We are happy to announce that Privateer Press will be joining us at this year's Las Vegas Open. They will have a booth with many key staff members from their organization. We will more than likely see a bunch of new releases as well. Privateer Press staff will be available for open gaming and playing scrambles throughout the day and also during our After Hours events. There are other plans in the works too and they will be announced once they are firmed up.
We are very happy to have Privateer Press joining us at LVO and we will make sure to show them a good time
Vegas is coming, Vegas is coming! Get pumped everyone, because the LVO 2016 is going to be absolutely amazing, and now we’ve got the rooms available for you to book, just follow this link! https://aws.passkey.com/g/51404458 If your preference is to call in and book your room, use the following group code: SBFRO6
Hotel Booking number: 1-800-358-8777
We will be staying at the beautiful Ballys Casino on the strip in Vegas. The hotel is nice, affordable and centrally located. Staying at the event hotel makes your experience at the LVO infinitely more enjoyable as you don’t have to walk long distances with all of your gaming goodies to get to the event! Plus, you will be right in the middle of the action with all of your gamer comrades for the gaming and nighttime social events! We've got a plethora, yay, a cornucopia of gaming awesomeness planned for the convention across a spectrum of games from 40k to Warmachine and everything in between. The full schedule of events will be coming very soon along with ticket sales for individual events.
The event is Feburary 5th-7th, a Friday through Sunday. The core staff actually arrives on Wednesday to make sure everything is in order, so you may see as at the Blackjack tables Wednesday night! Come and say hi, if so.
Please be aware, we will not be extending the room block this year. When it is full, it’s full. Last year the first block filled up in a matter of weeks! It is too much financial risk at this point in time to reserve more rooms after the initial block is full, so don’t wait to book your rooms. Last year the hotel was fully booked the weekend of the event, so wait to book at your own risk. You have been warned, muahaha! In the event you do not get a room and it does fill up, there are plenty of accommodations in Vegas, but it may be a bit of a walk to get to the venue each day for you.
We are just so excited for Vegas this year, it is going to be the biggest and best year, yet! See you all there.
Yes, the ONLY weekend that had a venue the size we need was that weekend. However, knowing that that would be a conflict for some folks, we planned ahead! We rented an extra room to have a Super Bowl viewing party! We'll be showing the big game with food, booze and friends. It should be a great time!
Reecius wrote: Yes, the ONLY weekend that had a venue the size we need was that weekend. However, knowing that that would be a conflict for some folks, we planned ahead! We rented an extra room to have a Super Bowl viewing party! We'll be showing the big game with food, booze and friends. It should be a great time!
Reecius wrote: Yes, the ONLY weekend that had a venue the size we need was that weekend. However, knowing that that would be a conflict for some folks, we planned ahead! We rented an extra room to have a Super Bowl viewing party! We'll be showing the big game with food, booze and friends. It should be a great time!
I didn't know it was possible for me to love LVO weekend even more than I already do. Reece and crew continue to raise the bar!
cgage00 wrote: The biggest problem with flying to vegas from the east coast on super bowl weekend is flights will be CRAZY expensive.
But ... it'll be a SB that no one will care about ... as the Pats are gonna have a starting record of 1 - 3.
"Phhooooooooooooosssssssssssss" <---- the otomatapiea for hissing air.
$354 round trip is very reasonable! And there are always sales going on to get to and form Vegas, we will keep our eyes peeled for them and let folks know when they pop up.
I meant no sale $354 isn't horrible if you can get the right dates. I always find it funny that it's cheaper for me to fly to Los Angeles or DC than it is to fly to Vegas.
Budzerker wrote: Man, the rooms seem much more expensive than last year...
I recommend getting the room first and then finding roommates later. After the rooms sell out, there is going to be a heck of a lot of players online who will be willing to share rooms with you.
Budzerker wrote: Man, the rooms seem much more expensive than last year...
I recommend getting the room first and then finding roommates later. After the rooms sell out, there is going to be a heck of a lot of players online who will be willing to share rooms with you.
And the ones with rooms will be calling 'big spoon', too.
Me and some friends are gonna drive down likely and share a room.
I understand why it is so early, I just wish it wasnt. What I hate is I have to give a 110$ deposit :(
Budzerker wrote: Man, the rooms seem much more expensive than last year...
I recommend getting the room first and then finding roommates later. After the rooms sell out, there is going to be a heck of a lot of players online who will be willing to share rooms with you.
If you want to stay at the venue (highly recommended) id book now, I know I'm staying longer then most, but the difference between blocked prices over non blocked was about 400ish for me.
The rooms are more expensive this year, yes, because we are staying in a much nicer hotel this year. Our attendees who told us they'd be willing to pay more better rooms, per the exit poll from last year.
It's still a very reasonable rate. And, they're going quickly, we're over 70% booked out! As Krootman noted, our rate is very solid compared to standard rates for that weekend.
Are you guys planning on holding any other 40k events on Sunday? How much I would love to be playing on Day 3 let’s just say I don’t make top 8, it seems like I will miss out on both Kill Teams and the Narrative events since they are going on at the same time as the 40k Championship. Going to do any doubles or Highlanders this time around?
Hey Panzer1944, yes! We are planning an awesome ETC/ATC style team tournament for Sunday! We've got some top players designing the format, we're very excited about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @OrdoSean
Yeah, you did aight last time, lol! And yeah, please email me and confirm you are coming, your 40k Champs ticket is covered as you were the best Nids player last time.
Hey guys, I am just waiting for the respective TOs of these events to get me their event descriptions and outlines. Once I have those in hand (deadline is this week), they will be posted on the site.
But, I can tell you we will for sure have Malifaux, DzC, Warzone, tons of demo games, X-Wing, looking at a Friday Night Magic event, a huge Warmachine event (PP will be there, too!), AvP, Paint and Takes, hobby seminars, and tons of cool social events like the infamous Pub Crawl as well as events for spouses! There is seriously a crazy amount of stuff to do.
Maybe one day! And thank you for the encouraging words, we appreciate it!
@Pain
There are some free to play events included with your Convention Badge (which you need to enter the event), but in general terms, most of the tables will be occupied with scheduled events that require a ticket to participate in.
If your focus is to play 40k at the event, my suggestion is to purchase either a 40k Championships ticket (if you want to play in the tournament) or Narrative ticket (if you prefer more laid back, thematic games).
Or, if you really just want to get your toes wet, try the team tournament! It's the lowest cost of entry for a full tournament experience, and it runs Sunday. You can then come and hang out Friday and/or Saturday and just check stuff out, get a feel for it.
Oh, and just to be thorough, you do need your Convention Badge to enter the event, which is purchased separately from the event tickets. This gets you access to all the discounted goodies, raffle tickets, demo games, and entry into the con itself.
And where is the convention badge purchased, as well as price? We are in Barstow, literally the midway point from LA to Vegas. Maybe two hours out. Only 3, Maybe 4 of us. So the 6 player tourney is out. Might do the narrative as we are not looking to be super competetive.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: And where is the convention badge purchased, as well as price? We are in Barstow, literally the midway point from LA to Vegas. Maybe two hours out. Only 3, Maybe 4 of us. So the 6 player tourney is out. Might do the narrative as we are not looking to be super competetive.
Online. Once tickets go on sale, you can buy your convention badge and any event tix from the website, which will be Frontlinegaming.org and the LVO link.
Just bought my passes! Quick question though, whats the cut off date for a full refund? I plan on coming regardless, I'd like to know just in case something comes up.
There is not a cap on convention badges but the individual events themselves have player caps. 40k Champs is going really quickly. We should hit 50% by the end of the day on those.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
elphilo wrote: Just bought my passes! Quick question though, whats the cut off date for a full refund? I plan on coming regardless, I'd like to know just in case something comes up.
30 days prior to the event you can get a full refund.
It possible to put the GT ticket on page one of the tickets, people are seeing the narative event ticket on page 1 thinking its the grand tournament one because its not on page 1 as well
I highly recommend playing the championships. You'll get at least 3 (normally 4 to 5) games against similarly skilled opponents and its a fantastic opportunity to meet new people. You won't be disappointed.
Reecius wrote: High roller package sold out in hours, wow!
40k champs is over 50% sold out, already, in less than a day.
Seriously, do not wait to grab those tickets! They're going faster than we anticipated.
How many of the campaign tickets are left?
Reason I'm asking for narrative is I can't buy until Monday and it might be sold out, as well as I'm not into playing conpetetively. Narrative should also be a nice way to meet people wouldn't it?
A quick update on some of the status of some of the events for the LVO 2016.
- The High Roller Package sold out REALLY quickly. This was our first time having an item like this and we were not sure how many to offer so next year we will definitely offer more of these packages, though we really do want it to be a perk of the earliest of the early registerees (is that a word?)
- The 40k Championships is around 60% sold. Pretty cool for being up a day and a half!
- The 40k Narrative event is around 50% sold. The guys coming out run fantastic events so don't miss out on this if you plan on attending.
- All other events selling steadily, Warzone surprisingly selling REALLY well. It might be the year of Prodos.
40k Championships 75% full, don't wait these will be gone in a couple days. 40k Narrative over 60% sold. Warmahordes, Malifaux, Infinity, and Warzone all selling steadily but still plenty of room. Magic, X-Wing, and Netrunner events available all weekend as well!
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Just attempted to purchase a narrative campaign pass for Saturday and it said sold out, you sure there is 40% available?
I was speaking of the 3 Day passes, apologies. There were only a limited amount of tickets for the individual day passes since the narrative is really meant to be played as a 3 day event so the guys wanted to limit the amount of people jumping in for only 1 day. Email me at frontlinegamingsales@gmail.com and get me your contact info and I'll see if we can get you a single day ticket for Saturday still.
There is still plenty of room in our other 40k events such as the Knigh Joust, the 3 day narrative (friendly) and the ITC team tournament on Sunday. 30k fans can still sign up for our amazing Horus Heresy tournament taking part on Sunday as well. Lots of Warmahordes, Warzone, Infinity, and Dropzone Commander to be had and don't forget about our X Wing tournament and Friday Night Magic. We will be adding a ton of after hours events to the line up as well so there's never a shortage of things to do at the event.
I still haven't received an email regarding Saturdays one day narrative event, would like to know soon as if I can't attend it I'd like to try n move things aroung to attend Sundays.
We've been gone and have been playing catch-up all week (came home to 350 emails in my inbox ), sorry if we have not gotten to your email, yet. I think I got to your email though, the question looks familiar.
Can't find a FAQ on the site so I'm asking here, what will be the ruling on the sanctuary relic for imperial knights? Will it be a second shield since it never states it replaces the stock one, allowing you to delcare two sides for the 4++ save, or no?
Pain4Pleasure wrote: I do not see want FAQ on there for the sanctuary relic for imperial knights.
Sometimes, you might have to wait a little while for the FAQ committee to make a ruling on such matters if you do not get an immediate response. Thus, you're going to have to have a little patience. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst. So if you're planning on running a Knight army, plan for only 1 side with the 4++. And if it is ruled to be 2 sides, then consider that a bonus. Btw, the ITC tends to be more conservative in their rulings historically. Just something to think abouut.
It's not listed under approved LoW. Infact, none of the Renegade LoW's besides the scorpion are. However, they are pretty much the same as the allowed vehicles in the Astra Militarum approved list.
Grimwulfe wrote: Reecius where are you guys on the waitlist for 40K? And is there any chance that 40K will be extending or is your current total of tables firm?
Unless they convince the hotel to knock out a few walls to give them some more room for extra tables, you're probably out of luck in that regard.
It's not listed under approved LoW. Infact, none of the Renegade LoW's besides the scorpion are. However, they are pretty much the same as the allowed vehicles in the Astra Militarum approved list.
Are Chaos Renegades listed as Astra Militarum or Chaos? In Escalation it states that the Baneblade and various chassies can be taken as a LoW for an Astra Militarum army. I would assume that your Chaos Renegades would have to be considered an Astra Militarum army to take one.
It's not listed under approved LoW. Infact, none of the Renegade LoW's besides the scorpion are. However, they are pretty much the same as the allowed vehicles in the Astra Militarum approved list.
Are Chaos Renegades listed as Astra Militarum or Chaos? In Escalation it states that the Baneblade and various chassies can be taken as a LoW for an Astra Militarum army. I would assume that your Chaos Renegades would have to be considered an Astra Militarum army to take one.
They are from either IA5v2 or IA13 The baneblades are listed in their army lists but technically are not listed on the ITC approved list
It's not listed under approved LoW. Infact, none of the Renegade LoW's besides the scorpion are. However, they are pretty much the same as the allowed vehicles in the Astra Militarum approved list.
Are Chaos Renegades listed as Astra Militarum or Chaos? In Escalation it states that the Baneblade and various chassies can be taken as a LoW for an Astra Militarum army. I would assume that your Chaos Renegades would have to be considered an Astra Militarum army to take one.
They are from either IA5v2 or IA13 The baneblades are listed in their army lists but technically are not listed on the ITC approved list
I would'nt worry too much about it. I'm pretty sure ITC will allow the Chaos variants of the Approved Imperial super-heavies.
considering we live in a world of codex WK/scatbike and battle companies having an ap 3 large blast ignores cover isnt too bad to counter lots of those things... remember the "apoc barrage" blast isnt the same size as a apoc blast template, in effect it is ~ a single large blast.
if anything, its worse, as it scatters (which I can modify with BS rerolls ect) then it "scatters" again into one of the several large blasts.
eldar not being the only ones with good ranged D can balance out a lot of things, and this LOW isnt as good as a WK in power level for the points.
Which is silly. Tau need a usable low. Reece, please consider the following rule change of blasts larger than 5 inches do not gain the benefit of ignores cover
Hey guys let's not start a debate on which models are and are not going to be allowed just yet. We will keep everyone updated on legal models as we get closer to the event. I'm sure there will be plenty of releases from GW to grind your gears between now and February. Thanks!
Kimchi Gamer wrote: Hey guys let's not start a debate on which models are and are not going to be allowed just yet. We will keep everyone updated on legal models as we get closer to the event. I'm sure there will be plenty of releases from GW to grind your gears between now and February. Thanks!
Agreed.
Instead, it's time for rampant speculation on what the first Round prize will be given out:
LVO 2015 had First Round winners getting the tokens and markers. I missed out on that, having lost to Brandon Grant. Thanks, Brandon.
BAO 2015 had the Losers of the First Round getting stuff. Or it was like the first 10 losers? I dunno, as I won my Round One game. Thanks to the guy who I dropped my WraithKnight on his models ... wait, that's *me* needing to apologize.
So, next Feb? Will it even be based on Round One results? "Swag" to those only getting Draws?
Will there be "Not Your Dad's Root Beer" give-aways, like last time?
The wait list is at 58 at present. We do have a little wiggle room with space, but won't know if we can open up more 40k until later in the year, unfortunately.
The Chaos LoW list will be updated this week.
The Tau Titan in all likelihood will not be allowed. Beyond being dramatically under-costed, it is a Titan class LoW, which we allow none of at this point in time. Same with the Revenant, Warhound, Heirophant, Daemon Lords, etc.
We will certainly have some goodies to give away at the LVO!
The wait list is at 58 at present. We do have a little wiggle room with space, but won't know if we can open up more 40k until later in the year, unfortunately.
The Chaos LoW list will be updated this week.
The Tau Titan in all likelihood will not be allowed. Beyond being dramatically under-costed, it is a Titan class LoW, which we allow none of at this point in time. Same with the Revenant, Warhound, Heirophant, Daemon Lords, etc.
We will certainly have some goodies to give away at the LVO!
I know Im just being Snide. I knew when I read it it would not be allowed. Im jut hoping that tau have a LOW on the Dex, cause right now in ITC we dont have a usuable one. but all others do
I think the knee-jerk to the tau titan is a bit excessive, and here are some things to keep in mind:
1) It eats up a significant portion of an army, unlike a wraithknight or imperial knight
2) This is the big one - it has no ability to ever be psychicly buffed. Unlike invisible/fortuned wraithknights and imperial knights. Or Tripartite lance giving you 3 kngihts as one unit all with invis, the Tau titan is what it is.
3) It has serious weaknesses to psychics (paroxysm, psychic shriek, insert shriek-power clones, etc) and to grav. A unit of D-scythes will run a train on it as easily as a wraithknight, centstars, cents in pods, etc etc
4) Without it, Tau have no viable choices for LOW unlike the majority of other races
5) Apocalyptic barrage is generally misunderstood. It's not some huge enormous barrage template of death. Its a huge template composed of multiple sections (large blasts). You scatter the whole thing, then you roll randomly to see which large blast piece of it the shot actually ends up coming from. It's pretty hard to control and is easier to think of a "Heavy 3, large blast, barrage, way more random and harder to control"
I agree we should see what the new codex does with it though, as there could be synergies we don't know of yet. But off the bat, I think it's on ~ the same level as the superheavies we currently have in game.
Edit: Also the response of "Tau players can just take a WK or IK" is a bit silly. It's akin to going "My codex is old, It needs an update" and responding with 'You can just play eldar". I mean yes, we can all take anything, but a consolation prize for banning something of one codex/race shouldn't be "you can play a different codex/race".
Unless they allow the Warhound, the Revenant, the Bio-titan, the Harridan and the Daemonlords, banning the Tau'nar (and I am not saying that they have banned it yet) would be consistent with their policies so far. It is also consistent for them to ban D 5"+ blasts that ignores cover, which it surely would with markerlights.
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they revisit this policy due to customer "demand". Their policies are, to an extent, community-based. Just don't keep your hopes up that the majority of the community will be in favor of it.
Agree - if the Tau'Nar is able to spend markerlights/benefit other ways from the new Tau codex, it may be worthy of banning. But purely how it stands now it doesn't seem that cringeworthy to me, compared to other items that are allowed
Target, the thing about players like you and me is that we are die-hard veteran tournament players who can and will adjust to any tournament comp thown our way. Nothing phases us, not super-heavies, not invincible deathstars, not even 100-yr old cheddar.
Frontline isn't concerned about us. We will adjust, we will drink and we will have a great time no matter the tournament ruleset. What they are more concerned about are the more casual players and the newer tournament-goers and their experiences. Hence why their policies/rulesets on the whole tend to be more conservative in nature and why the specific bans. Ironically, for such a conservative tournament, they are still ahead of some of the more "hardcore" RAW-based tournaments like NOVA/Adepticon/ATC in that they allow unlimited Forgeworld and the fact that they even allow any super-heavies at all!
Very true. But I know as do you jy2 that there are some people who feel in the ITC tau are unfairly picked on because of their lack of usable LOW, Myself included. While every imperial player has the Knight, we are stuck with the Orca and the base Tigershark(because it "Might" ignores cover). While Eldar can bring an Apoc blast that ignores cover and 2 d weapons.
But that is my opinion.
We understand the concerns about not getting to use the awesome new Tau model (and it is awesome) in normal play. We go through this every time, and have players wanting to use things like their Reveneant, Scorpion, Warhound, Daemon Lords, etc. It's nothing new for us.
We have no control over which models get released, reach out to FW and ask them to come out with a reasonable Tau LoW. Also, I am willing to bet the new Tau codex has a LoW in it as all of the 7th ed books have had. That new Tau missile suit will likely be a super heavy, but that's just a guess.
At any rate, feel free to vent, we're used to it, but please keep in mind Tau are getting treated the same as everyone else in this regard.
Not venting at all, just putting in my .02 like anyone else regarding whether it's in need of banning, but I think banning might not be the only option.
How are you defining a reasonable LOW? Is it a set of criteria, or? (Genuine question I can't recall what you guys use to allow/disallow) If it's just the fact that it includes ranged blast-D I get that as well. And note - I am agreeing that depending on how the codex interacts with the tau titan, it may need modifications (up to and including banning).
But off the cuff:
-The tau titan has ignores cover AP3. So does the lord of skulls, which is allowed. It's ignores cover AP3 is also rather meh I'll point out. It has no ignores cover ap2.
-The tau titan is 600 points, there are plenty of allowed choices in the mid 500's, and some well over 600 (Lord of Skulls again as an example)
But a fix for the Tau titan (again have to see the Tau book) might be as simple as saying "Tau'Nar doesn't get to interact with other tau models" to preclude any whacky ethereal aura interactions, or markerlight use, etcetc."
Reecius wrote: We understand the concerns about not getting to use the awesome new Tau model (and it is awesome) in normal play. We go through this every time, and have players wanting to use things like their Reveneant, Scorpion, Warhound, Daemon Lords, etc. It's nothing new for us.
We have no control over which models get released, reach out to FW and ask them to come out with a reasonable Tau LoW. Also, I am willing to bet the new Tau codex has a LoW in it as all of the 7th ed books have had. That new Tau missile suit will likely be a super heavy, but that's just a guess.
At any rate, feel free to vent, we're used to it, but please keep in mind Tau are getting treated the same as everyone else in this regard.
And we thank you for it. If tau want something so bad they can take an imperial knight or something.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Very true. But I know as do you jy2 that there are some people who feel in the ITC tau are unfairly picked on because of their lack of usable LOW, Myself included. While every imperial player has the Knight, we are stuck with the Orca and the base Tigershark(because it "Might" ignores cover). While Eldar can bring an Apoc blast that ignores cover and 2 d weapons.
But that is my opinion.
Life isn't always fair. Look at the older codices like Orks, Sisters, Astra Militarum, Dark Eldar and so on. Look at Tyranids who can't have any allies at all. Look at armies with no Psychic presence. You make do with what you have if you love your army. Otherwise, you bring in allies.
On the bright side, the Tau are getting a brand new codex and they will probably kick ass.
But a fix for the Tau titan (again have to see the Tau book) might be as simple as saying "Tau'Nar doesn't get to interact with other tau models" to preclude any whacky ethereal aura interactions, or markerlight use, etcetc."
That sets up a dangerous precedence. The next thing you know, why not ban psychic buffs cast on super-heavies or the Grimoire on Chaos Knights/Daemonlords or shrouded Tyranid GMC's. Why do other armies get to interact with their super-heavies but not Tau? It's a slippery slope which will get even more slippery and controversial. The next thing you know, it isn't just the Tau community complaining, but most of the armies as well. I definitely don't think we should go there.
Using slippery slope to argue against a change is a bit silly. If that was the case:
-We shouldn't change the 2+ rerollable save, because that will lead to changing other types of saves, like FNP -We shouldn't change invisiblity, because then people may want to nerf other psychic powers
But both worked out just fine. And let's all be honest - would it really be a bad thing if armies couldn't interact with super heavies/Gargantuans in that fashion? I don't think anyone is clamoring to say "My 3 knights should be able to be invisible!" or "My wraithknight should be allowed to get fortune!".
It's not like you'll find anyone (hardcore tourney veteran or more casual gt-goer) going "man that was a fun game against that (insert example from above)"
Target wrote: Using slippery slope to argue against a change is a bit silly. If that was the case:
-We shouldn't change the 2+ rerollable save, because that will lead to changing other types of saves, like FNP -We shouldn't change invisiblity, because then people may want to nerf other psychic powers
But both worked out just fine. And let's all be honest - would it really be a bad thing if armies couldn't interact with super heavies/Gargantuans in that fashion? I don't think anyone is clamoring to say "My 3 knights should be able to be invisible!" or "My wraithknight should be allowed to get fortune!".
It's not like you'll find anyone (hardcore tourney veteran or more casual gt-goer) going "man that was a fun game against that (insert example from above)"
I would frankly encourage just obliterating major psychic buffs of any kind, including on SH/GC. I'd probably join in on that with NOVA if ITC went that direction, frankly.
Andrew's point, that last one .... other than those playing them, there are very few who are going to argue that Invisibility is totally legit and key to the game's balance and design, and just the most fun thing ever to play against. Which is of course the slippery slope side of any of these arguments - while "fun" is subjective, there are many items about which the vast majority share the same subjective opinion.
Personally, I am against changes that affect just the army itself.
Changing Invisibility and changing re-rollable 2+'s (and D weapons) affects a design mechanism that isn't fun to play against at all. And while it is mainly abused by certain armies back then (Eldar and Daemons), it wasn't designed to unfairly target a particular army itself.
Outing the Tau'nar to not be able to interact with the rest of its army while other super-heavies can is unfairly targeting the Tau IMO.
And while I am not saying that I advocate banning, to ban the Tau'nar would not be an unfair practice, as other more powerful super-heavies from other races have been banned as well. It is consistent to what the ITC has been doing.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Very true. But I know as do you jy2 that there are some people who feel in the ITC tau are unfairly picked on because of their lack of usable LOW, Myself included. While every imperial player has the Knight, we are stuck with the Orca and the base Tigershark(because it "Might" ignores cover). While Eldar can bring an Apoc blast that ignores cover and 2 d weapons.
But that is my opinion.
Life isn't always fair. Look at the older codices like Orks, Sisters, Astra Militarum, Dark Eldar and so on. Look at Tyranids who can't have any allies at all. Look at armies with no Psychic presence. You make do with what you have if you love your army. Otherwise, you bring in allies.
My Grandma used to say that, and my response always was "Doesnt mean we shouldnt try to make it fair" using the "Life isnt Fair" is just an excuse to not act on something because it might be unpopular, but goes the way of making things fair.
And the ITC has always been about making things fair, when other armies has supplements and others didnt they allowed the(blatently against the rulese btw) rule of allying with yourself, in order to make it fair.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Very true. But I know as do you jy2 that there are some people who feel in the ITC tau are unfairly picked on because of their lack of usable LOW, Myself included. While every imperial player has the Knight, we are stuck with the Orca and the base Tigershark(because it "Might" ignores cover). While Eldar can bring an Apoc blast that ignores cover and 2 d weapons.
But that is my opinion.
Life isn't always fair. Look at the older codices like Orks, Sisters, Astra Militarum, Dark Eldar and so on. Look at Tyranids who can't have any allies at all. Look at armies with no Psychic presence. You make do with what you have if you love your army. Otherwise, you bring in allies.
My Grandma used to say that, and my response always was "Doesnt mean we shouldnt try to make it fair" using the "Life isnt Fair" is just an excuse to not act on something because it might be unpopular, but goes the way of making things fair.
And the ITC has always been about making things fair, when other armies has supplements and others didnt they allowed the(blatently against the rulese btw) rule of allying with yourself, in order to make it fair.
What I mean by "life is not fair" is that the game of 40K is just so unbalanced that there is no way to really balance it out short of writing a whole new ruleset. Is that the responsibility of the ITC? No. They're just trying to patch up holes in the ship. You might not like some of their "fixes" but you can still do something about it. Petition them. Convince your friends to email them or to vote on their polls. Frontline has reversed their decisions before and people's beliefs change over time. Don't think that their houserules are set in stone or that their minds cannot be swayed. As long as enough people voice out their opinions, the TO's will listen.
Also I'm curious as to what your criteria are for LoW non-inclusion
Personally, I don't really care if they are allowed or not in tournament play. But what I do agree is that an organization should be consistent in its rulings. The Tau'nar does not belong in the same class as the wraithknight, the Imperial Knight, the baneblade or the hierodules. He is much stronger and belongs in the class of the Warhounds, the Revenants, the bio-titan and the Daemonlords. As long as Frontline is being consistent. If they don't allow the Warhound-class titans, then the Tau'nar shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise, allow them all in the game (not Reaver-class titans or higher though).
That's my issue with the ITC restrictions... I can't really see how they are arrived at. I think this one item isn't the way it's done anymore, but when polls used to be taken of event attendees, it seemed like it would skew results a lot. I.e., should you nerf my opponent's army? Why yes, of course you should...
As long as people view it as only one way to play 40k and not as "THE" format that other formats should adhere to, then I think it's fine. But regarding casual players as discussed at the bottom of last page - a lot of folks probably don't care about the Tau LOW (it'd be kind of cool to face in some ways) but rather about the standard spam builds or normal things like Wraithknights, as mentioned.
Hulksmash wrote: That's not a criteria Jy2. That's opinion. Which is fine. I was just curious if they had a structure or criteria other than "feels like..."
Personally with the D nerf and the lack of ignore cover on the model it's not even in the same realm as a Wrathknight that is dirt cheap.
Right, unless the question wasn't directed at me, you asked me for "my" criteria. You didn't ask what I thought "their" criteria was. In any case, my criteria isn't important. It's not my event and I don't make the rules for it. However, this is what I think their criteria is (this is just my opinion and not any official ITC policy):
No more than 2 D blasts.
No Torrent Hellstorm templates.
No flying GMC's.
No Super-heavy flyers that shoots D weapons.
No D blasts bigger than 5".
No blasts bigger than 5" that ignores cover.
No Warhound-class titan (or similar level).
Hulksmash wrote: That's not a criteria Jy2. That's opinion. Which is fine. I was just curious if they had a structure or criteria other than "feels like..."
Personally with the D nerf and the lack of ignore cover on the model it's not even in the same realm as a Wrathknight that is dirt cheap.
Right, unless the question wasn't directed at me, you asked me for "my" criteria. You didn't ask what I thought "their" criteria was. In any case, my criteria isn't important. It's not my event and I don't make the rules for it. However, this is what I think their criteria is (this is just my opinion and not any official ITC policy):
No more than 2 D blasts.
No Torrent Hellstorm templates.
No flying GMC's.
No Super-heavy flyers that shoots D weapons.
No D blasts bigger than 5".
No blasts bigger than 5" that ignores cover.
No Warhound-class titan (or similar level).
I'd guess you generated those criteria by looking at what they allow, and I don't think (and this isn't a dig) they really follow a 100% checklist set of criteria. I don't think that's ever been their approach or intent with their list. Sidenote - the Lord of Skulls is clearly above or at a Warhound Class, and has an instant death, ignores cover, hellstorm and 9hp + iwnd and a 5+ invul.)
Remembering back, I believe originally it began as kind of ideas being kicked around, most of which revolved around them wanting to stop ranged D, ignores cover D, and even str 10 ap 2 ignores cover (of the above 5" variety) which is why things like the hellhammer got the boot. They tested ranged D from my memory and allowed it at LVO, Lynx's were pretty well disliked, and then there was a period where ranged D was going to (or did briefly?) get the boot. Then the eldar book came out, and turned that somewhat on it's head, because ranged D (and ignores cover D from the D-scythes) was kind of all over, and ranged D got something of a pass again.
The more we talk on this, the more I wonder if a ban list wouldn't be better served by the way they handled eldar jetbike scatter lasers and other rules changes - just have a checklist for people to vote on of models they're okay with seeing, and ones they're not. Establish some sort of threshold beforehand (doesn't even have to be majority) of what will make a model legal. IE, any model with 30% of respondents or above not wanting it in the game isn't allowed (I obviously made the threshold up, it could just be 50%). Might be interesting to see how people feel about all of these at the very least, who knows, maybe more would get the boot, maybe (this is my hunch) a bunch would get added back in - and I'm fully aware the Tau'Nar would in all likelihood still not be among them
Yes, that sounds about right. There never was a published criteria list, but the ITC is more critical of ranged D or cover-ignoring firepower and flyers than they are of footslogging close-combat D. That's why units such as the big Khorne robot or the Stompa was left basically untouched. With the CC-supers, you could potentially A) kill them before they can actually do any real damage, B) screen them out with sacrificial 50-pt units, C) try to tarp it them, D) play catch-me-if-you-can with them or E) throw your own death star into cc with them. With the cc-supers, there is basically much more interaction with them and they hardly ever make their points back against a lot of armies.
There is no need for selective banning. There game, after all, is inherently unbalanced. It's actually very simple. Tons of people complain, then they set out to do something about it, whether it be a ban or rules change. For the Tau'nar, he just happens to fall into a class of units that are already banned. Thus, banning him as well isn't an exception. It's actually a norm. To allow him in tournament play would be the exception. Then FLG would have to justify why He is allowed and the Warhound or Revenant isn't.
We know that 2++ re rollable was the intent of the developers with the release of the Dark Angels codex. It is really good for them but when you think about it there is actually a fair amount of Ignore Cover...
Astra Militarum - Orders and Sanctioned Psykers
Necrons - Tomb Blades
Tau - Markerlights
Many armies - Divination
Every time a rule is modified it changes the game dynamics. Everyone has their pet peeves. I'm not really knocking anyone but at some point you've got to say where willit end. There are things I really don't like for whatever reason but I finally decided to just go with "Bring it." I have to deal with it.
jy2 wrote: Yes, that sounds about right. There never was a published criteria list, but the ITC is more critical of ranged D or cover-ignoring firepower and flyers than they are of footslogging close-combat D. That's why units such as the big Khorne robot or the Stompa was left basically untouched. With the CC-supers, you could potentially A) kill them before they can actually do any real damage, B) screen them out with sacrificial 50-pt units, C) try to tarp it them, D) play catch-me-if-you-can with them or E) throw your own death star into cc with them. With the cc-supers, there is basically much more interaction with them and they hardly ever make their points back against a lot of armies.
There is no need for selective banning. There game, after all, is inherently unbalanced. It's actually very simple. Tons of people complain, then they set out to do something about it, whether it be a ban or rules change. For the Tau'nar, he just happens to fall into a class of units that are already banned. Thus, banning him as well isn't an exception. It's actually a norm. To allow him in tournament play would be the exception. Then FLG would have to justify why He is allowed and the Warhound or Revenant isn't.
I think the last bit is where we disagree, I see what they're doing AS selective banning. I'd say there is no class of units that are already banned by FLG.
Hellhammer banned for Str 10 Ap2 Ignores Cover pie plate? Vindicator formation is allowed.
Warhound (750) which has 9 HP and can shoot Str D 5 inch blasts? Revenant (900) which fires D 5" blasts? Lynx fires two of those for half the cost (and has the sonic option which is selectively banned, same as the revenant), and the Lord of Skulls costs more (888+65), is significantly more survivable (9hp with an invul and IWND), and has a Str 9 Ap 3 Instant death hellstorm.
The thing is I don't have an issue with a lack of criteria, but I disagree that you can write off banning the Tau'Nar as "see, you can expect it to be banned, it's XYZ type" when there are exceptions abound. Which is why a superheavy ban list vote would actually be kind of cool, then it'd be defined by what the masses are/aren't okay with seeing.
I'll bow out now and drop it (regardless of response, not trying to get the last word!) and appreciate the good discussion Jy2, and the leeway Reece/thread owners allowed for the discussion/derailment to continue today. Thanks guys, can't wait to see everyone at LVO (with or without Tau'Nars!)
If nothing else, ban the thing so we don't have to listen to:
a. Israel Sanchez crow about how great he painted it
and
b. MikeFox complain (which I will get the most direct ear-full) about how great Israel painted it.
The funny part about all this, when people see what kinds of list the top tau players bring to lvo, they are going to wish that titan was allowed, because I'm sure there will be better ways to spend 600 points in the new tau book then this guy. (I am in the I don't care either way if this thing is banned camp, I just want cta llies back).
Still was nice to read a civil debate, made me happy I logged into dakka for once!
krootman. wrote: The funny part about all this, when people see what kinds of list the top tau players bring to lvo, they are going to wish that titan was allowed, because I'm sure there will be better ways to spend 600 points in the new tau book then this guy. (I am in the I don't care either way if this thing is banned camp, I just want cta llies back).
Still was nice to read a civil debate, made me happy I logged into dakka for once!
If everything goes well, and as most players who aren't... Tau... Hope, then no, they would wish they had this 600 point model.
krootman. wrote: The funny part about all this, when people see what kinds of list the top tau players bring to lvo, they are going to wish that titan was allowed, because I'm sure there will be better ways to spend 600 points in the new tau book then this guy. (I am in the I don't care either way if this thing is banned camp, I just want cta llies back).
Still was nice to read a civil debate, made me happy I logged into dakka for once!
If everything goes well, and as most players who aren't... Tau... Hope, then no, they would wish they had this 600 point model.
So that's what everyone said about eldar, anddddd look what happened.
krootman. wrote: The funny part about all this, when people see what kinds of list the top tau players bring to lvo, they are going to wish that titan was allowed, because I'm sure there will be better ways to spend 600 points in the new tau book then this guy. (I am in the I don't care either way if this thing is banned camp, I just want cta llies back).
Still was nice to read a civil debate, made me happy I logged into dakka for once!
If everything goes well, and as most players who aren't... Tau... Hope, then no, they would wish they had this 600 point model.
So that's what everyone said about eldar, anddddd look what happened.
If the tau get even the ork treatment, Imma hope tournies nerf em quite a bit. Fluff wise they are the most miniscule of the armies. It should be represented.
krootman. wrote: The funny part about all this, when people see what kinds of list the top tau players bring to lvo, they are going to wish that titan was allowed, because I'm sure there will be better ways to spend 600 points in the new tau book then this guy. (I am in the I don't care either way if this thing is banned camp, I just want cta llies back).
Still was nice to read a civil debate, made me happy I logged into dakka for once!
If everything goes well, and as most players who aren't... Tau... Hope, then no, they would wish they had this 600 point model.
So that's what everyone said about eldar, anddddd look what happened.
If the tau get even the ork treatment, Imma hope tournies nerf em quite a bit. Fluff wise they are the most miniscule of the armies. It should be represented.
Can I assume as an avid and long time ork player you have a long standing hatred of tau, and maybe a bias against them being competitive?
Also in a competitive setting you should not take fluff into consideration. There are other events (like the narrative) that do that, it should be all about game balance.
Target wrote: Using slippery slope to argue against a change is a bit silly. If that was the case:
-We shouldn't change the 2+ rerollable save, because that will lead to changing other types of saves, like FNP -We shouldn't change invisiblity, because then people may want to nerf other psychic powers
But both worked out just fine. And let's all be honest - would it really be a bad thing if armies couldn't interact with super heavies/Gargantuans in that fashion? I don't think anyone is clamoring to say "My 3 knights should be able to be invisible!" or "My wraithknight should be allowed to get fortune!".
It's not like you'll find anyone (hardcore tourney veteran or more casual gt-goer) going "man that was a fun game against that (insert example from above)"
I would frankly encourage just obliterating major psychic buffs of any kind, including on SH/GC. I'd probably join in on that with NOVA if ITC went that direction, frankly.
Andrew's point, that last one .... other than those playing them, there are very few who are going to argue that Invisibility is totally legit and key to the game's balance and design, and just the most fun thing ever to play against. Which is of course the slippery slope side of any of these arguments - while "fun" is subjective, there are many items about which the vast majority share the same subjective opinion.
Im going to +1 this. I think the interaction should go across all SH/GC and be done with it. this way no one faction is being picked out over another. I don't think we would find many who would argue that this is a bad thing and would be a good starting point of reference in allowing these units into the game. Once we remove the crazy interactions that can go on we can look at them more rationally.
Target wrote: Using slippery slope to argue against a change is a bit silly. If that was the case:
-We shouldn't change the 2+ rerollable save, because that will lead to changing other types of saves, like FNP -We shouldn't change invisiblity, because then people may want to nerf other psychic powers
But both worked out just fine. And let's all be honest - would it really be a bad thing if armies couldn't interact with super heavies/Gargantuans in that fashion? I don't think anyone is clamoring to say "My 3 knights should be able to be invisible!" or "My wraithknight should be allowed to get fortune!".
It's not like you'll find anyone (hardcore tourney veteran or more casual gt-goer) going "man that was a fun game against that (insert example from above)"
I would frankly encourage just obliterating major psychic buffs of any kind, including on SH/GC. I'd probably join in on that with NOVA if ITC went that direction, frankly.
Andrew's point, that last one .... other than those playing them, there are very few who are going to argue that Invisibility is totally legit and key to the game's balance and design, and just the most fun thing ever to play against. Which is of course the slippery slope side of any of these arguments - while "fun" is subjective, there are many items about which the vast majority share the same subjective opinion.
Im going to +1 this. I think the interaction should go across all SH/GC and be done with it. this way no one faction is being picked out over another. I don't think we would find many who would argue that this is a bad thing and would be a good starting point of reference in allowing these units into the game. Once we remove the crazy interactions that can go on we can look at them more rationally.
40K would be an amazing game if we got rid of the various things that - if it were a computer or video game with an active multiplayer - would be insta-patched as obvious abuses. Whether it's invisible titans or near-unkillable units, it shouldn't even be about discussing the killability of the things or whether good players can deal with them. "Micromanaging rules abuses" shouldn't be something any of us really care to have a discussion on in the first place. But maybe that's just me being opinionated ... just saw so much of people micro'ing where to place XYZ models from their jetstars or thunderstars or w/e that it kinda gets a lil silly when you hear people calling it a tactical wargame (and it gets even further removed from a tactical wargame when your way of earning points is to go do what the game tells you to right when it tells you to do it in the middle of a turn, i.e. book maelstrom).
Dozer Blades wrote: We know that 2++ re rollable was the intent of the developers with the release of the Dark Angels codex. It is really good for them but when you think about it there is actually a fair amount of Ignore Cover...
Astra Militarum - Orders and Sanctioned Psykers
Necrons - Tomb Blades
Tau - Markerlights
Many armies - Divination
Every time a rule is modified it changes the game dynamics. Everyone has their pet peeves. I'm not really knocking anyone but at some point you've got to say where willit end. There are things I really don't like for whatever reason but I finally decided to just go with "Bring it." I have to deal with it.
Intent or not is not the main issue. What is is that the mechanism of 2+ re-rollable is just plain broken. It totally discourages interaction if you don't have the tools to deal with it and many armies just do not. BTW, re-rollable 2+ isn't just limited to cover. You have re-rollable 2++ invuln's (Tzeentch) as well as 2+ armor (seer council w/Protect).
Yes, the dynamics of the game changes whenever you change the rules, but sometimes, that can be a good thing IMO. I know there is the question of "where do you draw the line" but that is something for each TO to decide for their events. Sometimes, their personal opinions influence their judgements but many times, their decisions are supported by data from their customer-base/attendees as well. And if you don't agree with one group of TO's decision, you can change it yourself and run a modified ITC ruleset. Heck, you don't even have to use their ruleset at all and still run an ITC event.
Dozer Blades wrote: We know that 2++ re rollable was the intent of the developers with the release of the Dark Angels codex. It is really good for them but when you think about it there is actually a fair amount of Ignore Cover...
Astra Militarum - Orders and Sanctioned Psykers
Necrons - Tomb Blades
Tau - Markerlights
Many armies - Divination
Every time a rule is modified it changes the game dynamics. Everyone has their pet peeves. I'm not really knocking anyone but at some point you've got to say where willit end. There are things I really don't like for whatever reason but I finally decided to just go with "Bring it." I have to deal with it.
Intent or not is not the main issue. What is is that the mechanism of 2+ re-rollable is just plain broken. It totally discourages interaction if you don't have the tools to deal with it and many armies just do not. BTW, re-rollable 2+ isn't just limited to cover. You have re-rollable 2++ invuln's (Tzeentch) as well as 2+ armor (seer council w/Protect).
Yes, the dynamics of the game changes whenever you change the rules, but sometimes, that can be a good thing IMO. I know there is the question of "where do you draw the line" but that is something for each TO to decide for their events. Sometimes, their personal opinions influence their judgements but many times, their decisions are supported by data from their customer-base/attendees as well. And if you don't agree with one group of TO's decision, you can change it yourself and run a modified ITC ruleset. Heck, you don't even have to use their ruleset at all and still run an ITC event.
I have decided to not attend tournaments that change rules from now on. It is just getting too crazy to keep up with now. I feel that Ravenwing needs their re rollable cover save to be competitive - taking away something they are obviously meant to have is just not right imo .
Basically you are playing a bastardized version of the game skewed by someone else's opinion 'how it should be".
krootman. wrote: The funny part about all this, when people see what kinds of list the top tau players bring to lvo, they are going to wish that titan was allowed, because I'm sure there will be better ways to spend 600 points in the new tau book then this guy. (I am in the I don't care either way if this thing is banned camp, I just want cta llies back).
Still was nice to read a civil debate, made me happy I logged into dakka for once!
Agreed. The new Tau codex will probably have some scary stuff in there that will make you wish they brought the Tau'nar instead. With all the codices, you can build much better lists than if you included super-heavies and yet those super-heavies are still banned. Common train of thought is that codex units should be included whereas Forgeworld super-heavies are optional.
Dozer Blades wrote: We know that 2++ re rollable was the intent of the developers with the release of the Dark Angels codex. It is really good for them but when you think about it there is actually a fair amount of Ignore Cover...
Astra Militarum - Orders and Sanctioned Psykers
Necrons - Tomb Blades
Tau - Markerlights
Many armies - Divination
Every time a rule is modified it changes the game dynamics. Everyone has their pet peeves. I'm not really knocking anyone but at some point you've got to say where willit end. There are things I really don't like for whatever reason but I finally decided to just go with "Bring it." I have to deal with it.
Intent or not is not the main issue. What is is that the mechanism of 2+ re-rollable is just plain broken. It totally discourages interaction if you don't have the tools to deal with it and many armies just do not. BTW, re-rollable 2+ isn't just limited to cover. You have re-rollable 2++ invuln's (Tzeentch) as well as 2+ armor (seer council w/Protect).
Yes, the dynamics of the game changes whenever you change the rules, but sometimes, that can be a good thing IMO. I know there is the question of "where do you draw the line" but that is something for each TO to decide for their events. Sometimes, their personal opinions influence their judgements but many times, their decisions are supported by data from their customer-base/attendees as well. And if you don't agree with one group of TO's decision, you can change it yourself and run a modified ITC ruleset. Heck, you don't even have to use their ruleset at all and still run an ITC event.
I have decided to not attend tournaments that change rules from now on. It is just getting too crazy to keep up with now. I feel that Ravenwing needs their re rollable cover save to be competitive - taking away something they are obviously meant to have is just not right imo .
Sorry you feel that way. At least there are many tournament formats in this country so that if you didn't like a particular format, then you can always play in another format (or run the tournament yourself). In any case, happy gaming and maybe one day, I hope you give the ITC a try. Modified40K really isn't so bad.
every GT is some sort of "bastardized version of the game"
even if you leave the rules as is... toss in new missions or add in paint scores and soft scores and guess what. You have "someone else's opinion of 'how it should be".
Just a friendly general reminder to keep it civil in here - has been a very good and mature debate thus far (thanks to all for that, and let's keep it that way!).
Dozer Blades wrote: My GT the only restriction is armies must be battle forged so yeah you are right.
And you don't use straight book missions, and you award points for accomplishing things, etc etc. If you allow all forgeworld, then there's that, too. Yada yada. Basically you've just committed yourself not to attend your own tournament. Alternately, you're just saying only your way of modifying 40k is acceptable to you as the only appropriate homebrew way to play 40k ... IE that steve hammer is better than the others. Which is actually perfectly reasonable of you, if a little narrow minded.
Also are these rules changes for Beakycon?
Steve Turner
2 hrs · Clearwater, FL
Note the following clarifications:
Conjured, spawned and summoned units are not objective secured
Space Marines cannot cast from the Malefic lore
Had to remove a few posts - see the mod note posted above. Please no more baiting-type posts (or in turn accusations of "trolling" and the subsequent rebuttals of such). Make your points in as supported a way as possible, and let them stand on their own merits!
Also please take further discussion of BeakyCon to it's own thread - this thread is for discussion of the LVO. Thanks.
Dozer Blades wrote: We know that 2++ re rollable was the intent of the developers with the release of the Dark Angels codex. It is really good for them but when you think about it there is actually a fair amount of Ignore Cover...
Astra Militarum - Orders and Sanctioned Psykers
Necrons - Tomb Blades
Tau - Markerlights
Many armies - Divination
Every time a rule is modified it changes the game dynamics. Everyone has their pet peeves. I'm not really knocking anyone but at some point you've got to say where willit end. There are things I really don't like for whatever reason but I finally decided to just go with "Bring it." I have to deal with it.
Intent or not is not the main issue. What is is that the mechanism of 2+ re-rollable is just plain broken. It totally discourages interaction if you don't have the tools to deal with it and many armies just do not. BTW, re-rollable 2+ isn't just limited to cover. You have re-rollable 2++ invuln's (Tzeentch) as well as 2+ armor (seer council w/Protect).
Yes, the dynamics of the game changes whenever you change the rules, but sometimes, that can be a good thing IMO. I know there is the question of "where do you draw the line" but that is something for each TO to decide for their events. Sometimes, their personal opinions influence their judgements but many times, their decisions are supported by data from their customer-base/attendees as well. And if you don't agree with one group of TO's decision, you can change it yourself and run a modified ITC ruleset. Heck, you don't even have to use their ruleset at all and still run an ITC event.
I have decided to not attend tournaments that change rules from now on. It is just getting too crazy to keep up with now. I feel that Ravenwing needs their re rollable cover save to be competitive - taking away something they are obviously meant to have is just not right imo .
Basically you are playing a bastardized version of the game skewed by someone else's opinion 'how it should be".
Fare thee well, Black Blow Fly!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MVBrandt wrote: Anyone know if Crissy is / who is running the Malifaux events at LVO this year?
No there will be a different Malifaux TO this year.
I look forward to meeting you, Mr. Brandt. Your lotsa good posts, good contributions to the hobby and general good guy for 40k makes you someone I'd like to meet. And somewhere a ways back, you gave me some advice on how to run something in the last broken eldar book.
Which I didn't use (Shove it, you buncha elf h8uhs, you know who you are, Bahkara).
Mr. Brandt, I don't think I have any reputation to speak of. No one knows me, so you might have to hunt me down by table.
I know I'll be too focused on winning to look up from my game. I prolly won't even make it over to the bar.
....
Back On Topic:
(seriously)
Will the tourney organizers allow us to have Round 1 Grudge Matches? This event iis going to draw folks from all over, and more than just the "I hope I pull you for a match" but a certain mechanism to let those of us who connected via the 'Net, can shake hands and square off in a game. I figure if we ask early enough, Neil Gilstrap will have the time to work it into the software.
And no, 'tis not a subtle hint to play Mike Brandt. A hand shake, bottle clinked, and some kibbtiz time would be cool. I wouldn't say no if if we get paired up, though.
Man, it's funny how much the Tau suit debate has flared up. We deal with internet shitstorms every quarter or so but this one actually caused more debate than expected.
We actually do have a set criteria we judge for LoW, and we do stick to it. Our fault in this is that for some reason, it's not up on the site anymore. It used to be. The Tau Titan was DOA in terms of the ITC because it violates 2 of our exclusion clauses. I will write an article about this as otherwise I'd have to rewrite this on a ton of social media sites and I don't have time to do that.
Short answer: we do have a system for allowing or disallowing LoW in the game, and we apply it fairly only making exceptions to let things in that may violate those guidelines after we've tried them out. But, the system is applied fairly, it is not arbitrary.
@RiTides
We have quantifiable proof that players do not always vote in their own self-interest. That is a myth, we have what is actually a very benevolent group of people in our hobby despite the vocal minority of people online that can be very negative.
@Dozer
If you change any rules at all, you are "bastardizing" 40k. It is sanctimonious to claim your version is more "true" 40k or whatever. Get off the high horse my friend. I say that with no malice as I am sure in your mind you feel justified in making that statement. As MVBrandt pointed out, unless you play unbound and no points limit 40k, where players can choose their mission type and points limit (if they use points at all!) as the book indicates, you are altering the game to fit the way you think it should be played.
It isn't objectively better, it is subjectively better. And that's fine, you are free to play the game the way you choose, but don't delude yourself into thinking your way is "better" or more "pure" or whatever, because that is patently false.
Also, calling a rule call a "clarification" instead of a whatever, again, does not make it more squeaky clean. In any instance where you have more than one interpretation of a rule, choosing to go with one version of it will be a rules change to people seeing it another way. That is a simple fact no matter what verbiage you use to describe your methodology.
@MVBrandt
Awesome! See you at the LVO, buddy!
@Thread
Thanks for the feedback, everyone, always good to hear different opinions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @brotherE
YES! We love stuff like that, let the Grudge matches commence! lol
We will come up with a way to facilitate that, working on some scoring software now, actually.
We have quantifiable proof that players do not always vote in their own self-interest.
Thanks for the responses, Reecius! But on this note, I think that "players do not ALWAYS vote in their own self-interest" doesn't really mean anything... they certainly will sometimes (much of the time, even) and the incentive is definitely there with the method of polling attendees. I've talked to a few other TOs about this and will respectfully disagree with that method.
YES! We love stuff like that, let the Grudge matches commence! lol
We will come up with a way to facilitate that, working on some scoring software now, actually.
That is pretty cool, particularly if some high profile names face off with competitive armies, and play the full game out / don't cede full points to one side or the other. Looking forward to hearing of some grudge matches play out this way
I think one of the reasons people are upset is that in the podcast/videocast Reece, you kept saying things like "I bet this suit has a D-weapon, making tau competitive again" and things like "This will be the counter to the wraithknight"
It made it sound like you where gonna allow it TBH.
And it is like I said, tau have only 2 allowed LOW. One is a glorified transport. the other is useless. Tau would be alot more competitive if you allowed the other Tigershark
I can actually prove measurably that folks vote for what they believe is the right way to do things regardless of their own faction. We have data that proves that. You can disagree, and that is fine, but you would be incorrect to assume that folks vote in their own self interest even most of the time. The exact number is of course impossible to prove, but our data indicates that more often than not, more people in the ITC vote with their conscious than don't.
The alternative is to dictate to people and that method has it's merits but doesn't work as well as we've seen. No system is perfect, but this one has proven to work best so far.
@Hotsauce
I didn't say anything about making Tau competitive, particularly not "competitive again" indicating I felt that Tau are not now competitive. Quite the contrary, Tau are very powerful as they are. I did say that I believe the Tau codex will have a LoW in it, as all of the others baring Space marines have. And I mentioned no counter to a Wraithknight, but a unit comparable to a Wraithknight in terms of an in-Codex LoW for Tau players. Big difference.
Allowing LoW or not has nothing to do with making an army competitive. We have guidelines we feel improve the play experience of the largest number of people.
The number of LoW an army has also has nothing to do with our decision making process. That is something we have no control over. If an army only had one LoW but it was insanely powerful, we still wouldn't let it in just so they got a LoW, that would be silly. And some armies have no LoW at all.
The Tau titan instantly was not going in under our current guidelines, there was never even a question of it unless we chose to make an exception to the rule. But out of the gates, it was already a no go, same as the other models with similar stats and abilities.
But that is why Tau are feeling left out and want this. IG has like 13 allowed. We are allowed 2. and neither of them good. Tau players are feeling picked on because e dont get a whole lot.
HotSauce, you do realize we have no control over which LoW are made or how many or for which factions, right? That is absolutely beyond our control.
We apply our guidelines to all LoW that come out, if that unfortunately nixes one of the few (or only LoW) your factoin gets, that stinks, but it is better that than to let something in that disrupts the game just to allow one faction to get a LoW. That is being fair and consistent, which is what we strive to do.
While I love model diversity, and I am typically one of those folk who has a more loose interpretation of game-skewing, I think Reecius and Co. made the best decision possible.
They have a rubric, they follow that rubric, and that's that.
The real sticky issue would be if the suit was part of the Tau Codex (which it is not) as Frontline is consistent with allowing in-codex LoWs. Maybe the new Tau dex will have another super-suit LoW.
In the end, when managing an event that has almost 300 players, consistency to a rubric is going to save more hurt-feelings than trying to make everyone happy.
Reecius wrote: Garret, you do realize we have no control over which LoW are made or how many or for which factions, right? That is absolutely beyond our control.
We apply our guidelines to all LoW that come out, if that unfortunately nixes one of the few (or only LoW) your factoin gets, that stinks, but it is better that than to let something in that disrupts the game just to allow one faction to get a LoW. That is being fair and consistent, which is what we strive to do.
But you do understand why this can make players feel left out right? and upset them? I mean I applaud you for sticking to your rules. But you seem perplexed why people are upset.
And please dont use RL names, it isnt something I want out.
YES! We love stuff like that, let the Grudge matches commence! lol
We will come up with a way to facilitate that, working on some scoring software now, actually.
That is pretty cool, particularly if some high profile names face off with competitive armies, and play the full game out / don't cede full points to one side or the other. Looking forward to hearing of some grudge matches play out this way
Reece,
Shall we have Call Outs here on dakka or will you get back to us with another mechanism? FLG's site?
I'm holding back the joke Call Outs. I couldn't figure out anything funny about that Grant-Stolen-Car guy or Mr. I-Know-How-to-Paint-Tau and such. Sometimes the Comedy Well dries out while I'm lowering the bucket for more.
I should have said I am for less change - and no I am not running for office. Just something got me a bit riled up yesterday... sorry for being curt. I had a great time at LVO this year and I am sure I will eventually go again.
I can actually prove measurably that folks vote for what they believe is the right way to do things regardless of their own faction. We have data that proves that. You can disagree, and that is fine, but you would be incorrect to assume that folks vote in their own self interest even most of the time. The exact number is of course impossible to prove, but our data indicates that more often than not, more people in the ITC vote with their conscious than don't.
The alternative is to dictate to people and that method has it's merits but doesn't work as well as we've seen. No system is perfect, but this one has proven to work best so far.
Reecius, there are certainly a lot of studies that show people do vote in their self-interest in these type of situations, and a ton of data to back that up. I would love to see the numbers you're mentioning, but the fact remains that this is going to be a factor - how much of a factor, it's hard to say without seeing the numbers you are mentioning.
But the alternative is definitely not only to "dictate to people" - and the ITC system does just that in other circumstances, such as the LoW discussion going on! There are many alternatives... one example is putting out a set of guidelines and allowing for a period of public comments (such as what would be going on in this thread about the Tau LoW, if you hadn't already decided on it). Another would be taking a poll of TOs or other qualified people to help weigh certain decisions. To simply say it's your own system or one of dictating (which again, your system does in some aspects!) is not genuinely considering the alternatives.
To be clear, I think you guys are doing an awesome job. But I also think you could be a little more open to feedback on some of these things, and just saying that you can "prove measurably" that people don't always vote in their self interest... again, really doesn't mean very much, as the system is obviously set up in such a way that that will be a factor (although to what degree would depend on a lot of other factors, too).
I mean this feedback to be helpful - it is a discussion thread about the LVO after all - and I hope it is. I am always of the view that we don't have to agree to have a fruitful discussion - in some ways that's kind of the point of a forum! You guys are doing an amazing job with a difficult task, but it doesn't mean there isn't room to discuss how to improve the system for the future, etc
Biggest issue for me is scoring objectives only on turn 2. I mean seriously, who thought of that? I'm still waiting for someone to tell me it's a joke!!
Reecius wrote: Garret, you do realize we have no control over which LoW are made or how many or for which factions, right? That is absolutely beyond our control.
We apply our guidelines to all LoW that come out, if that unfortunately nixes one of the few (or only LoW) your factoin gets, that stinks, but it is better that than to let something in that disrupts the game just to allow one faction to get a LoW. That is being fair and consistent, which is what we strive to do.
But you do understand why this can make players feel left out right? and upset them? I mean I applaud you for sticking to your rules. But you seem perplexed why people are upset.
And please dont use RL names, it isnt something I want out.
KillswitchUK wrote: Biggest issue for me is scoring objectives only on turn 2. I mean seriously, who thought of that? I'm still waiting for someone to tell me it's a joke!!
Do you mean, scoring at the End-of-Turn?
It was put in place to mitigate the First Turn, Alpha Strike. Gaining First Blood can be significant, so the thinking was that End-of-Turn scoring shifts a some power back to the Goes-2nd player.
I did present an argument to the ITC organizers against it, but it's now been in place so long, I just go along and play as such. Not that big a deal ... unless you use Eldar Jetbikes.
YES! We love stuff like that, let the Grudge matches commence! lol
We will come up with a way to facilitate that, working on some scoring software now, actually.
That is pretty cool, particularly if some high profile names face off with competitive armies, and play the full game out / don't cede full points to one side or the other. Looking forward to hearing of some grudge matches play out this way
Reece,
Shall we have Call Outs here on dakka or will you get back to us with another mechanism? FLG's site?
I'm holding back the joke Call Outs. I couldn't figure out anything funny about that Grant-Stolen-Car guy or Mr. I-Know-How-to-Paint-Tau and such. Sometimes the Comedy Well dries out while I'm lowering the bucket for more.
That reminds me! What happened to last years round 1 grudge match between Nick Rose and JY2? It never took place was my understanding. Did one duck the other? Inquiring minds want to know! Rematch this year? Huh huh?
Reecius wrote: Garret, you do realize we have no control over which LoW are made or how many or for which factions, right? That is absolutely beyond our control.
We apply our guidelines to all LoW that come out, if that unfortunately nixes one of the few (or only LoW) your factoin gets, that stinks, but it is better that than to let something in that disrupts the game just to allow one faction to get a LoW. That is being fair and consistent, which is what we strive to do.
But you do understand why this can make players feel left out right? and upset them? I mean I applaud you for sticking to your rules. But you seem perplexed why people are upset.
And please dont use RL names, it isnt something I want out.
YES! We love stuff like that, let the Grudge matches commence! lol
We will come up with a way to facilitate that, working on some scoring software now, actually.
That is pretty cool, particularly if some high profile names face off with competitive armies, and play the full game out / don't cede full points to one side or the other. Looking forward to hearing of some grudge matches play out this way
Reece,
Shall we have Call Outs here on dakka or will you get back to us with another mechanism? FLG's site?
I'm holding back the joke Call Outs. I couldn't figure out anything funny about that Grant-Stolen-Car guy or Mr. I-Know-How-to-Paint-Tau and such. Sometimes the Comedy Well dries out while I'm lowering the bucket for more.
That reminds me! What happened to last years round 1 grudge match between Nick Rose and JY2? It never took place was my understanding. Did one duck the other? Inquiring minds want to know! Rematch this year? Huh huh?
There was a mistake in the matchup software (or rather, data entry)....as in I wasn't even in their system at all! That's why they couldn't match me up against him. After everyone was matched up, I had to go up to them and then I was paired against another person who wasn't entered into their system as well (there were a few of us like that). Unfortunately in such a large tournament, it isn't easy to go back and change the matchups.
Oh, well, maybe next year....assuming I haven't scared Nick away with my losing streak.
The only downside I could see with grudge matches is it's possible (if someone Really truly had a grudge ) that a player could tech to beat that particular opponent. But folks would absolutely know what they were getting into so if they didn't mix up their standard list / etc then that would be on them a bit. Very much looking forward to seeing some of these call outs happen and the results of them!
RiTides wrote: The only downside I could see with grudge matches is it's possible (if someone Really truly had a grudge ) that a player could tech to beat that particular opponent. But folks would absolutely know what they were getting into so if they didn't mix up their standard list / etc then that would be on them a bit. Very much looking forward to seeing some of these call outs happen and the results of them!
It may theoretically harm the evaluative competitiveness of the event, but it's fun! Which is the whole point.
The scoring at the end of the game turn is a killer for me, it seems to switch favour far too much towards second turn with turbo-boosting bikes etc. We've played a couple of games as a practice run here and the difference between the ITC and our usual ETC scoring methods is noticeable. ultimately you're playing a turn-based game where only one players turns count towards half the result of your match.
as for that tau bugger, it sucks that it not smaller and less powerful and it sucks that imperial guard have all the fun, but when you can bring that, and the poor old blood angels can only take dante...GW should really put more in the dexes...only then the internet will rise up as one and Wraith-bitch about it. no-one wins, ever
RiTides wrote: The only downside I could see with grudge matches is it's possible (if someone Really truly had a grudge ) that a player could tech to beat that particular opponent. But folks would absolutely know what they were getting into so if they didn't mix up their standard list / etc then that would be on them a bit. Very much looking forward to seeing some of these call outs happen and the results of them!
It may theoretically harm the evaluative competitiveness of the event, but it's fun! Which is the whole point.
That's the point of grudge matches imo.
In fact, cheers if you can remain competitive after the grudge match.
Sorry if I was a bit short, I've been getting a tad overwhelmed lately. Been training a new employee, released new mats, etc. The Tau Suit thing kind of blindsided me a bit, lol. I get it though, that model is awesome.
@Dozer
No worries, bro!
@HotSauce
Sorry, buddy. I edited it back to your screen name.
As for players feeling left out because their LoW don't meet the qualifying standards, we can't help that. For a while, Edlar has no LoW at all! And Dark Eldar, lol, they just get left out in the cold. Speaking of which, FW should make the Tantalus a LoW again, it would actually be decent!
Really though, most LoW are not that great. We only see a select few of them in practice.
@RiTides
Thank you for the feedback and support! We appreciate it. We actually have LoW guidelines in place and stick to them with very few exceptions. I screwed up by not posting them on FLG which opened the door to speculation as to our methods, they actually are applied fairly. Folks may not agree with the guidelines, but hey, that goes with the territory.
As with everything in the ITC, those guidelines are up for debate, too. Nothing is set in stone.
@kloma
This comes up a lot, but the reason we do it is actually so that both players have a chance to know what either player is trying to do and then to counter them. If you generate at the beginning of the player turn and then score at the end of the player turn, the other player simply sits back and watches it happen, they have no chance to try and stop you. It becomes very non-interactive which we think makes for poor missions design. YMMV of course.
@Thread
Yeah, we had a pairing snafu last year due to an unforseen consequence with having multiple registration computers running at the same time. So, we weren't able to feature the grudge matches. This year, we will ensure that does not occur and will hype up the grudge matches pre-event, too!
@Erekose
We will set up a way to make the call-outs, most likely on our forums or something, I will figure it out.
That's great Reecius, and I was a bit short yesterday too - GrumpyTides was out due to lack of sleep . Thanks for the thorough reply, and makes sense to stick to your LoW criteria most of the time. Will be good to see what that is later on when you have time (no rush!)
kloma wrote: The scoring at the end of the game turn is a killer for me, it seems to switch favour far too much towards second turn with turbo-boosting bikes etc. We've played a couple of games as a practice run here and the difference between the ITC and our usual ETC scoring methods is noticeable. ultimately you're playing a turn-based game where only one players turns count towards half the result of your match.
as for that tau bugger, it sucks that it not smaller and less powerful and it sucks that imperial guard have all the fun, but when you can bring that, and the poor old blood angels can only take dante...GW should really put more in the dexes...only then the internet will rise up as one and Wraith-bitch about it. no-one wins, ever
Reece - why not have it scored at the beginning of the player's NEXT turn? That's to say, instead of whoever goes first giving his opponent a chance to retort more effectively, have them determine their Maelstrom at the start of their player turn, and determine whether they accomplished it by the start of their next player turn (before *anything* occurs, i.e. reserves) ... then both players are always effectively going 2nd with re: Maelstrom response. I only ask b/c we ran into the same problem w/ designing our accumulation missions, and the best solution of those we worked through was this one - still accomplishes the result you're looking for of giving both players a fair chance to respond, but seems more fair than the present (where one player has to complete his movements and thus give his opponent a clear roadmap for contest, and the other gets last moves / shots to accomplish his own and prevent his opponent's). Just a $.02, obviously. Or maybe $.01. Paypal works fine.
We thought about that too, but then what do you do for the player that gets the bottom of the last turn? The player going first doesn't get to counter them.
Reecius wrote: We thought about that too, but then what do you do for the player that gets the bottom of the last turn? The player going first doesn't get to counter them.
Still an advantage to going 2nd there, just less of one than currently (advantage on bottom of last turn instead of advantage on every single turn). That's to say, you are correct, the person going last has an advantage, it's not perfect, but if the argument against doing it this way is that the 2nd player has an advantage on Turn Last, then your argument also says your current way is invalid as well, but to a greater extent. That is the same question / issue we ran into - namely, the red herring of "well, obvious flaw is obvious" when more prevalent same flaw in alternate is actually somehow less obvious. Weird things, the way our brains work (it was my response initially as well ... the response you just made).
I actually really liked the NOVA progressive scoring - which was top of player turns 2-6. To adapt it to Maelstrom type objectives, you could generate at the beginning of your player turn, and score it at the beginning of your next turn. This way the opponent always has 1 player turn to counter. This would probably require a change to the Maelstrom objectives - destroying a unit could be difficult to track/follow.
im sorry if this is the wrong format to post in but I would like to weigh in on the scoring as well.
Having run both the ITC and Nova missions in a GT setting ( Both sets of missions were enjoyed at equal value )
We found that scoring at the top of the turn starting on 2 was more enjoyable than at the bottom of the turn. It also made scoring a little less complicated because the player whose turn it was also knew they were also to be scoring.
I suppose it comes down to if you think the player going second really has that much of an advantage. We (obviously) play these missions all the dang time to fine tune them and that has only ever come up with players that encounter them for the first time in tournaments. None of the regulars ever mention that they feel the player going second actually does have that big of an advantage with the possible exception of some Battle Company builds due to all the vehicles and ObSec.
There are a lot of variables in that though, perhaps familiarity being the strongest of them.
The real issue, honestly, is the IGOUGO format in a game system that has a model count that has inflated beyond that being a suitable turn structure.
Just listened to the most recent FLG podcast. Criteria for LoW makes great sense. Thanks for transparency (eventually), logic and reasoning seem sound, good bye Supremacy Titan (for now).
I suppose it comes down to if you think the player going second really has that much of an advantage. We (obviously) play these missions all the dang time to fine tune them and that has only ever come up with players that encounter them for the first time in tournaments. None of the regulars ever mention that they feel the player going second actually does have that big of an advantage with the possible exception of some Battle Company builds due to all the vehicles and ObSec.
There are a lot of variables in that though, perhaps familiarity being the strongest of them.
The real issue, honestly, is the IGOUGO format in a game system that has a model count that has inflated beyond that being a suitable turn structure.
Have played them a lot, as has zed. NBD and was just sharing $.02. Taking fresh looks and assuming your format is flawed and can improve is always a healthy stance, one I know you share. This is totally just a subjective area.
FTGTEvan wrote: I actually really liked the NOVA progressive scoring - which was top of player turns 2-6. To adapt it to Maelstrom type objectives, you could generate at the beginning of your player turn, and score it at the beginning of your next turn. This way the opponent always has 1 player turn to counter. This would probably require a change to the Maelstrom objectives - destroying a unit could be difficult to track/follow.
I2nd this, nova did a great job really mitigating going 2nd. It's still an advantage, but not nearly the kind of advantage it was in say last years lvo, or adepticon, or killadelphia.
Reecius wrote: We thought about that too, but then what do you do for the player that gets the bottom of the last turn? The player going first doesn't get to counter them.
I think a bidding system might works. for example: both player can bid on going first or 2nd with like number of re-roll or anything re-roll just an example. so like player 1 won the bid with like 5 re-roll that mean player 2 gets 5 re-roll during that game. at some point, having the choice of picking going 1st or 2nd is going to out weight by the amount of re-roll in the pool (I really doubt going 2nd worth 100 re-roll for my opponent). If both players don't care to bid then dice off is simple enough since they both place so little value on picking.
We am happy to announce that Privateer Press will be joining us at this year's Las Vegas Open. They will have a booth with many key staff members from their organization. We will more than likely see a bunch of new releases as well. Privateer Press staff will be available for open gaming and playing scrambles throughout the day and also during our After Hours events. There are other plans in the works too and they will be announced once they are firmed up.
We are very happy to have Privateer Press joining us at LVO and we will make sure to show them a good time
@Lobukia
Happy to help!
@MVBrandt
Sound advice as always, buddy. And yes, a critical eye is needed for growth.
@Krootman
We will do some analysis. I still go first more often than not, personally.
@tyllon
Interesting idea, might add a lot of complexity to the system and bookkeeping, but it is a cool idea.
Went and toured the property today for the LVO 2016 to get logistics sorted out, etc. Snapped a quick pic of the hall this year and WOW, it is stupid big! 40,000+sqft of gaming glory to be had!
Man its going to be brutally since even going 5-1 means you most likely wont make it to the final day. Might be time to add more Thunderhammers to my list.
I will have to add the LVO to my 2017 plans, I think. Sounds like a blast.
Do you have competitive separated from "fluffy" story-based events for those of us that aren't into smash-face 40k? (nothing wrong with it, just not my cup of bourbon).
Thank you for the support, everyone, we are very humbled and excited by the positive response.
40k Champs will have capacity for 364 and the Narrative is maxed out at 60. So, with no shows, we should have just about 400 40k players in the main hall at the same time, it will be pretty awesome!
Now that we have the capability to manufacture terrain, we will begin moving towards true standardization as well with a F.A.T. Mat on every table and a set of themed terrain for the mat. It will take till LVO 2017 to fully roll into that, but this year we'll have the beginnings of it! Very, very excited.
Plus, Warmachine is looking to hit the cap of 200! Going to be quite the spectacle.
Panzer1944 wrote: Man its going to be brutally since even going 5-1 means you most likely wont make it to the final day. Might be time to add more Thunderhammers to my list.
Man that's pretty harsh. I'm all about a big tournament, but how big is too big? Makes that one loss a lot more disheartening. Probably see more drop outs as rounds go along.
Guys, every Swiss style tournament works this way, haha. Unless it is a double elimination event, which isn't feasible with a game like 40k as the game itself takes too long to play. If you have 4 people in a Swiss format event and you lose a game you're out of contention to win, the number of players doesn't change that.
This is a 6 round event with a 3 round finals (9 in total for those that make the finals) round event, a "normal" 256 player event is 8 rounds and it's one loss and you're out. Adepticon, NOVA, WargamesCon, etc. are all the same way. If you don't have a full event (meaning 256 out of 256 show up) then you can still make the finals with a loss or tie as someone has to play up each round. So, especially with a tie, you are still in the hunt in most cases.
Now, how you handle retention can vary. NOVA does day two brackets, Adepticon has qualifiers for the finals (most people only play 1 day), etc.
At LVO, we have 2 days guaranteed for everyone in the 40k champs. Everyone plays Day 1 and 2, and the top 8 finalists go on to day 3 to play in the finals. So, for the vast majority of players, it feels like a pretty typical GT, 6 games in 2 days. Most players are competing for the "best of" prize for their faction which keeps people motivated and having fun.
We actually have a VERY low drop-out ratio for our events, traditionally. We have multiple events with 100% retention into day 2. In Vegas, if someone doesn't show up day two, it is usually because they're hung over, not because they don't want to play anymore! haha
Reecius wrote: Guys, every Swiss style tournament works this way, haha. Unless it is a double elimination event, which isn't feasible with a game like 40k as the game itself takes too long to play. If you have 4 people in a Swiss format event and you lose a game you're out of contention to win, the number of players doesn't change that.
This is a 6 round event with a 3 round finals (9 in total for those that make the finals) round event, a "normal" 256 player event is 8 rounds and it's one loss and you're out. Adepticon, NOVA, WargamesCon, etc. are all the same way. If you don't have a full event (meaning 256 out of 256 show up) then you can still make the finals with a loss or tie as someone has to play up each round. So, especially with a tie, you are still in the hunt in most cases.
Now, how you handle retention can vary. NOVA does day two brackets, Adepticon has qualifiers for the finals (most people only play 1 day), etc.
At LVO, we have 2 days guaranteed for everyone in the 40k champs. Everyone plays Day 1 and 2, and the top 8 finalists go on to day 3 to play in the finals. So, for the vast majority of players, it feels like a pretty typical GT, 6 games in 2 days. Most players are competing for the "best of" prize for their faction which keeps people motivated and having fun.
We actually have a VERY low drop-out ratio for our events, traditionally. We have multiple events with 100% retention into day 2. In Vegas, if someone doesn't show up day two, it is usually because they're hung over, not because they don't want to play anymore! haha
Nitpicking and all, but NOVA's only one-loss-and-out in a single track (of 3) and, similar to LVO, guarantees at least 6 rounds for all players. Also similar to LVO, the % of drops is actually not very high.
This should add a little credence here - having more people shouldn't cause that many negatives, and should just make it into a cooler, buzzier event.
Big 40K tournaments are rare, cool, and worth going to (obviously, by the sign-ups). Lots of 16-player RTTs abound worldwide for those just seeking best odds at winning some product.
Panzer1944 wrote: Man its going to be brutally since even going 5-1 means you most likely wont make it to the final day. Might be time to add more Thunderhammers to my list.
Man that's pretty harsh. I'm all about a big tournament, but how big is too big? Makes that one loss a lot more disheartening. Probably see more drop outs as rounds go along.
Last years LVO only had 3 people reach 6-0 and no one made it to 9-0. Sean overcame an early loss to win it all. I'd expect that trend again this year. Very deep pool with lots of sharks.
60 is a pretty dang big narrative event in my opinion, but hey! Haha, The limitation for that event is actually terrain. The guys running it make INCREDIBLE themed tables. They felt they could only increase their terrain assets enough to cover enough tables for 60 people, so they set that as their cap. For 2017, I am sure we can increase the number.
Reecius wrote: Guys, every Swiss style tournament works this way, haha. Unless it is a double elimination event, which isn't feasible with a game like 40k as the game itself takes too long to play. If you have 4 people in a Swiss format event and you lose a game you're out of contention to win, the number of players doesn't change that.
This is a 6 round event with a 3 round finals (9 in total for those that make the finals) round event, a "normal" 256 player event is 8 rounds and it's one loss and you're out. Adepticon, NOVA, WargamesCon, etc. are all the same way. If you don't have a full event (meaning 256 out of 256 show up) then you can still make the finals with a loss or tie as someone has to play up each round. So, especially with a tie, you are still in the hunt in most cases.
Now, how you handle retention can vary. NOVA does day two brackets, Adepticon has qualifiers for the finals (most people only play 1 day), etc.
At LVO, we have 2 days guaranteed for everyone in the 40k champs. Everyone plays Day 1 and 2, and the top 8 finalists go on to day 3 to play in the finals. So, for the vast majority of players, it feels like a pretty typical GT, 6 games in 2 days. Most players are competing for the "best of" prize for their faction which keeps people motivated and having fun.
We actually have a VERY low drop-out ratio for our events, traditionally. We have multiple events with 100% retention into day 2. In Vegas, if someone doesn't show up day two, it is usually because they're hung over, not because they don't want to play anymore! haha
coming from the guy who drop on day 2 at Throne of Skulls back in 2011 I hope that Asian chick is worth it
Panzer1944 wrote: Man its going to be brutally since even going 5-1 means you most likely wont make it to the final day. Might be time to add more Thunderhammers to my list.
Man that's pretty harsh. I'm all about a big tournament, but how big is too big? Makes that one loss a lot more disheartening. Probably see more drop outs as rounds go along.
Last years LVO only had 3 people reach 6-0 and no one made it to 9-0. Sean overcame an early loss to win it all. I'd expect that trend again this year. Very deep pool with lots of sharks.
With fewer than 512, then yes, it's a distinct possibility. If it were closer to 512, then someone would likely go undefeated (though technically, you could have enough ties that it didn't happen).
Panzer1944 wrote: Man its going to be brutally since even going 5-1 means you most likely wont make it to the final day. Might be time to add more Thunderhammers to my list.
Man that's pretty harsh. I'm all about a big tournament, but how big is too big? Makes that one loss a lot more disheartening. Probably see more drop outs as rounds go along.
Last years LVO only had 3 people reach 6-0 and no one made it to 9-0. Sean overcame an early loss to win it all. I'd expect that trend again this year. Very deep pool with lots of sharks.
With fewer than 512, then yes, it's a distinct possibility. If it were closer to 512, then someone would likely go undefeated (though technically, you could have enough ties that it didn't happen).
I think the opposite is likely. The current meta gives two list building types: TAC lists and exploitative lists. TAC lists try to be balanced and while generally competitive in every match, they are only rarely going to have a huge competitive advantage and often play with a slight disadvantage. Exploitative lists (by which I mean lists that generally try to build around one aspect of the game to maximize its potential, like FMC spam) are generally stronger but unbalanced and much more prone to being severely disadvantaged in a particular matchup. The larger the tournament and the more rounds it goes, the more likely everyone hits a bad match or hits the "tough luck" game where good decision making is overcome by bad dice. At 300+ people, you need a huge run of luck in the pairings process to get to 6-0 in addition to being a good player.
Hate to be a party pooper guys, but I have to do my due diligence. Outside food and beverage are not allowed in the hall per Vegas' rules.
If you are discreet and no one sees it, well then, not much can be said. But if any of the security or staff see you with outside food or beverage we will have to make you go outside to finish it or throw it out.
So, consider yourself informed! Sorry for that, but it is out of our hands.
Just make sure your troop bag has foam at the bottom for what I like to refer to as "The Refreshment Detachment"
Thankfully it doesn't count towards your formation/detachment limits (special rules) and you can with a good size bag easily fit in a full unit of Mephiston's Brew, a unit of Mork and Gork Nachos, and probably sneak in a unit of Dante's Fries. Avoid such rookie mistakes as ever deploying these units onto the table (they are best left in reserves where the wandering eye of chaos won't find them) or removing them from play into the garbage bins within the hall - always leave no unit behind and dispose of them after proper sacred rites to garbage bins elsewhere.
Play it smart, and don't ruin a good time for everyone
PS: If you're sneaking in the stronger brews, just make sure you buy one now and then from the bar and tip the guy for the ones you're not buying. They're decent folks that are relying on your tips for the job to make any sense there as-is.
Reecius wrote: Hate to be a party pooper guys, but I have to do my due diligence. Outside food and beverage are not allowed in the hall per Vegas' rules.
If you are discreet and no one sees it, well then, not much can be said. But if any of the security or staff see you with outside food or beverage we will have to make you go outside to finish it or throw it out.
So, consider yourself informed! Sorry for that, but it is out of our hands.
Will Sodas/Energy Drinks be sold in the hall? Cause if im playing a game, I cant go more than one without a monster.
And thats kinda a bummer. I remember the first one where I had pizza delivered to the hall.
What you need to do is hook up your Monster Energy Drink to an Intravenous and wheel that thing around... Nobody will question you when you say its for medical purposes.
Reecius wrote: Hate to be a party pooper guys, but I have to do my due diligence. Outside food and beverage are not allowed in the hall per Vegas' rules.
If you are discreet and no one sees it, well then, not much can be said. But if any of the security or staff see you with outside food or beverage we will have to make you go outside to finish it or throw it out.
So, consider yourself informed! Sorry for that, but it is out of our hands.
Awe man, but I understand! Thank you for the reply!
Plains of War wrote: What you need to do is hook up your Monster Energy Drink to an Intravenous and wheel that thing around... Nobody will question you when you say its for medical purposes.
I just am sad Im not gonna get to use my beer helmet :( I was gonna bring in a bunch of monster/rockstars and put them in the hat while I play
Reecius wrote: Hate to be a party pooper guys, but I have to do my due diligence. Outside food and beverage are not allowed in the hall per Vegas' rules.
If you are discreet and no one sees it, well then, not much can be said. But if any of the security or staff see you with outside food or beverage we will have to make you go outside to finish it or throw it out.
So, consider yourself informed! Sorry for that, but it is out of our hands.
I know most hotel is pretty clear on what is outside food but well this is vegas. what is consider outside food? is the Bally's food court or any part of the hotel (including the newly build outside vendors, there is a starbuck and sugar) consider outside food? Also will the caesar group like paris, caesar, ling etc consider outside food? Or should We all just keep ourselves informed but not that well?
Reecius wrote: Hate to be a party pooper guys, but I have to do my due diligence. Outside food and beverage are not allowed in the hall per Vegas' rules.
If you are discreet and no one sees it, well then, not much can be said. But if any of the security or staff see you with outside food or beverage we will have to make you go outside to finish it or throw it out.
So, consider yourself informed! Sorry for that, but it is out of our hands.
I know most hotel is pretty clear on what is outside food but well this is vegas. what is consider outside food? is the Bally's food court or any part of the hotel (including the newly build outside vendors, there is a starbuck and sugar) consider outside food? Also will the caesar group like paris, caesar, ling etc consider outside food? Or should We all just keep ourselves informed but not that well?
What this means is that there will be a Bally employee stationed just outside the main ballroom. Go in with food in hand - even if said food is bought from Bally - and he will say finish the food before going inside. Go in with food inside your bag(s) and then you're good. Out of sight, out of mind.
BTW, they should be selling alcohol/drinks inside the ballroom.
What's the refund policy like in case you can't make it. Or in case you systematically Nerf the army I was planning on bringing against raw for "balance purposes" while leaving even worse things untouched and I no longer am interested in supporting a non-impartial system. Because I would hate to be locked into a payment for something I might not be able to attend.
Won't be attending this year - The recent poll just makes this tournament a waste of my time. Don't understand how you guys feel it's OK to change the rules as written in the new codices without even letting it be played in a number of GTs so we can assess how it plays out properly. When you took Invisibility down we had at least been able to properly play it out, see if it was indeed an engine towards winning GTs, and then make a decision. Instead here you just decided to remove/heavily edit a core function of the new 'decurion' style detachment for a codex that was rarely in contention for the win anyway - all based on people hyperventilating on the internet.
And in those three weeks have you seen it used in any GTs? Do we have any data that shows it has or would have significantly changed the meta? Has Tau actually won any thing since then in the tournament scene because of the rule change?
ITC should have been willing to wait and see how these new rules impacted the scene before deciding to put it to a vote. Instead now we never even get to see how this would have played out and Tau simply continue to stagnate away from the top tables in the ITC.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Except, unlike invisibility, the hunter contingent is ambiqous.
its not. You would LIKE it to look that way, but its not. Firing like they are one unit. That is the only thing that matters. If they were all in one huge unit and fired, they would share special rules, they dident even need to add the markerlight sharing because that would be a given. They did as an example in case people couldnt understand basic rules, the kind of people they wrote Age of Sigmar for in all its 4 pages of rules glory. What happened is what happens whenever you have a mob vote. Everyone votes in favor of what is in their best interest. And since marine players alone probably outnumber all the other races put together, you will see changes like this, while nothing is done about the "not fun to play against" level of gladius strike force. Or skyhammer for that matter.
People dont vote in their best interest. I dont play orks at all, I voted for the stompa, I dont play eldar, I voted to keep the raw. I vote in the interest of fairness
Pain4Pleasure wrote: I'm very pleased with the itc voting and can't wait to attend! Anyone complaining is just bitter and we don't need them bringing down our fun anyway
Some players want to keep the game as close to RAW as possible and not vote to change the rules unless they are proven to be detrimental to the game. Do you call that bitter?
Pain4Pleasure wrote: I'm very pleased with the itc voting and can't wait to attend! Anyone complaining is just bitter and we don't need them bringing down our fun anyway
Some players want to keep the game as close to RAW as possible and not vote to change the rules unless they are proven to be detrimental to the game. Do you call that bitter?
Yes, I do. Things happen, changes are made, adapt and overcome. Have fun. Don't pout and stomp your foot, declaring you will not attend such ludicrous changes and demand a recount. It's childish
Pain4Pleasure wrote: I'm very pleased with the itc voting and can't wait to attend! Anyone complaining is just bitter and we don't need them bringing down our fun anyway
Some players want to keep the game as close to RAW as possible and not vote to change the rules unless they are proven to be detrimental to the game. Do you call that bitter?
Yes, I do. Things happen, changes are made, adapt and overcome. Have fun. Don't pout and stomp your foot, declaring you will not attend such ludicrous changes and demand a recount. It's childish
Refund. I believe a refund, not recount was demanded.
Glad I had to bow out already due to family stuff and unloaded the ticket. The nonsensical nerf to tank shock is a huge hit to the army I was prepping to take. I have to admit I am starting to feel the ITC polls are causing more harm than good at this point.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: I'm very pleased with the itc voting and can't wait to attend! Anyone complaining is just bitter and we don't need them bringing down our fun anyway
Some players want to keep the game as close to RAW as possible and not vote to change the rules unless they are proven to be detrimental to the game. Do you call that bitter?
Yes, I do. Things happen, changes are made, adapt and overcome. Have fun. Don't pout and stomp your foot, declaring you will not attend such ludicrous changes and demand a recount. It's childish
I feel like pain4pleasure is mis-reading what Blackmoor is saying. Just feel like personal views are mix into what blackmoor is saying.
I love tournaments, and im kicking myself missing 2015
