Didn't see anyone else have them all. Got them collected for everyone to look at on my blog.

Enjoy

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2014/04/04/tits-tournaments-adepticon-2014-top-16-championships-lists/

Four beaststars with Inquisitors! Wheeeeee!

Four Tzeentch Circuses, too.

Legion of the Damned Primary! HAHA!

GOOOO Nick and Brad!

Nick Nanavati defeated Rob Tilly in the finals. Daemons vs Daemons, although some variations on the list.

Second win in a row for Nick.

Good Lord! How many Psykers in that list?

I wish i knew how that SW player organized his pods with all his HQs and wolf guard, any guesses?

The inquisition will pimp itself out to anyone it looks like.

@tabletop Troy the SW player had Logan with the long fangs. A wolf priest with one of the plasma bombs. He also has the rune priests in 2 seperate pods so he can scissor jaws.

He's an acquaintance and a great dude!

I don't consider myself a fluff-bunny, but some of those lists are really cringe-worthy.

Thanks chance! So the wolfguard had combi plasma? I wonder if he put arjac in the same pod with the wolf priest

Chancetragedy wrote:
@tabletop Troy the SW player had Logan with the long fangs. A wolf priest with one of the plasma bombs. He also has the rune priests in 2 seperate pods so he can scissor jaws.

He's an acquaintance and a great dude!

Does Jaws work on a swooping FMC?

No.

eum yes
its a mc

How did the wolf list run 4 HQ's, double force chart?

Two HQs slot. it is part of the SW codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

odin wrote:
eum yes
its a mc

It cant hit flyers.

space wolves can take 2 hq's per slot but they cant have the same wargear or psychic powers (unless you roll book powers) lols the sw cheated

it can hit fcm when they are not flying what hopefully is the case when you drop down

odin wrote:
space wolves can take 2 hq's per slot but they cant have the same wargear or psychic powers (unless you roll book powers) lols the sw cheated
it can hit fcm when they are not flying what hopefully is the case when you drop down

Uh... how? they (his two rune priests) have different wargear. they aren't the same

Not really, they cant have the same COMBO of wargear. So they cant be carbon copies. So you could have both with Jaws, but one with LL and some other power that never gets taken.

whats does the exact wording of the rule say?

odin wrote:
eum yes
its a mc

Actually RAW it cannot hit any FMC gliding or Swooping, as FMC =/= MC

sockwithaticket wrote:
I don't consider myself a fluff-bunny, but some of those lists are really cringe-worthy.

You're just not forging the narrative hard enough. You need to take common sense and decency and put it on the anvil of allies and beat it iwith the dataslate DLC hammer until it fits 6th edition (and most importantly it sells GW some kits).

Am I reading the number 1 seed's list right? 6 riptides? How?

I think that is only 4 plus a whole metric ton of crisis suits as well.

There is only 4 ( including O'Vesa, a character ) in that list isn't there ?

The rest is crisis teams and kroot with the skyrays and Inq.

Ah ok, I thought the '3' followed by the little man sign meant how many models in the unit.

That's the 2 shielded missile drones he has with him, takes the mini's in the unit up to 3.

Its just a shame that allies and dataslates have muddied the waters in a competitive setting, there seems like so much going on, I would be lost in my own army.

Interesting that there's so few flyers in these lists [excluding FMCs]. Didn't realise that Inquisition were able to ally with Eldar - Eldar, Dark Eldar and Inquisition, lol

More variety (expected more tau dar but I guess people built for taudar) than I expected but the better players tend to not follow trends exactly.

Taudar is a powerful combination, but doesn't lend itself to the killer Deathstar builds Eldar/DE, Farsight/Tau, and Tau/SM can put out. Deathstars are most of what you're seeing in this top 16, each of which likely ran over a Eldau or Taudar list on their way to the finals.

Congratz to Nick! Well played sir, and awesome to win two years in a row.

Great seeing everyone as usual.

And yeah, Inquisitors in every list. No surprise there.

I havent looked at the inquisition codex yet, why is everyone taking an inquisitor?

 ironicsilence wrote:
I havent looked at the inquisition codex yet, why is everyone taking an inquisitor?

All the crazy rules that made grey knights good can now be used to help out other codex's that previously did not have those options available to them.
Plus they are cheap for what you get.



Edited for spelling.


News flash Nick won without screamer star. Flying circus with the grim. and Fate

You bring inquisition for servo skulls.

chipstar1 wrote:
You bring inquisition for servo skulls.

what do the servo skulls do?

Prevent grav from alpha striking your army.

 Tomb King wrote:




News flash Nick won without screamer star. Flying circus with the grim. and Fate

Screamerstar is the worst death star of the lot and not actually very good if your opponent has a clue what they're doing.

What is a screamerstar and what is this "grav" you're preventing? I'm not up on the current build nicknames since the Apoc at 1500pts 6e isn't exactly my thing.

Screamerstar:
A max unit of screamers of Tzeentch (jetbikes with melta melee and impact hits if moving over enemies) Joined by 4 heralds looking for the 4++ power in Divination with one equipped with the Grimoire to hopefully give the unit a 2++ rerollable save. Usually accompanied by Fateweaver to re-roll failed Grimoire attempts.

Grav guns are a new class of special weapon which chews up highly armored targets because it wounds you on your armor save value at AP2. They get 3 shots each at 18" and are usually taken enmasse on scouting bikes for a potent alpha strike.

TableTopJosh wrote:
Thanks chance! So the wolfguard had combi plasma? I wonder if he put arjac in the same pod with the wolf priest

Hello everyone Logan goes with lf and rp then the wp goes with the 8 man wg and i will either out the other rp with them or arjac

Had a blast with the army!

 Eldarain wrote:
Screamerstar:
A max unit of screamers of Tzeentch (jetbikes with melta melee and impact hits if moving over enemies) Joined by 4 heralds looking for the 4++ power in Divination with one equipped with the Grimoire to hopefully give the unit a 2++ rerollable save. Usually accompanied by Fateweaver to re-roll failed Grimoire attempts.

Grav guns are a new class of special weapon which chews up highly armored targets because it wounds you on your armor save value at AP2. They get 3 shots each at 18" and are usually taken enmasse on scouting bikes for a potent alpha strike.

Ah, thanks. I had heard of grav guns but it didn't click as I figured it was some cute name like *.* star that had little to do with the actual unit.

Grimwulfe, you give all pure SW players hope! I'll be reworking my Plasmagasm Loganwing list tomorrow.

Can I ask why you kept CC weapons on the WG over pistols? Was is just annoying modeling? Also, what was your strategy for dealing with those FMCs?

Looking at some of those lists showcases why we need Comp scores again. Most of those should have been dinged so hard on anything resembling army theme that they'd never win even if they went undefeated. After all that used to be the purpose of Comp - to punish people who ignored and/or abused the fluff and background of the army just to get the W.

I mean really... the background/fluff is all 40k really has going for it, yet it's bastardized buy utter ridiculousness designed just to min/max.

Quick question on the winning list: is there a record of which armies he faced? It's a strong list but I think Tyranids may have had the tools to deal with it.

 jifel wrote:
Quick question on the winning list: is there a record of which armies he faced? It's a strong list but I think Tyranids may have had the tools to deal with it.

I think so too, and I was scheduled to play Nick in round #1 with my 'Nids, but I overslept. :(

I wrote an article going over all of my games on torrent of fire. http://www.torrentoffire.com/4339/how-the-win-went-down

yermom wrote:
I wrote an article going over all of my games on torrent of fire. http://www.torrentoffire.com/4339/how-the-win-went-down

Congratulations on a well deserved victory! No doubt you had some strong opponents and faced some very good lists. I would love to have seen you play Blackmoor, as Nids are a a bit of a wrench in the metas gears.

I don't think Blackmoor would have won that match TBH. I am sure Nick has experience versus them .

 ironicsilence wrote:

chipstar1 wrote:
You bring inquisition for servo skulls.

what do the servo skulls do?

Its 9 pts of wargear that completely shuts down infiltrating and scout, as well as making battle brother armies deepstrike and ordnance scatter less. Its essentially 34pts to stop white scars in their tracks.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't think Blackmoor would have won that match TBH. I am sure Nick has experience versus them .

I'm pretty sure Nick has more experience with Nids than most. His blue and purple bugs hit the table often

WayneTheGame wrote:
Looking at some of those lists showcases why we need Comp scores again. Most of those should have been dinged so hard on anything resembling army theme that they'd never win even if they went undefeated. After all that used to be the purpose of Comp - to punish people who ignored and/or abused the fluff and background of the army just to get the W.

I mean really... the background/fluff is all 40k really has going for it, yet it's bastardized buy utter ridiculousness designed just to min/max.

Comp will never come back. Too many complainers. The irony is that the ally rules allow incredible abuses, and also can lelt you play a truly fluffy army ( I finally can play an Ordo Xenos Inq with Deathwatch marines)

 Booklooker wrote:
Grimwulfe, you give all pure SW players hope! I'll be reworking my Plasmagasm Loganwing list tomorrow.

Can I ask why you kept CC weapons on the WG over pistols? Was is just annoying modeling? Also, what was your strategy for dealing with those FMCs?

The main reason to keep the pistols because at that point h2h weps don't matter. The pistols will enable you to get in another round of shooting before you charge. All my models have axes so its just a list thing. As for FMC they are tough no doubt. I played 2 flying circuses the first day. The best way to deal with them is use the 7 pods to try and ground them and once they are on the ground melta and plasma them. If you can single them out it is effective. Also going first is a huge help because they start on the ground. I focused on the missions and because of that was able to out play the FMC to an extent. And Arjac is the man he was definitely my MVP of the tourney that guy can tank anything if you roll well enough. 5 attacks str 10 hammer on the charge is amazing.

Inquisitors, in addition to the utility of their servo skulls can also force magnify cheaply with Divination. Not sure if that was done with these lists or not.

Hilarious to see so many Ordo Xenos inquisitors running around with Tau forces. And by hilarious I mean sad.

 Colpicklejar wrote:
Hilarious to see so many Ordo Xenos inquisitors running around with Tau forces. And by hilarious I mean sad.

I personally think the Dark Eldar/Eldar/Inquisitor combo breaks credulity significantly more. At least the tau have some redeeming features but Dark Eldar??

All those inquisitors just went radical and decided that it was a good idea to recruit an army of xenos to fight their battles for them.

Yup, all of them did. The inquisition left fighting for humanity is only a skeleton crew whereas wholesale bands of =I= decided to fight for the greater good as well as to prevent the extinction of the Eldar race. Maybe when FW comes out with the Emperor figure, he can battlebrother it up with those xenos as well as a Lord of War choice.

The Tau/Eldar/Inquisition combo is bad and those players should feel bad. Anyways, Reece and the funky bunch have made all of their events 2 detachments max.

Not that I am complaining, but I went up against a unit with:

2 2+/3++ Chapter Masters
Tigirius
Coteaz
Inquisitor

Yes, that was all in 1 unit and they beat down my 2 wraithstar units with the help of Prescience, Forewarning, Misfortune and force weapons. Ouch!

Yeah, that anomaly has got to go.

 jy2 wrote:
Not that I am complaining, but I went up against a unit with:

2 2+/3++ Chapter Masters
Tigirius
Coteaz
Inquisitor

Yes, that was all in 1 unit and they beat down my 2 wraithstar units with the help of Prescience, Forewarning, Misfortune and force weapons. Ouch!

Yeah, that anomaly has got to go.

That's surprising. I would've expected the wraithstar to tie them up pretty well... what unit were they all attached to? They must've generated some crazy amount of wounds.

Edit: D'oh, I just saw Misfortune in there. Youch!

You should toot your own horn Reecius, you wrote a good article on BOLS.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/04/40k-meta-watch-post-adepticon.html

 jy2 wrote:
Not that I am complaining, but I went up against a unit with:

2 2+/3++ Chapter Masters
Tigirius
Coteaz
Inquisitor

Yes, that was all in 1 unit and they beat down my 2 wraithstar units with the help of Prescience, Forewarning, Misfortune and force weapons. Ouch!

Yeah, that anomaly has got to go.

Lots of people complaining about these death star/combo units. Can we just eliminate battle brothers already? They all drop to allies of convenience?

Agreed, that is a great article! Two detachment limit would be most welcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Referring to this post:

 thehod wrote:
You should toot your own horn Reecius, you wrote a good article on BOLS.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/04/40k-meta-watch-post-adepticon.html

 jy2 wrote:
Not that I am complaining, but I went up against a unit with:

2 2+/3++ Chapter Masters
Tigirius
Coteaz
Inquisitor

Yes, that was all in 1 unit and they beat down my 2 wraithstar units with the help of Prescience, Forewarning, Misfortune and force weapons. Ouch!

Yeah, that anomaly has got to go.

That takes a lots of balls to say, Jim, from a guy who spams every Wraith he can into a list, takes minimum troops all in flyers and calls it a fair list. You got out cheesed and now cry. You now sound like most of the guys you have beaten in the past with your lists.

I agree that Deathstar should go, along with most of the others, but you are not the kind of player who should advocate for it. Not until you change your own lists.

To all you Deathstar haters out there: Go run your own 5th edition tournament, kthxbye.

JY2 complaining about balance, that's a new one

The same tools are available to every player. It's up to people to best use them. It's not like you can't buy and build a deathstar of your own. If you're whining about combos, maybe the tournament scene isn't for you.

Still not sure how FMC spam topped out, but Adepticon had a helluva odd mission pack. I doubt his list would place in a UK setting.

Rather than going back to 5th, allowing dataslates in lieu of allies and allowing knights may take care of it on it's own, anyway.

In Reecius' article above he suggests allowing 2 detachments (formations count as one) plus things like Belakor. That would really help fix things, too. Otherwise, the armies on the table just look stupid when built for maximum effect, and that should not be the case (tau-eldar-inquisition in one list).

 jifel wrote:

yermom wrote:
I wrote an article going over all of my games on torrent of fire. http://www.torrentoffire.com/4339/how-the-win-went-down

Congratulations on a well deserved victory! No doubt you had some strong opponents and faced some very good lists. I would love to have seen you play Blackmoor, as Nids are a a bit of a wrench in the metas gears.

I played a nid list round one with the same list, 11s on the warp storm are pretty bad for nids. Even if they are a horde list, its not too hard to get rid of the synapse (unless its in a bastion). The old book was a more difficult match up then the new book imo. I think the new dataslate with the gargs will go along way to making nids more competitive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Budzerker wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
Not that I am complaining, but I went up against a unit with:

2 2+/3++ Chapter Masters
Tigirius
Coteaz
Inquisitor

Yes, that was all in 1 unit and they beat down my 2 wraithstar units with the help of Prescience, Forewarning, Misfortune and force weapons. Ouch!

Yeah, that anomaly has got to go.

Lots of people complaining about these death star/combo units. Can we just eliminate battle brothers already? They all drop to allies of convenience?

While I agree deathstars are bad for 40k, there are ways to play around them. MSU, fmc circus, and some other builds (serpent spam) will beat most deathstar armies. Also the new mission catalog will go along way toward solving deathstars.

Any news on the top 16 for the Exterminatus event???

I don't think the Exterminatus even had 16 players.

Exterminatus had 13 players. FMC demons won. I believe there were also 6 reaver titans.

a lot of eldar, dark eldar inquisition in that top list

Chancetragedy wrote:
Exterminatus had 13 players. FMC demons won. I believe there were also 6 reaver titans.

Lol, Escalation 40k is so dead in the water.

Please tell me how this LotD list worked it out to the top? In my opinion its rather weak list guys. Are there any tricks I cant spot at the first glance? (i havent read LotD dex, are there any curiosities?)

I think he used the legion to hunt troops while stuff sat in a fortress or wave serpent then tried to just win objectives. I didn't actually get a comprehensive breakdown of how he used it though.

Chancetragedy wrote:
Exterminatus had 13 players. FMC demons won. I believe there were also 6 reaver titans.

No FMC Demons didn't win. Necrons with Ctan did.

DarthDiggler wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
Not that I am complaining, but I went up against a unit with:

2 2+/3++ Chapter Masters
Tigirius
Coteaz
Inquisitor

Yes, that was all in 1 unit and they beat down my 2 wraithstar units with the help of Prescience, Forewarning, Misfortune and force weapons. Ouch!

Yeah, that anomaly has got to go.

That takes a lots of balls to say, Jim, from a guy who spams every Wraith he can into a list, takes minimum troops all in flyers and calls it a fair list. You got out cheesed and now cry. You now sound like most of the guys you have beaten in the past with your lists.

I agree that Deathstar should go, along with most of the others, but you are not the kind of player who should advocate for it. Not until you change your own lists.

There's nothing wrong with disliking particular combos.

Some don't like spam.

Some people don't like necron troops in flyers.

Some don't like jetbike troops that can move 48" in 1 turn.

Many don't like the ability of the Tau to break so many of the BRB rules.

Many don't like re-rollable shenanigans.

Many don't like D-weapons in normal 40K.


Just because I am a competitive player doesn't mean I have to like everything that is out there. To me, it isn't even about cheese. Heck, if I all I cared about was winning, I'd run the same combos and I'd run deathstar40k either.


BTW, this has nothing to do with the players. I just don't like some of the legal but exploitable combos in existence currently. That's all.

Eliminate allies completely....

Stops most of the abuse.

Play one army.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
To all you Deathstar haters out there: Go run your own 5th edition tournament, kthxbye.

JY2 complaining about balance, that's a new one

The same tools are available to every player. It's up to people to best use them. It's not like you can't buy and build a deathstar of your own. If you're whining about combos, maybe the tournament scene isn't for you.

Still not sure how FMC spam topped out, but Adepticon had a helluva odd mission pack. I doubt his list would place in a UK setting.

Honestly, there is nothing wrong with deathstars. I myself run Draigowing. It's just the force-multiplication factor of certain deathstar combos that I am not particularly fond of. Some of these combos are just so gamebreaking that it just isn't fun playing against them. They are just plain stupid. I'd play against them, but it's more of a chore than an enjoyable experience.

And tell me one thing guys, except this LotD I dont understand one thing, how this centurionstar is so good? Here in Poland there aren't any lists like this on tournaments, so I dont know it.

This centurion squad with all that IC is kinda nice and tough, can put a lot of damage, but overall its not so mobile I think even rather slow. And this list against daemons? Its pretty auto-lose. It should have problems against any non-elite army imho.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
To all you Deathstar haters out there: Go run your own 5th edition tournament, kthxbye.

JY2 complaining about balance, that's a new one

The same tools are available to every player. It's up to people to best use them. It's not like you can't buy and build a deathstar of your own. If you're whining about combos, maybe the tournament scene isn't for you.

Still not sure how FMC spam topped out, but Adepticon had a helluva odd mission pack. I doubt his list would place in a UK setting.

Wow, real mature response. *rolls eyes*

Here's the thing- not everyone wants a deathstar. Further still I shook my head at all but3 lists of uing multiple books. Maybe 'm a grogand, but 40k has jumped theshark as far as I can tell.

In 5th people made the same kind of complaints about vhiclespam MSU armies. The wheel always comes around.

It was a bit exacerbated by Adepticon's missions being a bit behind the curve this time, which is not usually the case. KPs were a primary objective in most missions, which was an important balancing factor two years ago during 5th, but is outdated now, and is currently rewarding the deahtstars, to which MSU is a natural and important counter.

carmachu wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
To all you Deathstar haters out there: Go run your own 5th edition tournament, kthxbye.

JY2 complaining about balance, that's a new one

The same tools are available to every player. It's up to people to best use them. It's not like you can't buy and build a deathstar of your own. If you're whining about combos, maybe the tournament scene isn't for you.

Still not sure how FMC spam topped out, but Adepticon had a helluva odd mission pack. I doubt his list would place in a UK setting.

Wow, real mature response. *rolls eyes*

Here's the thing- not everyone wants a deathstar. Further still I shook my head at all but3 lists of uing multiple books. Maybe 'm a grogand, but 40k has jumped theshark as far as I can tell.

You know a lot of the people who run these lists (myself included) arnt very fond of them and don't think they are very fun or good for the game and are activity trying to figure out ways to rebalance the game. That said we arnt going to stop brining what wins to top level gts ( some players have) you can't fault competitive players for trying to win a competitive event.

Those are all very good points. I think the best way to address them is through the missions like MVB and others are doing.

Love me some deathstar 40k. Vect karandras eldrad beasts 1005pts of awesome every time.

 krootman. wrote:

You know a lot of the people who run these lists (myself included) arnt very fond of them and don't think they are very fun or good for the game and are activity trying to figure out ways to rebalance the game. That said we arnt going to stop brining what wins to top level gts ( some players have) you can't fault competitive players for trying to win a competitive event.

Didn't say I fault you for running what needs to win, but I also don't have to support you, tournements or GW while having rule sets I find sucky either. My free time is too precious to waste time, money and energy building and playing something I don't like or consider fun just for the sake of winning. but to each their own.

1:Only two detachments in a list. What that means is you can take a primary and secondary detachments, but no more. Space Marines+Inquisition. Space Marines+Imperial Guard. But not all three. You can take add-ons that fit in your primary detachment such as Be'Lakor that won't count towards your limit. This cuts back on the cherry picked Inquisitor that sits around throwing magical grenades and adding Servo Skulls randomly into lists as well as less of the ubiquitous Coteaz. You can still take Inquisition if you want, just not all of it at once. You have to make choices instead of just taking the best of everything. Too many Inquisitorial allies cuts down on variety as if you go to an event knowing 70% of the field will be able to totally shut down your Scouts/Infiltrators/Deep Strikers/Etc. people will choose not to bring those types of units. Plus, it is stupid to see an all Xenos army led by a Coteaz against Imperial armies...also led by a Coteaz. Yeah.

2: Formations are in, but count as a detachment. This means you can take Skyblight or the Tau formation but at the cost of an ally. We find this to be quite fair and it makes Nids a top tier build who bring anti-Deathstar ability to the game to help balance the meta. Plus, it opens up some cool, fun lists.

3: Imperial Knights are in. We would have done this anyway as Knights are super fun, but Imperial Knights can do sufficient damage to Deathstars with support to crack them and make them not so ludicrously durable. It will force players to think twice about taking a Star if Knights are on the prowl.

Now these rules i do like.
Keeps things balanced to some degree and everything working as close as it can to being right.
The formations also help alot, since most people will take the ally instead anyway.
However, this covers nids and helps them out to no end.
Also, there really isnt the points in the game for nids to spam any more than 1 formation, so adds even more balance.

Think i might have to drag this ruleset up and keep it in use down this way, as it looks pretty damn good.

So basically no one wants to play 40k 6th ed?

Where's all the RAW/RAI folks?

Holding tournaments not allowing to play the game as written? Really?

I didn't like hero hammer in 2nd, rhino rush in 3rd, didn't play 4th (and thank goodness), Wound allocation in 5th (but ran a nob biker army), and/or allies in 6th.

So I am going to hold my own tourney and be "out of the box" by allowing everyone to play the game as written.

What a concept!

Or I'll hold a tourney where everyone has to play a different army - can't face two of the exact same FOC. That actually sounds pretty fun.

OrdoSean wrote:
Love me some deathstar 40k. Vect karandras eldrad beasts 1005pts of awesome every time.

Congrats on your Top 4 performance!

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
So basically no one wants to play 40k 6th ed?

Where's all the RAW/RAI folks?

Holding tournaments not allowing to play the game as written? Really?

I didn't like hero hammer in 2nd, rhino rush in 3rd, didn't play 4th (and thank goodness), Wound allocation in 5th (but ran a nob biker army), and/or allies in 6th.

So I am going to hold my own tourney and be "out of the box" by allowing everyone to play the game as written.

What a concept!

Or I'll hold a tourney where everyone has to play a different army - can't face two of the exact same FOC. That actually sounds pretty fun.

Sure, it's your time/money. If you think people will like your idea of tournament play, then more power to you. We need more TO's.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jackal wrote:
Now these rules i do like.
Keeps things balanced to some degree and everything working as close as it can to being right.
The formations also help alot, since most people will take the ally instead anyway.
However, this covers nids and helps them out to no end.
Also, there really isnt the points in the game for nids to spam any more than 1 formation, so adds even more balance.

Think i might have to drag this ruleset up and keep it in use down this way, as it looks pretty damn good.

The idea is to restrict how ridiculous some armies/combos can get and to help out the weaker armies. I mean, come on. Everyone gets allies and formations. Nids get squat!

But yeah, I'm liking what some of the TO's are talking about.

 jy2 wrote:


Sure, it's your time/money. If you think people will like your idea of tournament play, then more power to you. We need more TO's.

Well, seeing as I would probably get 3 entries and then no one else - it might be problematic fielding 16 entries <sarcasm off>

 krootman. wrote:

carmachu wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
To all you Deathstar haters out there: Go run your own 5th edition tournament, kthxbye.

JY2 complaining about balance, that's a new one

The same tools are available to every player. It's up to people to best use them. It's not like you can't buy and build a deathstar of your own. If you're whining about combos, maybe the tournament scene isn't for you.

Still not sure how FMC spam topped out, but Adepticon had a helluva odd mission pack. I doubt his list would place in a UK setting.

Wow, real mature response. *rolls eyes*

Here's the thing- not everyone wants a deathstar. Further still I shook my head at all but3 lists of uing multiple books. Maybe 'm a grogand, but 40k has jumped theshark as far as I can tell.

You know a lot of the people who run these lists (myself included) arnt very fond of them and don't think they are very fun or good for the game and are activity trying to figure out ways to rebalance the game. That said we arnt going to stop brining what wins to top level gts ( some players have) you can't fault competitive players for trying to win a competitive event.

Sure we can, it's called taking responsibility for your own actions. It's easy in life to solve your problems by throwing another person under a bus, even if it's within the rules but that that doesn't make it right.

Players should take a long hard look at their lists before attending an event and ask if it's whats best for the community.

It's not like many people outside those few top tables care who wins these events. Winning at a broken game is bittersweet to say the least. Making all your opponents love the game more by showing personal restraint and a higher level of integrity should be the goal. Instead it has devolved into a number by a list of names on TOF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

You know a lot of the people who run these lists (myself included) arnt very fond of them and don't think they are very fun or good for the game and are activity trying to figure out ways to rebalance the game. That said we arnt going to stop brining what wins to top level gts ( some players have) you can't fault competitive players for trying to win a competitive event.

Didn't say I fault you for running what needs to win, but I also don't have to support you, tournements or GW while having rule sets I find sucky either. My free time is too precious to waste time, money and energy building and playing something I don't like or consider fun just for the sake of winning. but to each their own.

I agree, this is also why so many people I know have stopped playing.

 Jackal wrote:

1:Only two detachments in a list. What that means is you can take a primary and secondary detachments, but no more. Space Marines+Inquisition. Space Marines+Imperial Guard. But not all three. You can take add-ons that fit in your primary detachment such as Be'Lakor that won't count towards your limit. This cuts back on the cherry picked Inquisitor that sits around throwing magical grenades and adding Servo Skulls randomly into lists as well as less of the ubiquitous Coteaz. You can still take Inquisition if you want, just not all of it at once. You have to make choices instead of just taking the best of everything. Too many Inquisitorial allies cuts down on variety as if you go to an event knowing 70% of the field will be able to totally shut down your Scouts/Infiltrators/Deep Strikers/Etc. people will choose not to bring those types of units. Plus, it is stupid to see an all Xenos army led by a Coteaz against Imperial armies...also led by a Coteaz. Yeah.

2: Formations are in, but count as a detachment. This means you can take Skyblight or the Tau formation but at the cost of an ally. We find this to be quite fair and it makes Nids a top tier build who bring anti-Deathstar ability to the game to help balance the meta. Plus, it opens up some cool, fun lists.

3: Imperial Knights are in. We would have done this anyway as Knights are super fun, but Imperial Knights can do sufficient damage to Deathstars with support to crack them and make them not so ludicrously durable. It will force players to think twice about taking a Star if Knights are on the prowl.

Now these rules i do like.
Keeps things balanced to some degree and everything working as close as it can to being right.
The formations also help alot, since most people will take the ally instead anyway.
However, this covers nids and helps them out to no end.
Also, there really isnt the points in the game for nids to spam any more than 1 formation, so adds even more balance.

Think i might have to drag this ruleset up and keep it in use down this way, as it looks pretty damn good.

Totally agreed, Jackal! I love those tourney rules Reecius wrote that you quoted above

 Red Corsair wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

carmachu wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
To all you Deathstar haters out there: Go run your own 5th edition tournament, kthxbye.

JY2 complaining about balance, that's a new one

The same tools are available to every player. It's up to people to best use them. It's not like you can't buy and build a deathstar of your own. If you're whining about combos, maybe the tournament scene isn't for you.

Still not sure how FMC spam topped out, but Adepticon had a helluva odd mission pack. I doubt his list would place in a UK setting.

Wow, real mature response. *rolls eyes*

Here's the thing- not everyone wants a deathstar. Further still I shook my head at all but3 lists of uing multiple books. Maybe 'm a grogand, but 40k has jumped theshark as far as I can tell.

You know a lot of the people who run these lists (myself included) arnt very fond of them and don't think they are very fun or good for the game and are activity trying to figure out ways to rebalance the game. That said we arnt going to stop brining what wins to top level gts ( some players have) you can't fault competitive players for trying to win a competitive event.

Sure we can, it's called taking responsibility for your own actions. It's easy in life to solve your problems by throwing another person under a bus, even if it's within the rules but that that doesn't make it right.

Players should take a long hard look at their lists before attending an event and ask if it's whats best for the community.

It's not like many people outside those few top tables care who wins these events. Winning at a broken game is bittersweet to say the least. Making all your opponents love the game more by showing personal restraint and a higher level of integrity should be the goal. Instead it has devolved into a number by a list of names on TOF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

You know a lot of the people who run these lists (myself included) arnt very fond of them and don't think they are very fun or good for the game and are activity trying to figure out ways to rebalance the game. That said we arnt going to stop brining what wins to top level gts ( some players have) you can't fault competitive players for trying to win a competitive event.

Didn't say I fault you for running what needs to win, but I also don't have to support you, tournements or GW while having rule sets I find sucky either. My free time is too precious to waste time, money and energy building and playing something I don't like or consider fun just for the sake of winning. but to each their own.

I agree, this is also why so many people I know have stopped playing.

Remember these events are highly competitive national competitions, this is not a local rtt we are talking about (which I agree, restraint needs to be shown). You can disagree with people brining the hardest stuff they can come up with, but I don't think you can go as far as saying they are ruining events. There were plenty of other things at adepticon to do if the championships were not your thing.

 krootman. wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

carmachu wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
To all you Deathstar haters out there: Go run your own 5th edition tournament, kthxbye.

JY2 complaining about balance, that's a new one

The same tools are available to every player. It's up to people to best use them. It's not like you can't buy and build a deathstar of your own. If you're whining about combos, maybe the tournament scene isn't for you.

Still not sure how FMC spam topped out, but Adepticon had a helluva odd mission pack. I doubt his list would place in a UK setting.

Wow, real mature response. *rolls eyes*

Here's the thing- not everyone wants a deathstar. Further still I shook my head at all but3 lists of uing multiple books. Maybe 'm a grogand, but 40k has jumped theshark as far as I can tell.

You know a lot of the people who run these lists (myself included) arnt very fond of them and don't think they are very fun or good for the game and are activity trying to figure out ways to rebalance the game. That said we arnt going to stop brining what wins to top level gts ( some players have) you can't fault competitive players for trying to win a competitive event.

Sure we can, it's called taking responsibility for your own actions. It's easy in life to solve your problems by throwing another person under a bus, even if it's within the rules but that that doesn't make it right.

Players should take a long hard look at their lists before attending an event and ask if it's whats best for the community.

It's not like many people outside those few top tables care who wins these events. Winning at a broken game is bittersweet to say the least. Making all your opponents love the game more by showing personal restraint and a higher level of integrity should be the goal. Instead it has devolved into a number by a list of names on TOF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

You know a lot of the people who run these lists (myself included) arnt very fond of them and don't think they are very fun or good for the game and are activity trying to figure out ways to rebalance the game. That said we arnt going to stop brining what wins to top level gts ( some players have) you can't fault competitive players for trying to win a competitive event.

Didn't say I fault you for running what needs to win, but I also don't have to support you, tournements or GW while having rule sets I find sucky either. My free time is too precious to waste time, money and energy building and playing something I don't like or consider fun just for the sake of winning. but to each their own.

I agree, this is also why so many people I know have stopped playing.

Remember these events are highly competitive national competitions, this is not a local rtt we are talking about (which I agree, restraint needs to be shown). You can disagree with people brining the hardest stuff they can come up with, but I don't think you can go as far as saying they are ruining events. There were plenty of other things at adepticon to do if the championships were not your thing.

First off, I apologize if it seemed I was calling you out. I wasn't trying too.

I see your point, but it is a bit of a cop out. I understand wanting to win but this is WAAC list building in a lot of cases. Player responsibility is still an important aspect at every level of competition. You don't get a pass just because its a bigger event. The event is there for all types and as such each player should aspire to make the day as enjoyable as possible. When lists start to devolve into whatever cuts the edge closest to gain an edge, you may need to take a step back and reflect. I am not judging mind you, I just don't think players at the "top" have a right to complain when they aren't even trying to mitigate the issue themselves. Reformating the game ad nauseum because a few players won't act responsibly is the wrong route IMO.

Again, none of this is directed to you necessarily.

People will always bring the best lists, and it's not just a few players, imo. GW is only going to become more extreme in oddball releases, and a source limit brings some sanity back to tourney lists.

I don't think so. Really it will just shift the bar. It still takes the same diligence for players to be up to date with 2 as a limit as it would with no limit because you never know what combo is coming.

 RiTides wrote:
People will always bring the best lists, and it's not just a few players, imo. GW is only going to become more extreme in oddball releases, and a source limit brings some sanity back to tourney lists.

That's really it, GW has abandoned the idea of even trying to balance the game and worse yet, abandoned tournament players to govern themselves, and no one has step to the plate to keep the game sane. They just went slowed and made it feel more like MtG

 Red Corsair wrote:

First off, I apologize if it seemed I was calling you out. I wasn't trying too.

I see your point, but it is a bit of a cop out. I understand wanting to win but this is WAAC list building in a lot of cases. Player responsibility is still an important aspect at every level of competition. You don't get a pass just because its a bigger event. The event is there for all types and as such each player should aspire to make the day as enjoyable as possible. When lists start to devolve into whatever cuts the edge closest to gain an edge, you may need to take a step back and reflect. I am not judging mind you, I just don't think players at the "top" have a right to complain when they aren't even trying to mitigate the issue themselves. Reformating the game ad nauseum because a few players won't act responsibly is the wrong route IMO.

Again, none of this is directed to you necessarily.

A player can't mitigate the issue themselves if they still want to have a competitive chance in the event. Its a collective action problem: unless everyone is forced to play nice, you get an advantage in playing 'mean'.
Plus, what some people call 'WAAC list building', to others is simply 'not gimping yourself'. Building lists with synergy and the ability to take anything on is a big part of the game.


As for TO's restricting what is allowed in the tournament - you really need to, if you want to have any kind of a fun game. Have you seen what the game looks like if people bring ranged D weapons? It's really boring. If 2 people have ranged D weapons it is a case of 'who got first turn': if only 1 has a ranged D weapon, you have approximately 1 chance to take it out before the game dies. D-weapons seem like the ultimate counter to Deathstars, but games with them tend to be similarly boring and one-sided.

I think the difficulty TO's are facing now is that there is not really any one thing that is universally overpowered, save for perhaps re-rollable 2++. Combining characters from multiple Codexes into a single unit? It makes devastating death-stars for Eldar/Tau, Eldar/Dark Eldar, Tau/SM... but on the other hand it makes very fluffy units for Inquisitors/Sisters of Battle. D-Weapons are super powerful - but now that Imperial Knights is a bonafide Codex you can't just unilaterally ban Strength D. Most dataslates or formations aren't bad at all - but the ones that are good are VERY good - but there is now a Codex which contains formations at its core.

IMO the problems with the game need to be solved with a scalpel - but the only tool the community accept TO's using is a hammer. And that view from the community is not unjustified - it just makes the problem nigh unsolvable.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
People will always bring the best lists, and it's not just a few players, imo. GW is only going to become more extreme in oddball releases, and a source limit brings some sanity back to tourney lists.

That's really it, GW has abandoned the idea of even trying to balance the game and worse yet, abandoned tournament players to govern themselves, and no one has step to the plate to keep the game sane. They just went slowed and made it feel more like MtG

To be fair, MtG does alot of play testing to balance their mechanics. But even formats that were originally casual become WAAC when people start mining it for combos to exploit (Elder Dragon Highlander anyone?)/

 WarOne wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
People will always bring the best lists, and it's not just a few players, imo. GW is only going to become more extreme in oddball releases, and a source limit brings some sanity back to tourney lists.

That's really it, GW has abandoned the idea of even trying to balance the game and worse yet, abandoned tournament players to govern themselves, and no one has step to the plate to keep the game sane. They just went slowed and made it feel more like MtG

To be fair, MtG does alot of play testing to balance their mechanics. But even formats that were originally casual become WAAC when people start mining it for combos to exploit (Elder Dragon Highlander anyone?)/

Yeah Ive seen the type, the point I was trying to make is that they try and find the stupidest combos possible and then roll with it like they are a genius. Grand tournaments used to be won by unassuming armies by generals with brains in their heads. Not armies where half the work is already done and you're just along for the ride.

It is almost like GW is trying to breed the stupidest players (and customers) possible, so that they just accept any amounts of bulshit.

I find the attitudes of some posters in this thread inexplicable. My approach to the game places a much greater emphasis on fluffy lists and 'narrative' than building a list designed to stomp face. Also, painting and collecting are my main focus, with gaming almost an excuse to use those models I spent hours on.

However to accuse those players who build power lists of being damaging to the game is ludicrous, short-sighted and elitist. Firstly, not everyone places a high emphasis on painting and modelling. For some, this is just a chore to get through to be able to play the game. What right does anyone have to tell them that this is the wrong approach? It might be different to mine, but it's equally valid. What if they got their army commission painted? Would this be wrong to and mean that they're not proper gamers?

Also, a White Scars biker army is very fluffy, and until fairly recently was only taken by real fluff bunnies as it wasn't a competitive build at all. Eldar seercouncil is also fluffy. Eldar, Dark Eldar and Inquisition is a bit silly, but it doesn't take much effort to write a short piece of background to make it believable, e.g. Tyranid invasion fleet about to destory a subsector which also has an Eldar craftworld and a Dark Eldar world. The Inquisition worked with the Eldar during the 13th Black Crusade too, and there are examples in the fluff of Inquisitors going over to Tau which could justify these allies.

Also, to suggest that power lists are a new phenomenon is completely false. I was reading a White Dwarf from around 15 years ago where a Chinese tournament winner laid the smackdown on Phil Kelly with a very 'beardy' [that's what they called cheese back then] Eldar list. Interestingly Eldar were a very strong codex back then to. If this approach was damaging to the game then it's still managed to survive. I think the only difference is the growth of the internet which has put a spotlight on these power builds.

Finally, it's a tournament. What do you expect? For these people, competition is what 40k is all about. Tournaments were always going to be 'cheese' 'beard' fests. No-one has the right to tell other people how to play their hobby

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Finally, it's a tournament. What do you expect? For these people, competition is what 40k is all about. Tournaments were always going to be 'cheese' 'beard' fests. No-one has the right to tell other people how to play their hobby

I think the thing is that we'd like to see a larger variety of lists present at the top levels of competition. It's not the fault of the players for choosing powerful lists - its the fault of the game for having so few powerful lists (or rather, a few lists which are so much more powerful than others).

I agree, there's nothing wrong with folks taking the most powerful lists available to them, and at a competitive event that it what is going to happen (and has in fact always, except when soft scores were in play, and then it was just shifted).

The real question is, does it make sense for TOs to put out a restriction that GW refuses to, such as "2 sources per army" or "2 sources per army plus a few exceptions" (Belakor). I think we've definitely reached that point.

I'd still prefer a 3 source limit with Knights being an ally instead of a special detachment but now that my guard have their own psykers and fearless models I can at least play my army at 2 sources.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Also, a White Scars biker army is very fluffy, and until fairly recently was only taken by real fluff bunnies as it wasn't a competitive build at all. Eldar seercouncil is also fluffy. Eldar, Dark Eldar and Inquisition is a bit silly, but it doesn't take much effort to write a short piece of background to make it believable, e.g. Tyranid invasion fleet about to destory a subsector which also has an Eldar craftworld and a Dark Eldar world. The Inquisition worked with the Eldar during the 13th Black Crusade too, and there are examples in the fluff of Inquisitors going over to Tau which could justify these allies.

That totally explains why the impromptu alliance of I can't believe they're not Chaos Dark Eldar, regular Eldar, and Inquisition are fighting the White Scars biker army across the table... not. I'm fine with explanations that stretch (to put it mildly) the imagination and make Matt Ward stories seem logical but the allies system is way too abusable and nonsensical (one time necrons and BA fought together in one widely panned story so now they're BFF???!?) and the dataslates and quasi detachments ignoring the FOC is just plain broken. That already ignores the fact that multiple sources just throws any semblance of a single codex having weaknesses and strengths (like IG in close combat) out into the garbage and is bad enough. I hope GW fixes both with the future 7th edition (whether this summer or later). Other than lords of war, all that stuff should just fit on one FOC. I hope GW fixes both with the future 7th edition (whether this summer or later). Other than lords of war, all that stuff should just fit on one FOC and the list of what counts as battle brothers needs to be severely curtailed.

 warboss wrote:

I'm fine with explanations that stretch (to put it mildly) the imagination and make Matt Ward stories seem logical but the allies system is way too abusable and nonsensical (one time necrons and BA fought together in one widely panned story so now they're BFF???!?) and the dataslates and quasi detachments ignoring the FOC is just plain broken. That already ignores the fact that multiple sources just throws any semblance of a single codex having weaknesses and strengths (like IG in close combat) out into the garbage and is bad enough.

 warboss wrote:
I hope GW fixes both with the future 7th edition (whether this summer or later). Other than lords of war, all that stuff should just fit on one FOC. I hope GW fixes both with the future 7th edition (whether this summer or later). Other than lords of war, all that stuff should just fit on one FOC and the list of what counts as battle brothers needs to be severely curtailed.

You contradict yourself too much here. How can you say you can agree with Matt Ward fluff AND say you hope GW fixes "anything"!?

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

 warboss wrote:

I'm fine with explanations that stretch (to put it mildly) the imagination and make Matt Ward stories seem logical but the allies system is way too abusable and nonsensical (one time necrons and BA fought together in one widely panned story so now they're BFF???!?) and the dataslates and quasi detachments ignoring the FOC is just plain broken. That already ignores the fact that multiple sources just throws any semblance of a single codex having weaknesses and strengths (like IG in close combat) out into the garbage and is bad enough.

 warboss wrote:
I hope GW fixes both with the future 7th edition (whether this summer or later). Other than lords of war, all that stuff should just fit on one FOC. I hope GW fixes both with the future 7th edition (whether this summer or later). Other than lords of war, all that stuff should just fit on one FOC and the list of what counts as battle brothers needs to be severely curtailed.

You contradict yourself too much here. How can you say you can agree with Matt Ward fluff AND say you hope GW fixes "anything"!?

You're misunderstanding my post. I don't agree with the Matt Ward style armies we're seeing coming out of events like Adepticon in general but I'm fine with them in one off fluff narrative type battles where two people who know each other agree to them ahead of time (like people did in 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions with opponent's permission). That is a different story from having them as a mandatory core part of the rules being used across the table in a pickup game with strangers built solely for mathhammer purposes.

This was my first Adepticon, and 40k tournaments of any kind.

The great part about Adepticon was the variety. You could play in the hard-as-nails championship, the 40k friendly, the 2-player Doubles Front, one of the 4 or 5 400 point skirmish tournaments, the 4-player team events, or the Titan events.

Pick your poison. I really enjoyed it, and will try my bestest best to get into the friendly and the 4-player team events next year. I liked that they modified their missions from the rule book mission. I found the new primary and secondary objectives to be challenging and fun, and I don't think I'm alone in that regard.

As for local tournaments, I like the rules posted earlier from Reecius'. In fact, as I'm new to Chicago and just joined the Adeptus Windy City forums, I notice that those exact rules are being implemented in their next tournament. I hope to attend one, soon.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Eldar seercouncil is also fluffy.

Considering it was a couple Eldar Codexes ago that said 'Seer council's are too old and proud to be racing around on jetbikes' and it was not something they were legally allowed to take.....the current incarnation of them is hard to call 'fluffy'. Maybe I'm looking too deep into it, but it became an option and suddenly used for the next two editions not because it was written in fluff sections or novels as being done by the councils, but solely because of the power level.

I will say that certain armies of Eldar using multiple Serpents is fluffy however. Eldar troop mobility is their forte.

After adepticon there is alot of talk about how unbalance the tourney scene is but, there is always talk about how unbalance the tourney scene is after large tournaments as alot of big fish in small ponds are humbled and some lash out . My thing is everytime I want to build a list I have what I call the Coteaz problem. I play Marines so when I get to the point where I want to add troop choices I think I can get 5 marines in a rhino for 105 double that I am looking at 210 but I run into the Coteaz problem which says I can get Coteaz (access to divination) and 2 cheap scoring units for 214. Its sad that 3 acolytes have the same durability as 5 space marines but with the current meta its true, so what do you guys think about the Coteaz problem?

I think there is a lot of belly aching going on these days. If you bring back comp it will be a lot worse as each TO can nerf whatever they personally don't like. I find it funny how we have finally gone full circle... it wasn't that long ago some people were all up in arms constantly proclaiming that the major tournaments were nothing more than hobby events and not really competitive. It just goes to show people never really appreciate what they have.

Who said anything about comp?

A source limit is just that, a limit applied evenly across the board. Comp used to imply a lot of subjectivity... this would have none of that.

CKO- The "Coteaz problem" is a good way of putting it. A source limit addresses that because if you want him you'll have to use up your one extra "source" slot, making it a little dearer even if it is a points-efficient option, as you're giving up taking something else to take it.

 RiTides wrote:
Who said anything about comp?

A source limit is just that, a limit applied evenly across the board. Comp used to imply a lot of subjectivity... this would have none of that.

CKO- The "Coteaz problem" is a good way of putting it. A source limit addresses that because if you want him you'll have to use up your one extra "source" slot, making it a little dearer even if it is a points-efficient option, as you're giving up taking something else to take it.

Um... correct a source limit IS a form of comp. And comp didn't strive for subjectivity, that just ended up being the result no matter how hard you try to keep it fair when there are so may army books. The same thing applies to a 2 source system, its a broad stroke to tame one major issue, battle bros. It's beyond me why BB isn't just comped instead. It solves the problems even 2 source leaves open.


Like I said, your already changing the way 40k is meant to be played, at least do it right if your going to bother.

Yes the source limit is definitely a form of comp because it inherently restricts what you can take.

Call it what you like, it or another fix is sorely needed for tournies. GW just doesn't care about them anymore (to the point of not even having FAQs on their site atm). Someone has to pick up the slack, and it's TOs.

There is the possibility they will release some new FAQs. I wouldn't bet on it but on the other hand GW can't ever catch a break on the Internet. I'm not necessarily against two sources but on the other hand it does impose some limitations. For instance I really like the data slates for both Be'lakor and Cypher - I think they are balanced and should be included along with another formation so that could be up to four sources. I like what TexasCon is doing and it's total comp. It's just one of those things you'll probably either be for or against depending upon the specific format. For example the few tournies I've seen that allow Escalation have bombed hard... There's not much market for it so far. There is also Forge World which is potentially another source. My point was to illustrate how things are coming full circle. You are right on the money - it's up to the TOs which has worked rather well overall so far. I'm not a naysayer by any means but the pendulum is starting to swing back in the other direction now and this is just the start. I try to keep an open mind.

 RiTides wrote:
Call it what you like, it or another fix is sorely needed for tournies. GW just doesn't care about them anymore (to the point of not even having FAQs on their site atm). Someone has to pick up the slack, and it's TOs.

It depends on your view point. Most events have more then one track now much like MTG. Competitive, casual and then smaller and larger scale and themed. I personally don't understand why the competitive track needs any comping to be honest. If you want bragging rights as being the best of the best at tough as nails 40k you don't do it by removing threats from the system. If it gets old try the casual.

I honestly think all events should have one track that's not even comped in the missions, just RAW 40k with FAQ tweaks where rules have issues. Its becoming more and more grey what 40k even is anymore at some of these events. They all look so different I mean. In the end each event will listen to it's exit polling though so its nothing to be too concerned with.

How did your bugs fair BTW, I keep forgetting to ask? They turned out stellar!

Thanks for asking, Red Corsair . We ended up in the top half (just barely) of the team tournament, which I was very happy with! Our soft scores helped, though

Dozer, glad you have an open mind about it, and I agree, the pendulum is swinging back a bit. Red, I'd say only large events have multiple tracks, and there you could certainly have one absolute no restrictions event (like the Adepticon Gladiator?). But for most events I think some sanity check is needed with all the rules sources GW is throwing into the mix now... again, even just for the sake of sanity lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I'm not necessarily against two sources but on the other hand it does impose some limitations. For instance I really like the data slates for both Be'lakor and Cypher - I think they are balanced and should be included along with another formation so that could be up to four sources.

I think most suggestions I have seen allow character/unit data slates without counting them as a source, so that would be good to go.

What is the problem? I thought there was enough deviation between the list that there would be less complaining. In Magic the Gathering there are 3-6 types of decks that dominate each format and I would like to know why it should be any different in a competitive 40k tournament scene? Are there crazy good combinations in 40k yes, are there crazy good cards in card games that everyone uses yes, what is the difference?

The problem is simple alot of people are really good at this game because they dominate their local area but, when the big events come around they are humbled by the Nick Nanavati and Tony Kopachs of the world. Your losing to the best of the best, your good they are great, they are the elite of 40k and no rule change is going to change that. I have never played these guys before but boy do I want to because not only do they win, they win so bad that their opponents wants to change the rules because they know their is no way in hell they can win if they had to face that again. Notice how I said face "that again", because players that are good will never admit they loss to a superior player or better tactics they will always blame whatever "that again" is at that time ("that again" is constantly changing), while the elite loses and blame themselves.

Any tournament with severe restrictions turns 40k into a sport that has judges, and I can care less about those type of sports. Give me football, soccer, or basketball I do not want to play ice skating. Who cares who wins those type of tournaments with restrictions, its like saying that skate board rider is more athletic than Lebron James.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There is the possibility they will release some new FAQs. I wouldn't bet on it but on the other hand GW can't ever catch a break on the Internet. I'm not necessarily against two sources but on the other hand it does impose some limitations. For instance I really like the data slates for both Be'lakor and Cypher - I think they are balanced and should be included along with another formation so that could be up to four sources. I like what TexasCon is doing and it's total comp. It's just one of those things you'll probably either be for or against depending upon the specific format. For example the few tournies I've seen that allow Escalation have bombed hard... There's not much market for it so far. There is also Forge World which is potentially another source. My point was to illustrate how things are coming full circle. You are right on the money - it's up to the TOs which has worked rather well overall so far. I'm not a naysayer by any means but the pendulum is starting to swing back in the other direction now and this is just the start. I try to keep an open mind.

Source or detachment limit comp pretty much all counts character data slates as a non "source" which is why I prefer the detachment language. For the most part it is there to limit things like:

Servo skull inquisitors being thrown into armies for 34 points as they would take up a detachment so unless you go no allies, you cannot do this.
Unlimited Formations, because taking multiples of some formations is bad for the game, but banning them entirely hurts armies like nids who don't get allies.
Knights, they can still get used but now they count as allies (or primary) and so you cannot do Knights + marines + Tau or something of the like.
Armies from tons of Sources - NO Marines + Tau + inquisition + Knights +LOD etc. In fact not allowing say Tau + inquisition avoids the need to FAQ their ability to all join the same marine squad.

 CKO wrote:
What is the problem? I thought there was enough deviation between the list that there would be less complaining. In Magic the Gathering there are 3-6 types of decks that dominate each format and I would like to know why it should be any different in a competitive 40k tournament scene? Are there crazy good combinations in 40k yes, are there crazy good cards in card games that everyone uses yes, what is the difference?

The problem is simple alot of people are really good at this game because they dominate their local area but, when the big events come around they are humbled by the Nick Nanavati and Tony Kopachs of the world. Your losing to the best of the best, your good they are great, they are the elite of 40k and no rule change is going to change that. I have never played these guys before but boy do I want to because not only do they win, they win so bad that their opponents wants to change the rules because they know their is no way in hell they can win if they had to face that again. Notice how I said face "that again", because players that are good will never admit they loss to a superior player or better tactics they will always blame whatever "that again" is at that time ("that again" is constantly changing), while the elite loses and blame themselves.

Any tournament with severe restrictions turns 40k into a sport that has judges, and I can care less about those type of sports. Give me football, soccer, or basketball I do not want to play ice skating. Who cares who wins those type of tournaments with restrictions, its like saying that skate board rider is more athletic than Lebron James.

I'd agree with parts of this if those elite players weren't already playing comped 40k. They are good, maybe even best of the best, but they are finding holes in an abortion of a system. People give GW grief, yet many of these events play games designer and build franken40k themselves. That's fine and all but don't kid yourself, your not even paying 40k anymore anyway, your just picking and choosing units and rules. The adepticon missions basically handicapped the best response to hero hammer, msu, with kill points. As if 6th didn't do a well enough job kneecapping vehicle spam, they decided to keep 5th era missions. Had they run book missions only 1/6 games would have hurt msu.

Personally i don't mind if they make minor tweaks to bring more variety however, I just don't agree with the current approach. It WAY too much comping. Change the missions, restrict some books but not others. It's way too biased no matter what the chatter tries to say. For example 90% of the current headache about hero-hammer vanishes overnight if you eliminate battle brothers. It doesn't make any armies illegal, and allows for those great modelling opportunities people love. Yet this isn't even considered. No lets set an arbitrary limit on sources despite 85+% of the problems only need two books to function. Seer council without the barons HtR becomes very counter-able, yet in the right hands of these great players, just as deadly, it just doesn't become dummy proof. Centurion stars lose that toolbox commander, suddenly just efficient and deadly, and not an auto win unit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There is the possibility they will release some new FAQs. I wouldn't bet on it but on the other hand GW can't ever catch a break on the Internet. I'm not necessarily against two sources but on the other hand it does impose some limitations. For instance I really like the data slates for both Be'lakor and Cypher - I think they are balanced and should be included along with another formation so that could be up to four sources. I like what TexasCon is doing and it's total comp. It's just one of those things you'll probably either be for or against depending upon the specific format. For example the few tournies I've seen that allow Escalation have bombed hard... There's not much market for it so far. There is also Forge World which is potentially another source. My point was to illustrate how things are coming full circle. You are right on the money - it's up to the TOs which has worked rather well overall so far. I'm not a naysayer by any means but the pendulum is starting to swing back in the other direction now and this is just the start. I try to keep an open mind.

Source or detachment limit comp pretty much all counts character data slates as a non "source" which is why I prefer the detachment language. For the most part it is there to limit things like:

Servo skull inquisitors being thrown into armies for 34 points as they would take up a detachment so unless you go no allies, you cannot do this.
Unlimited Formations, because taking multiples of some formations is bad for the game, but banning them entirely hurts armies like nids who don't get allies.
Knights, they can still get used but now they count as allies (or primary) and so you cannot do Knights + marines + Tau or something of the like.
Armies from tons of Sources - NO Marines + Tau + inquisition + Knights +LOD etc. In fact not allowing say Tau + inquisition avoids the need to FAQ their ability to all join the same marine squad.

What formation is spammable in a good sense anyway? I hear this stance all the time like there is some great formation that you'd want to spam. The Tau one is the best one by a long mile and you'd hurt your army more then you'd help it if you took 2 because they aren't that cheap. its also completely redundant as you can just run tau primary and get those units at that point level anyway.

Restricting some sources but not others is way too clunky btw, not to mention unnecessary. As I said just restrict BB. Servo skull/grenade caddie Inq, are suddenly less great when they cant join a deathstar or use their PP on them.

'I'd agree with parts of this if those elite players weren't already playing comped 40k. They are good, maybe even best of the best, but they are finding holes in an abortion of a system. People give GW grief, yet many of these events play games designer and build franken40k themselves. That's fine and all but don't kid yourself, your not even paying 40k anymore anyway, your just picking and choosing units and rules. The adepticon missions basically handicapped the best response to hero hammer, msu, with kill points.'

Seriously how is this any worse than the last edition that had IG, GK, SW and Necrons at the top ? Now you have more tools to mitigate the top builds... JSC and SS are beatable... incessant whining.

Comp will just move the goal posts and there will be other uber meta net lists that emerge. :O

Red Corsair- I don't really care if TOs implement a source limit or a Battle Brothers tweak. I think a source limit might be more palatable to more people, though. But as long as it is acknowledged that something is needed, that's all I'm looking for... each event can implement things differently.

But as Breng77 says, Marines + Tau + Inquisition + Knights + LOD all in one list is just getting silly, which is where we're at with no tweaks applied whatsoever. I can't see many events going that route, to be honest.

Personally i don't mind if they make minor tweaks to bring more variety however, I just don't agree with the current approach. It WAY too much comping. Change the missions, restrict some books but not others. It's way too biased no matter what the chatter tries to say. For example 90% of the current headache about hero-hammer vanishes overnight if you eliminate battle brothers. It doesn't make any armies illegal, and allows for those great modelling opportunities people love. Yet this isn't even considered. No lets set an arbitrary limit on sources despite 85+% of the problems only need two books to function. Seer council without the barons HtR becomes very counter-able, yet in the right hands of these great players, just as deadly, it just doesn't become dummy proof. Centurion stars lose that toolbox commander, suddenly just efficient and deadly, and not an auto win unit.

Anything you choose to do requires some kind of "comp" or arbitrary tweaks. However, I know of almost no game that can be played in a competitive sense right out of the box. I've played video games competitively, and they always required some kind of alterations in format. Very few games are created with strict competition in mind. Furthermore, there are always going to be units/weapons/characters etc. that are better than others--no matter how much developers try.

This is where TOs step in. Organizing an event is a thankless job, and there is no way to please 100% of the crowd. Nevertheless, TOs should endeavor to create a fun and relatively balanced gaming experience for the people who do come out to events and not worry about the people who are never going to show up regardless. There are overly dogmatic individuals who want to open the floodgates and play 40k with Escalation and full Forgeworld while playing only book missions. This isn't "wrong", but it isn't what most people who spend money and time to go to events want.

I think we need to move past the idea of there being a "correct" way to play. GW doesn't care about the tourney scene, and even if they did, the game is as much "ours" as it is "theirs." As I've mentioned, the people who go to events don't want to play "everything goes" 40k. Things like Escalation make the game a dice roll of who goes first with their Reverent. It is good for the game that TOs do set these "arbitrary" restrictions.

I'm in favor of two-sourcing, if only for the sake of easiness and balance. The ability for certain (read: mostly Imperial) armies to tack on extra allies via Formations, Inquisition, Knights, and LoTD is a bit of a mess. While these elements aren't problematic in and of themselves, it becomes a bit convoluted and unbalanced quickly--especially for the players who aren't aiming for the top tables. Even at the top tables, there is a desire for some kind of balance. I want to go against tough as nails competition, but there are some combinations that are a bit over the top. Yes, this is arbitrary and subjective, but it will always be this way.

I like the Imperial combos for the flavor .

What formation is spammable in a good sense anyway? I hear this stance all the time like there is some great formation that you'd want to spam. The Tau one is the best one by a long mile and you'd hurt your army more then you'd help it if you took 2 because they aren't that cheap. its also completely redundant as you can just run tau primary and get those units at that point level anyway.

Restricting some sources but not others is way too clunky btw, not to mention unnecessary. As I said just restrict BB. Servo skull/grenade caddie Inq, are suddenly less great when they cant join a deathstar or use their PP on them.

The Tau formation is very powerful when spammed, or allows other primary armies to take multiple riptides and broadsides. You can make some powerful armies with that slate.

A battle brother change matters very little with the skull inquisitor people aready run him alone as a non-battle brother just for the skulls. Removing them also strengthens certain armies like Daemons, while eldar and Tau still remain strong. Are Formations then Convienience (despite rules in some to the contrary?)

Also restricting sources is not saying that you cannot use a book, if you eliminate battle brothers you essentially negate the inquisition book other than skull caddy for most builds.

Also consider that allies has been an accepted part of the game now for multiple years, this multiple detachment thing is new. It also narrows the ammout of books people are bringing to the table. You don't end up with Eldar + Marines + Knights + Inquisition etc. Which may or may not be a good army, but just a bunch of stuff for an opponent to keep straight.

Breng77 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There is the possibility they will release some new FAQs. I wouldn't bet on it but on the other hand GW can't ever catch a break on the Internet. I'm not necessarily against two sources but on the other hand it does impose some limitations. For instance I really like the data slates for both Be'lakor and Cypher - I think they are balanced and should be included along with another formation so that could be up to four sources. I like what TexasCon is doing and it's total comp. It's just one of those things you'll probably either be for or against depending upon the specific format. For example the few tournies I've seen that allow Escalation have bombed hard... There's not much market for it so far. There is also Forge World which is potentially another source. My point was to illustrate how things are coming full circle. You are right on the money - it's up to the TOs which has worked rather well overall so far. I'm not a naysayer by any means but the pendulum is starting to swing back in the other direction now and this is just the start. I try to keep an open mind.

Source or detachment limit comp pretty much all counts character data slates as a non "source" which is why I prefer the detachment language. For the most part it is there to limit things like:

Servo skull inquisitors being thrown into armies for 34 points as they would take up a detachment so unless you go no allies, you cannot do this.
Unlimited Formations, because taking multiples of some formations is bad for the game, but banning them entirely hurts armies like nids who don't get allies.
Knights, they can still get used but now they count as allies (or primary) and so you cannot do Knights + marines + Tau or something of the like.
Armies from tons of Sources - NO Marines + Tau + inquisition + Knights +LOD etc. In fact not allowing say Tau + inquisition avoids the need to FAQ their ability to all join the same marine squad.

This is not "comp" as we have come to know comp, this is keeping the game from getting out of control. (I understand some people think the game is already out of control, but there is potential for much more abuse in the zero source restriction format.

Well it is Comp insofar as Comp is any change to base rules (i.e. mission changes are "comp" to some people, No FW is Comp to some people.). Also since it is a restriction on Army Composition, it is a form of comp. Just not as hard a restriciton as say swedish comp or other targeted comp systems.

Breng77 wrote:
Well it is Comp insofar as Comp is any change to base rules (i.e. mission changes are "comp" to some people, No FW is Comp to some people.). Also since it is a restriction on Army Composition, it is a form of comp. Just not as hard a restriciton as say swedish comp or other targeted comp systems.

I hear you, I feel like the word comp is the wrong word to use here, and there is a better word for what the competitive community is trying to do.

meh....lables are lables. I think people fear the C word because of past negative stigma, but there is no reason it is a bad thing. Call it Comp, call it house rule, call it errata, whatever you call it if it makes the game more enjoyable then why not.

I'm already running 2 detachment Max at my GT at Connecticon, so it will be interesting to see the feed back I get after the event.

I also don't think this is what was traditionally considered "comp", and that the word doesn't really add to the discussion... similar to how "WAAC" tends to never really help advance a discussion.

Glad to hear you're trying running a 2 detachment max event, Breng77. Let us know how it goes and how people react to it!

 RiTides wrote:

But as Breng77 says, Marines + Tau + Inquisition + Knights + LOD all in one list is just getting silly, which is where we're at with no tweaks applied whatsoever. I can't see many events going that route, to be honest.

Would you even have enough points to do anything effective with your list if you tried that though?

You can restrict the opening acts but you cant restrict the closing act. Skate boarding will never be as popular as soccer no matter how much you love skate boarding.

Alpharius, well, adding Inquisition to armies is adding very little points for quite a large benefit (at least, according to folks with more 40k experience than I, regarding the servo skulls). If GW continues to release things that can be added on to any army without using up the allies slot, then you could conceivably have a lot of one-off units in an army to keep track of... unless you implement something like a source limit.

Look at it this way - SW Rune Priest can take Chooser of the Slain which is just as good if not better plus it is wargear for pretty much an auto take HQ in the army... This way more armies have the same type of defense. Which armies does it really hurt the most ?

Eliminating Battle Brothers makes to much sense to ever be implemented. Battle Brothers eliminates Beaststar and Seerstar which are the favorite two armies of the East Coast players. They won't allow that.

The argument that eliminating BB makes Daemons stronger is false. The counter to Daemons is MSU, which Beaststar and Seerstar prevent from being played. Eliminating BB brings MSU back and counters Daemons.

Inquisitors can be taken with the GK codex as an ally. The inquisitor army is not hurt. Saying so is puzzling to me. That's like saying we can't do the best possible solution because it will hurt codex Black Legion. What?

But not every army should have the same ability and the cost of including a rune priest in your army is much greater (takes ally slot, then costs 185 minimum including required troop, and the chooser covers a smaller area. So you pay 151 more points, give up any other allies for worse scout/ infiltrate defense. Hardly equal.

As for who it hurts, whites scars, khorne dog rush, raven guard, scout armies. Essentially there are plenty of possible scout /infiltrate builds and you can negate them with a 34 point upgrade available to most armies (all but 5 armies). Essentially 2 sources forces choices on people, instead of letting everyone have everything especially the good guys (for which there is a huge imbalance for already in terms of choices.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarthDiggler wrote:
Eliminating Battle Brothers makes to much sense to ever be implemented. Battle Brothers eliminates Beaststar and Seerstar which are the favorite two armies of the East Coast players. They won't allow that.

The argument that eliminating BB makes Daemons stronger is false. The counter to Daemons is MSU, which Beaststar and Seerstar prevent from being played. Eliminating BB brings MSU back and counters Daemons.

Inquisitors can be taken with the GK codex as an ally. The inquisitor army is not hurt. Saying so is puzzling to me. That's like saying we can't do the best possible solution because it will hurt codex Black Legion. What?

Ummm....so who is playing codex inquisition as more than a way to add an inquisitor to one of their squads and maybe a couple cheap troops, or as a skull caddy?

Msu doesn't counter daemons Ime, so eliminating some top builds helps daemons.

Also yeah seer council and beast star are all east coast player play obviously cause no one plays those armies elsewhere....oh wait they do. I know of like 1 top tier beast star east coast player, and 2-3 seer council players. Many more daemon players or ovesastars or serpent spam. So yeah the east coast totally wants to keep all of us running our beast and seer stars....right.

That type of regional bias helps nothing especially when it is wildly inaccurate.

Eliminating battle brothers is a big change, that takes a bunch of armies out of play. I'm not saying it is better or worse, but it is a big change none the less.

MSU is just as much a gimmick as anything else people are whining about... MSU can actually still work for certain armies quite well. Personally I'm glad not to have to play versus MSU parking lot armies anymore .

MSU is a great way to counter deathstars...I have no idea where you are getting the idea that seer and beast are auto-win. Also, as a Daemon player, I would not mind to terribly to play against MSU, KP missions are almost an instant win, and with an obj mission it is difficult to hold obj with small units when you can blow them off fairly easily.

That being said, I agree with most of what JGrand said. Competitive players, in my experience, want a balanced environment as much as the next person. Will anything be truly balanced? I think not, however I do think there are good ideas, many have been mentioned, that can bring the scale closer to balanced and then player skill can be taken more into account.

The truth is that there will be whiners on the internet 40k forums no matter what form the game takes, until we return to 2nd edition format.

These whiners in general aren't winning the tournaments. Haters will hate, players will play.

Actually, quite a few top players are asking for a source limit. MVBrandt and Reecius are the first two that come to mind, since they're also tracking it from the perspective of TOs.

But it doesn't make such a sensationalist statement when put like that

I consider myself a fairly competitive player, and enjoy the internet discussion. Everyone has an opinion and it is good to hear what the minority or majority has to say. We may be able to draw others out to events to create a larger tournament player base. The Adepticon Friendly and Doubles were great for this. To simply boil it down to tournament winners etc is extreamly limiting as there are very few people who actually win a GT, let alone 16 out of 250 who play 2nd day.

I think of Reecius and MVB more as TOs than players which directly influence how they view the game should be played. Fair enough.

If there is evidence (anecdotal or huge ground-swelling) that X% more people want source limits versus not, then the TOs should decide what's best for their tournaments, whether small local events or Big Ass Tournaments (BATs).

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I think of Reecius and MVB more as TOs than players which directly influence how they view the game should be played. Fair enough.

True, although MVBrandt's team did win best generals in the AdeptiCon team tourney! But obviously, as noted, not only top player's opinions matter, I was just refuting the claim above that top players aren't in favor of some kind of limit.

I have noticed many of the top players are taking advantage of the things people are complaining about in this thread .

I have too, but some of them (krootman, for instance) have posted in this thread as well that while they will use it if it's allowed, they'd still prefer some kind of limit.

I'm sorry but that is hypocritical. If you don't like it then don't use it.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I'm sorry but that is hypocritical. If you don't like it then don't use it.

I see it as an example of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

If you use it then you either have a better chance of winning, or at least countering your opponent's usage of it.

If you don't use it you may be on an even keel due to the other player also not using it, but you also run the risk of having a disadvantage due to your opponent having it.

The more rounds the tournament has, the more likely you are going to run into somebody else who decided that they were going to use that advantage. If you want to win and you can use it, you are better off using it, so I can't really blame them for doing so.

If you want people to not use it, get the TO to ban it. Don't hope your opponents won't use it.

Quick flow chart of what people have said in the thread so far:

1 - If you're not a top tournament player and want restrictions, you're just a whiner who can't win, and your opinion should be disregarded. If you are a top player, go to 2.

2 - If you are a top player and still want restrictions, but use any of the combos you want resticted to become a top player, you're a hypocrit and your opinion should be disregarded. If you use a fluffy list and still win, go to 3.

3 - If you use a fluffy non-power combo list and win with it but still want restrictions on certain things, well you've shown people can win with fluffy lists at top levels, thus proving restrictions are unnecessary, and so your opinion can be disregarded.

... Seems fair. :-/

Excellent, Maddermax . I can imagine that being an actual flowchart and being even better. It really is a catch-22... eventually someone just has to make the call on it, and that's what we're seeing now, I think (with Nova's recent anouncement about going to 2-source, and Reecius' article indicating Frontline will likely be doing similarly for their events).

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I'm sorry but that is hypocritical. If you don't like it then don't use it.

I prefer to not take a side honestly, there are some events I will use every allowed advantage to try to win (adepticon singles) and there are some events I'd rather take something fun, and see how I do! (Adepticon team, which was an absolute blast. I even almost won a game without killing a single model!!!)


I am not going to stand here and say the game is perfect, because it is not, however i do enjoy the game as is for the most part and will not stop doing something I enjoy because I don't agree with some aspects about it. Nobody has to play this game at the highest level, it's a choice.

As people have said before the most important thing when you make a decision going to one of these events is to know exactly what you are getting into and to have fun!

Remember there is no right or wrong way to play this game.