they were to stay where they were, and 2) Coteaz needs line of sight for his ability, which per the BRB he can't claim from inside a transport.
Those were my rulings. Christian didn't ask if he could disembark (you did, which was inappropriate during a final game where spectators should never influence strategic decisions).
While players do have some amount of flexibility in their games (like deciding what's area terrain vs. a Mysterious Pool, etc), these are hard-and-fast rules and it's fully my responsibility as a judge to make sure that the final game is not determined by a misunderstood rule.
Insofar as Kill Points go: it was a rough matchup for Christian, that's for sure. It was also randomly determined prior to the event (as was the semi-final game), and I'm sure that a player as skilled as Christian took the possibility of Kill Points into account when building his list. On our end, we took the possibility of bad dice or matchups in the finals into account and gave both players a 2000pt army for making it to the finals -- the last game was to determine the dollar value of those armies. I don't know of many other Grand Tournaments that go to that level of expense to make sure that players are rewarded for skillful play and not unduly punished by poor luck.
None of my post was fabrication, actually. You are right though, that it was my suggestion to at least allow him to get out of his transport. That was inappropriate, and I apologize. But nothing I said was a fabrication, I watched the entire thing play out.
If I offended you, then I apologize again. I went out of my way to say that I was not trying to demonize you or your event. if you read my post again you will see that I was empathizing with a lot of your choices, I just disagreed with a couple very critical ones.
As with Jim's game against Frankie, when Jim rolled too many attacks in the combat that decided the game, and then rolled a 9 for his leadership check, Jim and Frankie decided that Jim would reroll his 2 warriors' attacks and the result was that Jim lost combat by 2, which means he would have failed the morale check and most likely lost the game. You then ruled that he should be able to reroll his leadership test, which he passed and that was the game. Jim got the benefit of his mistake but not the penalty. His leadership check should have remained as it had already been rolled. His making a mistake should not have resulted in a benefit to him.
Again, I want to be TOTALLY clear. No one here thinks it was on purpose, no one thinks you were being improper, it just FELT like 2 judges rulings had a very big part in determining the result of both games in the finals. In the heat of the moment you have to make a choice though, and I am sure there are folks out there that feel that I have made bad calls too, and I am sure that I have.
There's no sour grapes on our end, we aren't trying to say the event was anything but fun and a success. It was just tough to see that twice in a row in the finals.
I don't mean to offend, but I am also not going to not express an honest criticism. How you choose to receive it is up to you. We fully intend to support your events going forward and to help to grow them in any way we can. Like I said, there's no hard feelings on our end at all so I ask that you take this in the spirit it is intended and not as a slight.
Reecius wrote:I don't mean to offend, but I am also not going to not express an honest criticism. How you choose to receive it is up to you. We fully intend to support your events going forward and to help to grow them in any way we can. Like I said, there's no hard feelings on our end at all so I ask that you take this in the spirit it is intended and not as a slight.
Sorry for not being more clear: I'm cool with listening to your opinions, whatever they are. I get that it's not intentional, but I'm not cool with your post getting facts wrong and putting a spin on my actions. Saying that I made a ruling specifically to hurt one player as a counter to another ruling made to hurt the opponent is totally wrong and out of line -- not to mention the fact that you got the sequence of events mixed up.
I understand that you don't think KP should be the finals match. I disagree, but I'll put your opinion in the mix when we're discussing the format for future events. I appreciate the feedback, and I do want to know if you have any other concerns you'd like to see addressed for future events.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BladeWalker wrote:Congrats jy2 on the win, very interested to read the reports from all the participants. How many attended the event?
Watching Jim play was nuts -- I've played a lot of games, and I've watched even more. I rarely see games where I go, "Wait, what?", but Jim's games were like that. The biggest drawback to Necron Flyers is their limited range of motion, and I learned a lot by watching his strategies.
Rereading my post I can see why you would think I was putting a spin on it, sorry about that. I probably didn't word it the best way that I could have.
We don't think that you were trying to influence the game at all, we understand all too well how hard it can be to make judgement calls in a game, particularly when you're doing it on your own, that's rough.
So, I owe you an apology, I can easily see how that came across as an attack, but I truly didn't mean it to be. It was like watching your Football team play and get a touchdown called back due to a call you disagree with and shouting at the TV.
You did a great job, Rob, it was a super fun tournament and we're excited for next year. If you need extra terrain or anything like that, all you have to do is ask, we've got piles of it and would be happy to bring it out.
And you have every right to run your event the way you want to. You can take mine (or anyone's) advice and toss it in the old round file, and that would be totally fair and I wouldn't take offense. I know a lot of the advice that we get on how to run the BAO we don't use. I appreciate the fact that you do listen to us, though, as our intention is only to help improve things as we want you to succeed.
So sorry for presenting my beef in a bad way, I should have said it better. I hope there's no hard feelings.
Reecius wrote:Rereading my post I can see why you would think I was putting a spin on it, sorry about that. I probably didn't word it the best way that I could have.
We don't think that you were trying to influence the game at all, we understand all too well how hard it can be to make judgement calls in a game, particularly when you're doing it on your own, that's rough.
So, I owe you an apology, I can easily see how that came across as an attack, but I truly didn't mean it to be. It was like watching your Football team play and get a touchdown called back due to a call you disagree with and shouting at the TV.
You did a great job, Rob, it was a super fun tournament and we're excited for next year. If you need extra terrain or anything like that, all you have to do is ask, we've got piles of it and would be happy to bring it out.
And you have every right to run your event the way you want to. You can take mine (or anyone's) advice and toss it in the old round file, and that would be totally fair and I wouldn't take offense. I know a lot of the advice that we get on how to run the BAO we don't use. I appreciate the fact that you do listen to us, though, as our intention is only to help improve things as we want you to succeed.
So sorry for presenting my beef in a bad way, I should have said it better. I hope there's no hard feelings.
Not at all, buddy. Next time we hang out I'll buy you a beer with a straw.
Reecius wrote:Nope, it was Chrsitian's Coteaz GK, with 3 man units in Psybacks, Psyfilmen dreads, 5 man purifier squads and a Dreadknight. Like 19 KP or something crazy?
Gotcha. Yeah, that's just about as MSU as it gets!
I edited up my video footage of the event, including interviews with both Reece and Jim. I should have a full written review of the event on my site tomorrow.
Edit-The embedded video was being funny and I fixed it.
Dugg wrote:I wish I could have been there. It sounds like I missed some good times. Next year for sure!
I have to ask about the Coteaz LOS from a Rhino rule. I haven't seen anything to say he can't do that. Can you point me to where you found that Rob?
We'll look forward to seeing you next year!
My understanding is that it's fairly cut-and-dried, if not explicitly stated:
-This is a special ability which requires LOS.
-LOS can be drawn from dedicated transports only for the purposes of making a Shooting attack.
Here's an INATFAQ ruling:
GK.45F.03 – Q: Can Coteaz utilize ‘I’ve Been
Expecting You’ while embarked in a vehicle or
building?
A: No, as this rule requires line of sight and is not a
shooting attack or psychic power [clarification].
Dugg wrote:I wish I could have been there. It sounds like I missed some good times. Next year for sure!
I have to ask about the Coteaz LOS from a Rhino rule. I haven't seen anything to say he can't do that. Can you point me to where you found that Rob?
Maybe he got it from this:
Page 78 under fire points "A fire point is a hatch or gun slit from which one or more passengers inside the vehicle can fire shooting weapons (or use witch fire/psychic shooting attacks).
Page 67 under declare target. "unless otherwise stated, the Psyker must have line of sight to his target. This means that a psyker embarked on a Transport can only target himself, his vehicle or another unit embarked on the same vehicle..."
I know Coteaz's rule is not a psychic power, but it does require that he have LOS to the target. These rules for psykers seem to indicate there is no LOS from inside a transport except for shooting attacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
robpace wrote:
Dugg wrote:I wish I could have been there. It sounds like I missed some good times. Next year for sure!
I have to ask about the Coteaz LOS from a Rhino rule. I haven't seen anything to say he can't do that. Can you point me to where you found that Rob?
We'll look forward to seeing you next year!
My understanding is that it's fairly cut-and-dried, if not explicitly stated:
-This is a special ability which requires LOS.
-LOS can be drawn from dedicated transports only for the purposes of making a Shooting attack.
Here's an INATFAQ ruling:
GK.45F.03 – Q: Can Coteaz utilize ‘I’ve Been
Expecting You’ while embarked in a vehicle or
building?
A: No, as this rule requires line of sight and is not a
shooting attack or psychic power [clarification].
That's an even better explanation than what I tried to say. And it's in the INAT also. I agree with the tourney ruling. It doesn't matter if both players agreed before the game that all lascannons now have a 12" range, you can't agree to a change to the BRB rules before the game.
Interesting. I was staying away from the INAT due to it being 5th still, correct?
The pg 67 & 78 combo seems to make it clear for non-shooting abilities. Fire Points = Firing.
So it would seem the only non-shooting that can happen from a vehicle that needs LOS is an IG Officer giving orders from a Mobile Command Vehicle (Chimera). Any others I'm missing?
Dugg wrote:Interesting. I was staying away from the INAT due to it being 5th still, correct?
The pg 67 & 78 combo seems to make it clear for non-shooting abilities. Fire Points = Firing.
That's correct -- this is not a new rule. Coteaz could not use his ability while embarked last edition, either.
Dugg wrote:So it would seem the only non-shooting that can happen from a vehicle that needs LOS is an IG Officer giving orders from a Mobile Command Vehicle (Chimera). Any others I'm missing?
Off the top of my head that's the only exception, and that's only because it's noted as an exception in the codex. The rule of thumb is that if a unit is embarked, it may only target itself with non-Shooting abilities which require LOS.
Dugg wrote:Interesting. I was staying away from the INAT due to it being 5th still, correct?
The pg 67 & 78 combo seems to make it clear for non-shooting abilities. Fire Points = Firing.
That's correct -- this is not a new rule. Coteaz could not use his ability while embarked last edition, either.
Dugg wrote:So it would seem the only non-shooting that can happen from a vehicle that needs LOS is an IG Officer giving orders from a Mobile Command Vehicle (Chimera). Any others I'm missing?
Off the top of my head that's the only exception, and that's only because it's noted as an exception in the codex. The rule of thumb is that if a unit is embarked, it may only target itself with non-Shooting abilities which require LOS.
That INAT ruling is now (partially) incorrect, in that previously GW had ruled in their 5th rulebook FAQ that psychic powers could be used from within a vehicle using the vehicle's firing points to draw line of sight out of it. This made psychic powers the exception to the other ruling they had in their 5th edition rulebook FAQ which was posted above (specifically clarifying that wargear and special rules could NOT use fire points to draw line of sight for these things.
While GW doesn't currently have a rulebook FAQ up, the basic premise that motivated their ruling still stands...by the RAW, the only times an embarked unit can draw line of sight from a vehicle is when firing (including shooting with witchfire psychic powers). In all other cases, units are not given permission to do so, and therefore cannot.
Therefore, IMHO, there is absolutely no question that Coteaz's ability should not be allowed to work while he's embarked in a vehicle. So from my point of view it sounds like Rob made the right rules call.
However, I know when we judge at Adepticon, we generally have the policy that allows players to play their game and only interfere with a rules judgement when the players request one to me made. This is a general principle that is pretty important to allow players to play the games they want to, because frankly if two players want to play with house rules, even in a tournament game, as long as they are both okay with playing that way, then they should be able to. Just because they're playing in a tournament doesn't change the fact that they're still playing the game against each other and therefore are in command of their own gaming experience.
With that said, even with that general policy at Adepticon, they still do have more judge interaction in the final 16 round on the second day, where judges will step in to point out what they believe to be rules mistakes...mainly because when the event is really on the line you don't want a forgotten rule to change the outcome of a game. Given that this game was pretty much the final, I think it is pretty reasonable to have a judge jump in to correct a rules issue they spot...however, from my perspective as a reader of the incident, if both players had literally agreed to play the rule one way and neither player had an issue with it, then their own judgement should have carried the day.
So when the error was pointed out, what was Jim's response to the situation?
Actually, the ruling came as a surprise to the both of us, as we were both not aware of this. I was aware of the 5E FAQ, but did not know that it applied here. So in essence, we were both playing it wrong due to ignorance.
This happened after Coteaz's unit already resolved the shooting against my wraiths (did 1W to them only) and were in the middle of resolving their shooting against my flyer.
I just took it as, oh, we both played it wrong but since we are still in the phase where I was moving my reserves onto the table, we had to redo it due to the judge's rules correction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What happened was this.
I asked Rob a question about overwatch from a vehicle. Rob saw the situation then. Firstly, he reminded me that my wraiths cannot assault on the turn they come in from reserves, which I totally forgot about.
Then he told us to hold on while he goes and checks up on a rule. At that point, I was still moving my units (flyers) in from reserves and Christian was in the process of resolving his Coteaz's special rule against my flyer. So we stopped until he came back to tell us about the rules correction on Coteaz.
And Jim, no one is trying to take anything away from you. You won, fair and square.
My point being that, as Yak pointed out, if the players were already playing it one way and the game was predicated round it, I would have let it ride as it was too late and too game changing to change it.
Hi Rob,
Are y'all planning to post the results on the website? I'd like to know what the breakdown of the lists were and how each army fared. As the first GT for the new edition this is our first glimpse into the possible "new meta". (I don't know why, but I feel dirty for saying that.)
Dozer Blades wrote:RHQ doesn't really mean anything in my opinion.
I agree, but since some people like seeing their names and it's only extra work for me and no one else we went ahead and uploaded the results. They should become public soon.
Reecius, about deathstars and MSU being good in 6th edition... that is casting a pretty wide net! Since those are at opposite ends of the spectrum . And definitely, flyers are scary atm since there aren't really counters except... other flyers.
Also, I think next time you might consider contacting the TO directly with your concerns about the call in the final game. The reasoning has been explained pretty clearly at this point, and maybe it wasn't the right way to go (or is, but should have been done sooner) but it certainly seems you could have raised your concerns in a better manner, particularly being a TO yourself.
Not trying to be too critical, but those are just my thoughts after seeing what I think probably could have been handled in a better manner, and how you'd probably appreciate someone handling a concern with an event that you host.
He was just speaking his mind at the time. We all have emotions and they can govern what we say. I don't think there was any ill intent - it just came off a little rough. Reecius is a good guy with passion for this game we play and that's a good thing.
tuiman wrote:Nids seemed to do well, making a comeback maybe?
It's a great army that's made even better by their access to new Psychic powers and the reduced emphasis on Kill Points in 6e. The more players fielding an army, the more reliable that army's average placement becomes in understanding the strength of the codex itself. We had five Tyranid players will an average placement of 16, far better than any other army (Dark Angels came in 8th, but that's on the strength of a single player; Orks also had an average placement of 16, but with only two players).
RiTides wrote:Reecius, about deathstars and MSU being good in 6th edition... that is casting a pretty wide net! Since those are at opposite ends of the spectrum . And definitely, flyers are scary atm since there aren't really counters except... other flyers.
Also, I think next time you might consider contacting the TO directly with your concerns about the call in the final game. The reasoning has been explained pretty clearly at this point, and maybe it wasn't the right way to go (or is, but should have been done sooner) but it certainly seems you could have raised your concerns in a better manner, particularly being a TO yourself.
Not trying to be too critical, but those are just my thoughts after seeing what I think probably could have been handled in a better manner, and how you'd probably appreciate someone handling a concern with an event that you host.
You're right.
I definitely could have handled it better. I don't mind honest criticism, it helps us to improve! Going forward, I will definitely use a little more discretion as I don't want to unintentionally hurt anyone's reputation.
@Dozer Blades
Thanks, I appreciate that! That was an emotionally based decision and as often happens with those, they can end up not going the way you planned.
tuiman wrote:Nids seemed to do well, making a comeback maybe?
to quote the LL Cool J song 'Mama Said Knock You Out'...
"Don't call it a comeback/I've been here for years."
Really though, I feel that a lessening in the mech environment (I only faced two players with vehicles, and one of them only had one trukk) and the changes to fearless. I feel this is much bigger than psyker changes. Also, this event was 1500. I am of the opinion that 1500 is the best place for Nids (I know some disagree), and so other events such as Nova later this month and Midwest Massacre in September could (and I predict will) have very different results.
L'Etat C'Est Moi wrote:Really though, I feel that a lessening in the mech environment (I only faced two players with vehicles, and one of them only had one trukk) and the changes to fearless. I feel this is much bigger than psyker changes. Also, this event was 1500. I am of the opinion that 1500 is the best place for Nids (I know some disagree), and so other events such as Nova later this month and Midwest Massacre in September could (and I predict will) have very different results.
I like some of the things 'Nids have going for them right now, and the removal of "No Retreat" is indeed very big, but I had a couple VERY uphill fights in my two losses (didn't help that the Tau/Space Wolves combo stole the initiative, but that was going to be really hard regardless).
The best things about the new vehicle rules (for Tyranids) are the ease in killing them with assault, and that the occupants can't counter-assault you afterwards.
Just paid.
