Registration Opens tomorrow, Thursday July 20th at 9am PST!
Why would you want to go to the Las Vegas Open 2018 gaming convention? I am here to answer that question for you, friends.
First off, what is the Las Vegas Open gaming convention? An excellent question! The LVO, as we call it, is quite simply three days of gaming Nirvana! Well, perhaps a touch of hyperbole there, but it does last three days and there is a lot of gaming! You many not achieve enlightenment, but you will most certainly have a dang good time
Running from January 26th through the 28th, the LVO will scratch all of your hobby itches. We’ve got absolutely massive gaming tournaments, boasting the largest 40k Championships event in the world (400 players in that event alone this year!), a huge Age of Sigmar and Blood Bowl event, Warmachine and Hordes, Infinity, Bolt Action, X-WIng, Malifaux, hobby lessons from top level painters, seminars from Games Workshop professionals, narrative events, doubles tournaments, casual gaming and more! There’s so many ways to enjoy your hobby at the LVO that it is honestly hard to list them all in the space I’ve got, here.
But more than a laundry list of events and accolades the LVO has earned over the years what it is at its core is FUN. The LVO is just plain, simple honest fun. You’re in a city that is a million watt playground, surrounded by people that love this crazy hobby of ours as much as you do. At the LVO we game together, go out together, sing songs and make memories as a group of like minded hobby enthusiasts. From all around the world come enthusiastic gamers to leave their mark in the history books of LVO glory or just have a rocking fun three days with new and old friends alike!
We at Frontline Gaming pour our hearts and souls into making this an event worth your hard earned money and time. We hope to see you there!
WOW tickets are going fast! Jump in there and snag one if you want to go, please!
@Wren
I am helping run it this year with a new crew of awesome people. It will be very similar, the narrative guys are still very involved, and I think we are going to pull off an incredible event!
Reecius wrote: WOW tickets are going fast! Jump in there and snag one if you want to go, please!
@Wren
I am helping run it this year with a new crew of awesome people. It will be very similar, the narrative guys are still very involved, and I think we are going to pull off an incredible event!
Looking forward to it! Got my narrative ticket again
Reece... Wondering if LVO will be running combined missions like in BAO. ITC and Nova. BfS is in the process of deciding missions for the BFS Gt in October.
The game plan is for ITC Combined Arms missions Days 1 and 2 of the Champs and NOVA missions for the finals but not sure, just yet. The NOVA missions were well received at the BAO so we may mix it up a bit more. We've also been getting some feedback for some entirely new missions, too. We will get this updated as soon as we are able to.
@medikant
Yeah, the hobby classes will go up ASAP. I have simply not had time but hope to get to it this week.
There will be more events coming, yes. Some of the event coordinators were unable to get their events done in time.
AoS and 30k packages sold out over the weekend, so please grab tickets for those events as they are all filling up! Still room in them just to be clear, only the package deals that sold out.
Hey attendees - its my first LVO and I am looking for a partner for the 40k doubles event on the Sunday. I picked this event as it would give me time to have a look around and still participate in a laid back event.
I have a ticket already so just looking for someone that will be happy to team up with a random English fellow.
Can do a few different forces, but must admit that I have not played 8th ed yet (need to get some practice in soon) and therefore could be a bit of a liability for someone looking to win it
Silent King I would offer but I am also playing in the Championship Brackett if by some miracle I get to day 3 I wont be able to be your partner
If you are okay with this small risk send me a message.
I was told Judges for the 40k champs will be going around removing unpainted unbased models. Is that true? If so, what counts as based? is it fully painted or is texture paint enough. is painted the 3 color minimum? Also, will we be required to have Chapter Approve on us? Because my team is thinking of just buying one for the team to use. 3rd, Im going to be wearing a gorilla suit because I lost a bet.
TOs- Will/can you include repercussions for players caught cheating (it is what it is ) and/or ignoring the rules?
Can we start seeing it it Tournament Packs delineated specifically?
This is currently preventing me from commiting to national travel and build costs. I personally believe its an issue and find it unacceptable considering the inherent costs of the national circuit.
Its the elephant in the room that never gets addressed.
Byte wrote: TOs- Will/can you include repercussions for players caught cheating (it is what it is ) and/or ignoring the rules?
Can we start seeing it it Tournament Packs delineated specifically?
This is currently preventing me from commiting to national travel and build costs. I personally believe its an issue and find it unacceptable considering the inherent costs of the national circuit.
Its the elephant in the room that never gets addressed.
If players are caught cheating? Like how? If you have an illegal list we typically remove the detachment that is over on points. If you cheat in what other way? loaded dice or something? We boot you from the event. It's pretty simple. Maybe I don't understand your question. Cheating is a broad term but if
fear of encountering it is holding you back it is hardly very common. List errors happen but we come down on that harshly.
@Hotsauce1
Yeah, we will pull unpainted/unbased models off of the table. Painted is 3 colors, based is based. What do you mean? Glue some flock on, or sand. You can even paint them all black if you like for a clean look, as long as every model is based that way.
@Thread
WOW, 40k Champs at LVO hit that 512 player horizon! Crazy to think but there it is.
If you missed out, you can sign up for the wait list by following the link below.
I understand that you looking from the "inside out" the view of cheating my seem convoluted.
From the "outside in" I ASSURE its not.
The rules packet should address violations and repercussions. You would know much better than I what a "violation" means. Managing expectations goes a long way in players being able to police themselves. Assume nothing.
Byte wrote: I understand that you looking from the "inside out" the view of cheating my seem convoluted.
From the "outside in" I ASSURE its not.
The rules packet should address violations and repercussions. You would know much better than I what a "violation" means. Managing expectations goes a long way in players being able to police themselves. Assume nothing.
Much respect.
I think intent and magnitude are hard to define, so having a set guidelines of "this action leads to this consequence" is a lot harder to implement than having judge make case by case rulings. Illegal lists are easy to nail down regardless of intent, and they've stated their response to illegal lists.
But it's hard to say "anyone who cheats is banished to the pit of misery" when some things are minor and accidental. In a recent event I accidentally played index Ratlings as having a 6" move instead of a 5" move because I was unaware of an FAQ. My book said 6" and thats the only place I looked. Sometimes the judge has to look at that and say that it doesnt deserve the same penalty as someone who played their earthshakers as having d6 damage instead of d3.
Yeah, exactly. It is nothing but shades of grey. I accidentally played with an entire unit that wasn't on my list one time because it was a 1,500pt tournament, I was used to 2,000pts and just without thinking put the unit on the table and played a game of an event with it.
As Jifel pointed out, people play rules wrong all the time on accident. It happens.
Our policy largely is to expect players to police themselves and their own games. We cannot have a judge at every table. It simply isn't possible.
And by violation, with all due respect, no, I seriously don't know what you are referring to. I rarely hear of anyone in the tournament community being overly concerned with cheating, perceived or otherwise. 99% of the time someone breaks a rule it is unintentional in my experience and typically, when both players agree to play it the same way (unintentionally, obviously) that is the way the game was played. You can't go back in time, both players just have to do their best to be diligent and accurate.
Ultimately, this is a massively complex game that human brains are running, so mistakes are inevitable. Overly Draconian policies about making mistakes will kill your own scene. However, in the rare instances of actual malicious cheating (which I have witnessed literally thousands of games of 40k first hand over the years and can count on my hands the number of times I have seen someone actively cheat) is extremely uncommon and if caught, we will boot someone without hesitation.Letting something like that stop you from enjoying the organized play scene is like not driving a car for fear you may get in an accident. Is it a real possibility? Yes, but is it likely? No. And, is driving a car worth the risk? Yes, for most people as you gain a lot for the relatively tiny risk.
I can't speak for anyone else but myself but generally I think people have had a bad taste left in their mouth in the last few years since so many tournaments have been finding list errors after the fact in the winning list.
I agree it is very hard to prove intent, but some measures could be taken to reduce accidents. I think it would be nice if lists were submitted ahead of time and then shared on a website for the public to check. The most argument I have heard against this are usually kind of silly or outliers. I think some players want to surprise the scene but I think thats part of the issue, players are trying to take some extremely niche builds that push the limits and generally this is where the error occurs. The other excuse is trying to meet a deadline, but that should be on the player not the tournament to accommodate their last minute painting
In the absence of this I think at the very least the final 16 or 8 in smaller events should be thoroughly vetted before the final rounds starts and if they have errors they should lose their place. No need to over complicate it just drop them and fill it with the next legal list in line.
If after all those checks something is caught later I think we can all be level headed enough to assume the player was not gambling on sneaking an error through all those checks, even if it's in Vegas. I would however contact the player and suggest the title in name and any points where relevant be removed as a show of good faith.
I don't think the TO should be expected to vet 512 lists though, thats insane and with a few volunteers and a rushed schedule it wouldn't mean much anyway. I think the top bracket would suffice, and hit the lists that mattered, pretty sure if wooden spoon guy intentionally tried to pull shenanigans fate already punished him and it didn't impact the event.
IDK, my 2 cents anyway. Couldn't make it this year but I can't wait to live vicariously thorough my fellow nerds! Hope everyone has a blast at every table, even the craps table
BCP allows you to do this and we have the ITC List Checking FB group. It's just getting the information out there and getting people to use them. We're getting there. The 40k List Building App GW said they were rolling out will be a big help, too.
And yeah, lol, 512 lists with everyone changing lists, people dropping, adding, transferring tickets and what not, no way, lol. That would take weeks and weeks of work and still not be 100% accurate. It's unrealistic and not a viable solution anyway.
Wow, last year I think there were spots open even in early January.
Curiously - I kind of want to go to some seminars, but between the championships and other events, it seems impossible to go to them. Do people go to LVO just for the seminars?
I'd be interested in attending some, but it's just impossible because I'm there to play.
Reecius wrote: No we don't check the 700+ lists coming in to the LVO for 40k, alone. It isn't realistic.
We will require people to upload their lists to BCP, though, so be prepared for that.
@Primark G
They announced it at NOVA.
This is amazingly good news Reecius. Thanks for sharing this announcement - really this is something GW should provide to support match play. I really feel like they hit it out of the park this edition. I also want to say that with your crazy attendence level I understand your position. I think you are doing great things with your FLG Team.
Where can I submit my list to ensure it is legal? Aside from just confirming myself and adding points manually etc. Sorry is my first tournament and literally flying coast to coast to play so just want to confirm (would suck to get there and get DQed)
Also what does this mean and what do I need to do to meet the requirements?
"We will require people to upload their lists to BCP, though, so be prepared for that. "
Also super naive question, but is there a place I can find the official rules for doubles 40k? Does it play just like a standard game except point cap is 1000 per army at 2 detachments? This may seem obvious but for example for reinforcements, I would be able to put 500 points in reinforcements but need more on the table? Points are shared, so whoever slays the warlord gets the points (goes to that team so to speak) and this can be achieved twice in the same game? Etc.
You will be uploading your list to BCP. They are hwat we run the tournament with. You can download the app to your phone: https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/
But to specify: each player has a unique 1,000pt army following normal list writing guidelines. The two armies do not interact in any way and the only limitation is that you cannot have more than 1 of any unique characters on the table.
Not yet. Once we pass the deadline for any refunds we will upload the roster to BCP. Doesn't make sense to do it prior to that as it shifts around with drops, adds, etc. But, by the end of the month it will be ready to rock.
One more question, since there isn't an official ITC faq, will the head judge of LVO be open for rules questions? I've sent some to GW but not sure if I'll get a response by March, so I don't know if LVO will be answering questions on its own.
But I know renegades are often converts / mashups of other models - is it possible to use a different model as renegade commander and who has to approve it?
Hey Reece, quick question: I'm using Bloodreavers as CSM Cultists. How crazy do I legally have to get with the converting or can they keep the duel melee weapons and I'll slap on a holstered pistol somewhere?
andysonic1 wrote: Hey Reece, quick question: I'm using Bloodreavers as CSM Cultists. How crazy do I legally have to get with the converting or can they keep the duel melee weapons and I'll slap on a holstered pistol somewhere?
Speaking as a veteran of the LVO kiddie pool, you'll be fine.
Cultists are civilians of whatever tech level a planet might be ... and then they get religion of the 8 pointed star kind. GW's Blood reavers ought to be acceptable.
Just make sure they're painted to the standards ITC calls for.
Apologies if this isn’t the place for this, but will there be any FAQs in place for Tsons, GK, etc who have a reduced version of smite but still got shafted by the beta rules?
andysonic1 wrote: Hey Reece, quick question: I'm using Bloodreavers as CSM Cultists. How crazy do I legally have to get with the converting or can they keep the duel melee weapons and I'll slap on a holstered pistol somewhere?
Speaking as a veteran of the LVO kiddie pool, you'll be fine.
Cultists are civilians of whatever tech level a planet might be ... and then they get religion of the 8 pointed star kind. GW's Blood reavers ought to be acceptable.
Just make sure they're painted to the standards ITC calls for.
Painting's not an issue, I enjoy it a lot. Now for the second part of this Cultist problem I'm in: I have 20 CSM Cultist models and 20 Bloodreavers. I want to use them all in one unit, with 20 models holding autoguns (Cultist models) and 20 with melee weapon + pistol (Bloodreaver models). If they are all painted similarly to appear as one unit, will this be an issue?
andysonic1 wrote: Now for the second part of this Cultist problem I'm in: I have 20 CSM Cultist models and 20 Bloodreavers. I want to use them all in one unit, with 20 models holding autoguns (Cultist models) and 20 with melee weapon + pistol (Bloodreaver models). If they are all painted similarly to appear as one unit, will this be an issue?
No, this should not be an issue for anyone.
The CSM codex entry says that it is legal, and since your models are definitely two separate, designated sets, I'd be okay with:
"My 20 CSM cultist models have autoguns and the BloodReaver models have the pistol and club."
greyknight12 wrote: Apologies if this isn’t the place for this, but will there be any FAQs in place for Tsons, GK, etc who have a reduced version of smite but still got shafted by the beta rules?
Hey guys, sorry for my delayed response, been battling a cold.
Reavers as cultists is fine I do the same thing myself =) They just look so much cooler. And, IIRC, the BRB actually states that pistols and grenades are considered to be on the models even if they're not holding them.
@GreyKnight
Obviously if I did know of an inbound FAQ I couldn't say anything about it, sorry.
But, it may feel like a nerf but in our experience it isn't, particularly for GK. If you were relying on their baby smite to win games you were probably doing something wrong (not to be rude). We use GK loads here and rarely even cast their smite unless playing Daemons, of course.
And, in reverse, it means you are getting hit with less Smites which for an army like GK is actually a big deal as you are so low model count. It helps you more than hurts you in that scenario.
Hello
Spellcrow is wargaming miniatures, bits (40k compatible), terrain,scenery and accesories company based in Poland. You may find our products both online at http://www.spellcrow.com/, ebay and other physical and online stores acorss the world.
We will gladly sponsor any tournament with free prizes for all participants and winners.
Just mail us at: spellcrow@umbraturris.com using hashtag #TournamentSponsorhip and tell us a bit about your tournament.
Reecius wrote: But, it may feel like a nerf but in our experience it isn't, particularly for GK. If you were relying on their baby smite to win games you were probably doing something wrong (not to be rude). We use GK loads here and rarely even cast their smite unless playing Daemons, of course.
I don't know if I've seen a player do GK 'right' in 8th then. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing how it's supposed to be done.
And, in reverse, it means you are getting hit with less Smites which for an army like GK is actually a big deal as you are so low model count. It helps you more than hurts you in that scenario.
nevermind. I think I figured out what you're saying.
You will be uploading your list to BCP. They are hwat we run the tournament with. You can download the app to your phone: https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/
But to specify: each player has a unique 1,000pt army following normal list writing guidelines. The two armies do not interact in any way and the only limitation is that you cannot have more than 1 of any unique characters on the table.
Last year the BCP app was terrible. I took in many cases up to 20 minutes just to get it to load our opponents due to the high number of players and lists loaded into the application. Has this been rectified?
Question regarding multiple codex detachment interactions: I know that if I take a CSM Battalion and a Daemons Battalion that I can take Artifacts from both if I spend the CP to take from the Detachment that does not contain my warlord. However, I would like my CSM Daemon Prince to take a Daemons Codex artifact. It hits all the required keywords to do so, however this stratagem is done before the battle begins and may not be legal since keywords may still be in play. I would like to hear a ruling on this since a CSM Daemon Prince with Skullreaver leading World Eaters and Khorne Daemons would be absolutely brutal.
Most successful, competitive GK players use lots of Strikes, sometimes Dreadknight Grand Masters and Interceptors but not always, moderate character support, and deep strike in using things like Astra Aim and Psilencers to lay down a boatload of multi-damage firepower. Same goes with their Devastator squad (the name of which escapes me).
If you play them with a detachment of say, Astra Militarum to compliment them, they work very well together. Playing pure GK is very challenging but that is not because they aren't good, just because they (like most elite armies) lack some of the essential tools you need to succeed in the hyper-aggressive 8th ed competitive meta. You have to be able to screen effectively, and elite armies by their nature aren;t good at that unless they have a hyper-durable unit like Bullgryn, or some Nurgle units that can take a vicious punch.
Lacking that, you are just waiting to get alpha struck out of a tournament. That is why GK struggle and why they can be tough to play pure in a competitive setting.
They have amazing units and elements to them, but their 1 damage smite is certainly not a cornerstone of their competitive strategy. Their other powers are better by a mile. The baby smite is something you do when you don't have anything else to do, not something you rely on to win games.
@Togusa
Not many folks have reported that, actually, We had some slowing when the network got over-stressed but generally it ran very smoothly and is what makes large events possible. However, sounds like you experience was poor, which sucks.
To my knowledge the app has been stress tested up to 10,000 active users, so I believe we will be fine.
If you find yourself struggling to use it on your phone, you can always go up to the judge's desk and use one of the iPads we have for that purpose.
@Andysonic1
Typically, assume relics and strats and such work only on the units from their Dex. There are some exceptions, but look at the faction keywords, not necessarily the general keywords. It gets confusing because "Daemon" is in both categories at times, but as a rule of thumb, look at the faction keyword for those things.
Typically, assume relics and strats and such work only on the units from their Dex. There are some exceptions, but look at the faction keywords, not necessarily the general keywords. It gets confusing because "Daemon" is in both categories at times, but as a rule of thumb, look at the faction keyword for those things.
Is that a house rule for this particular tournament? Because (and I know you guys helped write these rules but I'm going to link them anyways) the FAQs seem to contradict that:
Q: What is the difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword?
A: The only real difference is that Faction keywords are used when building an army; when Battle-forging an army, for instance, you will often only be able to include units in the same detachment if they share the same Faction keyword. Also, if you are playing a matched play game, you will need to have an Army Faction – this is a Faction keyword that is shared by all of the units in your entire army (with the exception of those that are Unaligned). Once the battle has begun, there is no functional difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword.
For example, when creating a Battle-forged army for matched play, I take two Patrol Detachments; the first contains only units with the Heretic Astartes Faction keyword, and the second contains only units with the Daemon Faction keyword. My Army Faction is ‘Chaos’ because this is a Faction keyword every unit in the entire army shares.Once the battle has begun, the distinction between keywords and Faction keywords no longer has any effect – both are used to interact with abilities identically. Imagine, then, that the Heretic Astartes Detachment contains a unit of Possessed (which does not have the DaemonFaction keyword, but does have the Daemon keyword), and I choose for them to replace their <Mark of Chaos> keyword with Khorne. If the Daemon Detachment contained a Herald of Khorne, his ability to ‘add 1 to the Strength characteristic of all Khorne Daemons’ would also apply to the unit of Possessed, as they have both the Khorne and Daemon keywords.
Q: If my army is led by a Chaos Space Marines Warlord, and I have a Detachment of Death Guard, can I use the Gifts of Decay Death Guard Stratagem to include a Relic on a Death Guard Character?
A: Yes. The only requirement to have access to Stratagems is that you have a Detachment of the appropriate Faction. If you have a Death Guard Detachment, you have access to their Stratagems.
Q: Is it possible to use a Stratagem from Codex: Chaos Space Marines to target a unit from Codex: Death Guard? For example, can I use the Tide of Traitors Stratagem on a unit of Cultists from a Death Guard Detachment if I have an Alpha Legion Detachment and a Death Guard Detachment in a single Battle-forged army?
A: Yes – if you have access to a Stratagem because you have an appropriate Detachment, it can be used on any permitted target: they do not need to be from that Detachment. In your example, the Alpha Legion Detachment gives access to the Chaos Space Marine Stratagems, and Tide of Traitors can be used on any Chaos Cultists – this would include any Chaos Cultists from the Death Guard Detachment.
So are we getting a huge exception with the Daemon Codex in regards to Stratagems working on CSM Daemon units, or is everyone wrong when they say things like, "We can Deep Strike in Magnus now"? Because there is a lot of debate around this particular topic. It's not my original question but it has to do with the interaction "before the battle begins".
Most successful, competitive GK players use lots of Strikes, sometimes Dreadknight Grand Masters and Interceptors but not always, moderate character support, and deep strike in using things like Astra Aim and Psilencers to lay down a boatload of multi-damage firepower. Same goes with their Devastator squad (the name of which escapes me).
If you play them with a detachment of say, Astra Militarum to compliment them, they work very well together. Playing pure GK is very challenging but that is not because they aren't good, just because they (like most elite armies) lack some of the essential tools you need to succeed in the hyper-aggressive 8th ed competitive meta. You have to be able to screen effectively, and elite armies by their nature aren;t good at that unless they have a hyper-durable unit like Bullgryn, or some Nurgle units that can take a vicious punch.
Lacking that, you are just waiting to get alpha struck out of a tournament. That is why GK struggle and why they can be tough to play pure in a competitive setting.
They have amazing units and elements to them, but their 1 damage smite is certainly not a cornerstone of their competitive strategy. Their other powers are better by a mile. The baby smite is something you do when you don't have anything else to do, not something you rely on to win games.
@Togusa
Not many folks have reported that, actually, We had some slowing when the network got over-stressed but generally it ran very smoothly and is what makes large events possible. However, sounds like you experience was poor, which sucks.
To my knowledge the app has been stress tested up to 10,000 active users, so I believe we will be fine.
If you find yourself struggling to use it on your phone, you can always go up to the judge's desk and use one of the iPads we have for that purpose.
@Andysonic1
Typically, assume relics and strats and such work only on the units from their Dex. There are some exceptions, but look at the faction keywords, not necessarily the general keywords. It gets confusing because "Daemon" is in both categories at times, but as a rule of thumb, look at the faction keyword for those things.
Good information to know. Last year I reported the troubles, but I never followed up as it slipped my mind until just recently.
Most successful, competitive GK players use lots of Strikes, sometimes Dreadknight Grand Masters and Interceptors but not always, moderate character support, and deep strike in using things like Astra Aim and Psilencers to lay down a boatload of multi-damage firepower. Same goes with their Devastator squad (the name of which escapes me).
If you play them with a detachment of say, Astra Militarum to compliment them, they work very well together. Playing pure GK is very challenging but that is not because they aren't good, just because they (like most elite armies) lack some of the essential tools you need to succeed in the hyper-aggressive 8th ed competitive meta. You have to be able to screen effectively, and elite armies by their nature aren;t good at that unless they have a hyper-durable unit like Bullgryn, or some Nurgle units that can take a vicious punch.
Lacking that, you are just waiting to get alpha struck out of a tournament. That is why GK struggle and why they can be tough to play pure in a competitive setting.
They have amazing units and elements to them, but their 1 damage smite is certainly not a cornerstone of their competitive strategy. Their other powers are better by a mile. The baby smite is something you do when you don't have anything else to do, not something you rely on to win games.
That's close to how my 60 scions and I figured it would be. Thanks for the response.
Yeah, there is some confusion on this topic but I would not come to the LVO assuming I could use Daemon strats on anything other than units that were Daemon Faction units.
I would assume if I was a Daemon player that a Daemon FAQ would be coming out quickly on the heels of the Daemon book as has been the case with other Cdoex releases. We will look to them to answer these questions but no, I would not plan on deep-striking (or any other similar uses of stratagems) Magnus, Mortarion, the Lord of Skulls, etc. with the Daemon codex. Again, we will look to GW for official answers but as friendly advice, that would be what I would say to anyone thinking about bringing that to the LVO.
1. GK smite was set to 1 mortal wound in a time when smite was an unlimited spell with no diminishing chances at success. Now that there are such restrictions, there is no reason for GK to have a reduced smite.
2. Using Astra Militarum as a crutch for every bad army isn't exactly good balance. You're operating under the assumption that GK actually add to AM, when in truth GK+AM soup is demonstrably worse than pure AM.
3. The tacit assumption in your post is that GK shouldn't be able to function as a standalone or pure army in 8th edition. I cannot disagree with this more. Should this be the argument applied to every struggling faction? I seem to recall a time when the best Tyranids list featured heavy AM via GSC allies. Should we have accepted at that time that Tyranids were meant to be supplemented by Guard?
Some armies are hurting in 8th edition. If you actually have a voice with GW, wouldn't it make sense to highlight some of this? We all want a balanced game, after all.
But on topic. How strict is WYSIWYG in regards to Tyranids? I have some flying hive tyrants modeled with tervigon arms to function as devourers + rending claws. Are adrenal glands physically glued onto the model a requirement? For much of 8th these bits had no function..
Yeah, there is some confusion on this topic but I would not come to the LVO assuming I could use Daemon strats on anything other than units that were Daemon Faction units.
I would assume if I was a Daemon player that a Daemon FAQ would be coming out quickly on the heels of the Daemon book as has been the case with other Cdoex releases. We will look to them to answer these questions but no, I would not plan on deep-striking (or any other similar uses of stratagems) Magnus, Mortarion, the Lord of Skulls, etc. with the Daemon codex. Again, we will look to GW for official answers but as friendly advice, that would be what I would say to anyone thinking about bringing that to the LVO.
YIKES, that is going to really deflate everyone once this gets around. Thanks for the response and the, uh, warning.
daedalus wrote: FWIW, I don't think I've ever seen a tournament setting on any scale really care about any sense of WYSIWYG for Nids.
My observations are pretty irrelevant to anything going on at the LVO though.
Someone said somewhere in a thread i asked about a while back. Basically its just the primary weapon. Nids have lots of conversions and they get that. TS, AG, etc... don't really need to be modelled on the unit.
That being said if you have a Flyrant with 4x Devourers glued on, you cant say he has a venom cannon instead.
I didn't say GK couldn't play as a stand alone army nor did I mean to imply it.
What I was trying to say was that if you want to compete at the highest level, playing ANY army pure that doesn't have effective screening mechanisms is playing on hard mode. GK are one of these.
They play just fine on their own in 8th and even competitively, in most games in a tournament, you'll do fine with pure GK. However, at the upper level of competitive play, they (and any army without effective screens) is vulnerable to alpha strike shooting/melee armies. It just is what it is, to compete you have to make some concessions in any list. I just used AM as an example, you can do it with Scouts too, or whatever.
And trust me, lol, I work my ass off to try and do whatever I can to help bring balance to the game. My (and all the play testers) efforts are just not always evident.
As for Nids, that conversion specifically will be fine. No, you don't need Adrenal Glands on the model, no one knows what they look like apart from a few of us.
However, if you were to try and say a T-Fexes' Acid Spray is actually a Rupture Cannon, that would not be OK, etc.
@Andysonic1
Trust me, lol, that is 100% for the good of the game. Brass Scorpions most assuredly do not need to be falling from the skies, lol.
Trust me, lol, that is 100% for the good of the game. Brass Scorpions most assuredly do not need to be falling from the skies, lol.
I mean I agree with you and I wasn't planning any shenanigans. I'm just worried about the established aura interactions that we have rulings from Chapter Approved about. Should I still play under the assumption that my CSM Daemon Prince will benefit from Daemon Locus? What about my CSM Blood Slaughterer Daemon Engines?
Actual question was asked at 1:54 by way of that link. According to my Twitch, anyway, hehe.
As I mentioned in another thread, we will see what GW has in store. I'm pretty sure the chap that answered it was one of the WHC members and not a rules expert though (I hadn't tuned in til about when I asked the question because my damn phone was acting up). Anyway, time will tell
In my humble opinion, it is powerful, but not overly so... especially with some of the other super powerful combos available to other armies...
What the FAQ will or will not say is up to GW, of course.
My friendly advice though, I hope is taken to heart by anyone coming to the LVO.
Again, I would assume if I were a Daemon player that the Codex Daemon stratagems will only be able to be used on Daemon Faction keyword units. Just friendly advice from me to Daemon players to consider when writing their lists for LVO.
@anticitizen013
Oh, I can tell you from experience it is mega OTT, lol. That's not conjecture either, that is from actual on the table repetitions. It is neither fun nor conducive to a fair gaming experience.
I know players will debate that to they're blue in the face but IMO for what that is worth, it is very bad for the overall game experience to allow some of the craziness that that opens up. A lot of what folks in favor of it are thinking they will do with it is a myopic perspective on the bigger picture. Lords of War, for example, don't need to be falling from the sky, etc.
At any rate, I will leave it be for now but hopefully we won't have anyone show up to LVO thinking one thing and getting another as that would be very unenjoyable for all parties involved.
Reecius wrote: At any rate, I will leave it be for now but hopefully we won't have anyone show up to LVO thinking one thing and getting another as that would be very unenjoyable for all parties involved.
You prolly want to make a PSA because there are several batreps, websites, and lots of players who are under the impression they will be deep striking LoW in, and I imagine plenty of those people will be at the LVO. I've been spreading the word around and it's slowly seeping in, but a PSA from you guys would cover your asses when the LVO comes around and the handful of Daemons players are coming in hot with wrong ideas.
Oh, I can tell you from experience it is mega OTT, lol. That's not conjecture either, that is from actual on the table repetitions. It is neither fun nor conducive to a fair gaming experience.
I know players will debate that to they're blue in the face but IMO for what that is worth, it is very bad for the overall game experience to allow some of the craziness that that opens up. A lot of what folks in favor of it are thinking they will do with it is a myopic perspective on the bigger picture. Lords of War, for example, don't need to be falling from the sky, etc.
At any rate, I will leave it be for now but hopefully we won't have anyone show up to LVO thinking one thing and getting another as that would be very unenjoyable for all parties involved.
I can see it both ways, for sure. I do think a Brass Scorpion popping out of nowhere is just a smidge ridiculous, haha. In any case, hopefully it all gets cleared up before the LVO in an 'GW official' capacity. I mean, I know it's your tournament, but it is still based on official rules
While I can't attend, I seriously can't wait for this event. I hope there's going to be some excellent coverage!
Actual question was asked at 1:54 by way of that link. According to my Twitch, anyway, hehe.
As I mentioned in another thread, we will see what GW has in store. I'm pretty sure the chap that answered it was one of the WHC members and not a rules expert though (I hadn't tuned in til about when I asked the question because my damn phone was acting up). Anyway, time will tell
In my humble opinion, it is powerful, but not overly so... especially with some of the other super powerful combos available to other armies...
So it’s ok because you think it’s not totally OP? Really now.
I definitely understand and agree with what you're saying. There's a whole discussion to be had around GK's problems, from screens to offensive capabilities, but that's probably not best had here anyway. Short answer is I agree. Sorry for sounding off.
In regards to hive fleet marking on Tyranids, would differently colored bases be sufficient? For instance, if a red ring is painted around a base that means Kronos, and if a blue ring that means Kraken? As long as it is also written down on the army sheet/list?
So if you can't make it, you should be able to watch the fun.
Awesome! Thanks for the info
Can't wait!
Edit: I don't know why the Tyranid colour discussion above reminded me but I saw one of your podcast thingies a little while ago where you talked about a dude who used Count Chocula marshmallows on his bases. I died laughing haha.
When using detachments in your army that contain models with different <Bracket> Faction Keywords, then they must be easily distinguished from other, similar faction models.
Reecius wrote: At any rate, I will leave it be for now but hopefully we won't have anyone show up to LVO thinking one thing and getting another as that would be very unenjoyable for all parties involved.
You prolly want to make a PSA because there are several batreps, websites, and lots of players who are under the impression they will be deep striking LoW in, and I imagine plenty of those people will be at the LVO. I've been spreading the word around and it's slowly seeping in, but a PSA from you guys would cover your asses when the LVO comes around and the handful of Daemons players are coming in hot with wrong ideas.
Until GW says otherwise, they CAN do it. So at this time any PSA is jumping the gun.
Reecius wrote: At any rate, I will leave it be for now but hopefully we won't have anyone show up to LVO thinking one thing and getting another as that would be very unenjoyable for all parties involved.
You prolly want to make a PSA because there are several batreps, websites, and lots of players who are under the impression they will be deep striking LoW in, and I imagine plenty of those people will be at the LVO. I've been spreading the word around and it's slowly seeping in, but a PSA from you guys would cover your asses when the LVO comes around and the handful of Daemons players are coming in hot with wrong ideas.
Until GW says otherwise, they CAN do it. So at this time any PSA is jumping the gun.
Listen, it's been six months since 8th came out. Every time there's been some obviously exploitable rule or model combination, the Frontline Gaming guys have oh so gently hinted that players should not exploit it or go out and buy models based on it. And every single time within a few weeks this exploit is patched out. If you want to completely ignore the past six months worth of evidence surrounding loopholes in the rules and Frontline Gaming's response to them, you do so at your own peril.
Play however you want, friend. I am not here to debate the rules. Just don't expect to play it that way at the LVO. Normally I wouldn't say anything like this but with the timing of things wanted to give people as much of a warning as possible. You may disagree with what I am saying which is fine (and frankly irrelevant) but my only concern here is to prepare people for what they should expect at our event so everyone has fun and doesn't get an unpleasant surprise.
@Thread
Yeah, we've been saying since 8th ed came out that people should prepare to differentiate their different "Chapters" or sub-factions within their army. As noted in the link above, that can be a unique paint scheme, basing, etc. It just has to be readily apparent to your opponent which "chapter" is which, or in this case, which hive fleet is which, at a glance. No exceptions will be made for this, we've been telling folks from literally day 1, lol.
Also, again, DO NOT try to play with unpainted models at the event. We've been doing everything we can to broadcast this, too. Judges will pull models off of the table that are not painted to a 3 color minimum and based.
Play however you want, friend. I am not here to debate the rules. Just don't expect to play it that way at the LVO. Normally I wouldn't say anything like this but with the timing of things wanted to give people as much of a warning as possible. You may disagree with what I am saying which is fine (and frankly irrelevant) but my only concern here is to prepare people for what they should expect at our event so everyone has fun and doesn't get an unpleasant surprise.
@Thread
Yeah, we've been saying since 8th ed came out that people should prepare to differentiate their different "Chapters" or sub-factions within their army. As noted in the link above, that can be a unique paint scheme, basing, etc. It just has to be readily apparent to your opponent which "chapter" is which, or in this case, which hive fleet is which, at a glance. No exceptions will be made for this, we've been telling folks from literally day 1, lol.
Also, again, DO NOT try to play with unpainted models at the event. We've been doing everything we can to broadcast this, too. Judges will pull models off of the table that are not painted to a 3 color minimum and based.
Cool story bro..."play however you like", I like to play by those things called rules. If GWfaq it, that's fine.. until then you have no debate. However it is definitely your event so play by whatever"house rules" you desire
I have finished painting and basing my orks long ago. What I did in 5th, 6th and now again in 8th is use multi colored electrical (or duct) tape sliced across the short axis about 2-3mm and adhered to the beveled edge of the base to differentiate mobs of boyz. Plus its removable so when your codex gets renewed you can rearrange them. Heck even I get confused when there's 120+ greenskins roaming about.
Now if thats not enough and draconian 5th ed GW painting rules come out where my 10000 pts of Orkansaw Razurbax cant be Goffs because theyre red? Whew weeeee! You think 'Eadcrumpa's Waaagh on Eden Prime ended badly when 'Eadkrumpa himself accidentally evaporated the entire planet along with his own Waagh... I can imagine it now.... a smug peripubescent judge strolls over to my last place table, plucking one of my precious green babies from a meticulously maneuvered quintuple envelopement. That brat would incur the most egregious salivia-spewing dirt-kicking profanity-laced neck-bearded man-child temper tantrum as had ever been seen this side of youtube! Get your cell phones ready gentlemen. DrG will turn into a table flipping Incredible Sulk. Dont mess with me... Ive watched MMA once, and my blood sugar is getting low without my Doritos!
Reecius wrote: What the FAQ will or will not say is up to GW, of course.
My friendly advice though, I hope is taken to heart by anyone coming to the LVO.
Again, I would assume if I were a Daemon player that the Codex Daemon stratagems will only be able to be used on Daemon Faction keyword units. Just friendly advice from me to Daemon players to consider when writing their lists for LVO.
@anticitizen013
Oh, I can tell you from experience it is mega OTT, lol. That's not conjecture either, that is from actual on the table repetitions. It is neither fun nor conducive to a fair gaming experience.
I know players will debate that to they're blue in the face but IMO for what that is worth, it is very bad for the overall game experience to allow some of the craziness that that opens up. A lot of what folks in favor of it are thinking they will do with it is a myopic perspective on the bigger picture. Lords of War, for example, don't need to be falling from the sky, etc.
At any rate, I will leave it be for now but hopefully we won't have anyone show up to LVO thinking one thing and getting another as that would be very unenjoyable for all parties involved.
While I agree that some LOWs do not need to fall from the sky (e.g Magnus with Warp Time, Brass Scorpion with 3D6 charge, etc.), I don't think it's fair to ban all Daemon's LOWs (e.g Zarakynel, Anggrath) from deepstriking, especially if you take into consideration that IG and Eldar can outflank and ds their LOWs.
Should we prepare our own objective markers or can we expect the event to provide them?
If we need provide our own markers, what size ought they be? 40mm bases?
VMPL wrote: While I agree that some LOWs do not need to fall from the sky (e.g Magnus with Warp Time, Brass Scorpion with 3D6 charge, etc.), I don't think it's fair to ban all Daemon's LOWs (e.g Zarakynel, Anggrath) from deepstriking, especially if you take into consideration that IG and Eldar can outflank and ds their LOWs.
How do eldar DS a WraithKnight? Or Outflank one?
The Webway Strike strategem is infantry or bikes only. Did I miss something? Lemme know, cause I need all the help I can get!
By the way, Lord of Skulls has the Daemon FACTION keyword. So that's a thing. Deepstrike even after FAQ anyone?
As do Obliterators. So can I slot them into a Chaos Daemon detachment and not lose anything?
VMPL wrote: While I agree that some LOWs do not need to fall from the sky (e.g Magnus with Warp Time, Brass Scorpion with 3D6 charge, etc.), I don't think it's fair to ban all Daemon's LOWs (e.g Zarakynel, Anggrath) from deepstriking, especially if you take into consideration that IG and Eldar can outflank and ds their LOWs.
How do eldar DS a WraithKnight? Or Outflank one?
The Webway Strike strategem is infantry or bikes only. Did I miss something? Lemme know, cause I need all the help I can get!
VMPL wrote: While I agree that some LOWs do not need to fall from the sky (e.g Magnus with Warp Time, Brass Scorpion with 3D6 charge, etc.), I don't think it's fair to ban all Daemon's LOWs (e.g Zarakynel, Anggrath) from deepstriking, especially if you take into consideration that IG and Eldar can outflank and ds their LOWs.
How do eldar DS a WraithKnight? Or Outflank one?
The Webway Strike strategem is infantry or bikes only. Did I miss something? Lemme know, cause I need all the help I can get!
They have a similar stratagem that allows you to ds any Vehicle that can fly, which all of Eldar's super heavy tanks can do. In a LOWs duel, the ability to hide your LOWs is extremely advantageous.
You can upload lists up until right before the event. The sooner the better though, for everyone.
@Doktor_G
Good suggestion!
@Ryouken
You provide your own as Doktor_G said, and anything between 25mm and 40mm is fine.
@Ivioose
Yes that is fine so long as you are consistent. IR: all models you use for Acolytes are only used for acolytes. It needs to be easy for your opponent to see what's what.
This is my first tournament and I am really excited. Two quick questions:
- I am bringing Orks and I can’t really find a tray that would fit my 100 or so models. Is it ‘bad’ to just put slain models back in my foam case?
- Is it OK to ask your opponent about one of their units’ say save or wound before you attack if you’re not sure? Would some people refuse to answer?
Pepin wrote: This is my first tournament and I am really excited. Two quick questions:
- I am bringing Orks and I can’t really find a tray that would fit my 100 or so models. Is it ‘bad’ to just put slain models back in my foam case?
No it is not. The model itself is usually sturdy and can take a light toss in to a box. Once it's dead, opponents won't care where it goes.
Caveat:
When that unit is getting shot up or carved up, set aside the dead in a little pile, so when Morale Checks come, you have an easy, accurate way to tally the dead. After you roll Morale, and the turn is over, toss away!
Caveat #2:
Don't play slow. As an ork horde player, you ought to get good at measuring and moving the first 2 or so models up, and then measuring and moving up the back 2 or 3 boyz, and then you can just mosh-push the middle boyz in a messy pile. Measuring for each ork is going to slow play your game.
Pepin wrote: - Is it OK to ask your opponent about one of their units’ say save or wound before you attack if you’re not sure?
Yes!
Pepin wrote: Would some people refuse to answer?
Thanks!
No one should. 40k is about openly knowing rules & stats and being a better tactician, not about surprises like Magic:tG or Age of Sigmar.
I would encourage you to ask and re-ask, if you need to every time. 40k is sooo complicated and detailed (the designers' own words). I would have no problem repeating the toughness, save and wounds every time you decided to shoot. It'll serve you better to make a satisfying decision for target priority. It also establishes a rhythm of communication that you hear at good players' tables:
Bob: "What are the Wraith ... ?"
Fran: "WraithGuard."
Bob: "What's their stats?"
Fran: "T-six, Armor save three, three wounds each."
Bob: "Okay, (measuring) so six Death Guard within eighteen inches, so four double tapping bolters and 2 double tap plasmagees. Strength four versus your toughness ... ?"
Fran: "WraithGuard are T six."
Bob: "Hit on threes, re-rolling ones because my Lord is right behind them. Hmm, should I supercharge the PGs (plasmaguns)? How many wounds?"
Fran: "Three wounds per model."
Bob: "Yikes. I am going to Supercharge the plasmaguns.
(rolls)
'Kay, 8 bolter hits, wounding on fives. 3 PG hits. Reroll that Crap! Still a Wound on threes for those. "
Fran should be happy to continually repeat info every time Bob asks. There are so many models that will have different toughness, armor saves, invuln saves and other goofery. No one should get impatient.
Look me up. I might be the howling guy in the kiddie pool (1st round loss) section, wearing a BeerHammer t-shirt. One of the few, tiny, skinny guys among the sea of ... bigger fellows.
Pepin wrote: This is my first tournament and I am really excited. Two quick questions:
- I am bringing Orks and I can’t really find a tray that would fit my 100 or so models. Is it ‘bad’ to just put slain models back in my foam case?
No it is not. The model itself is usually sturdy and can take a light toss in to a box. Once it's dead, opponents won't care where it goes.
Caveat:
When that unit is getting shot up or carved up, set aside the dead in a little pile, so when Morale Checks come, you have an easy, accurate way to tally the dead. After you roll Morale, and the turn is over, toss away!
Caveat #2:
Don't play slow. As an ork horde player, you ought to get good at measuring and moving the first 2 or so models up, and then measuring and moving up the back 2 or 3 boyz, and then you can just mosh-push the middle boyz in a messy pile. Measuring for each ork is going to slow play your game.
Pepin wrote: - Is it OK to ask your opponent about one of their units’ say save or wound before you attack if you’re not sure?
Yes!
Pepin wrote: Would some people refuse to answer?
Thanks!
No one should. 40k is about openly knowing rules & stats and being a better tactician, not about surprises like Magic:tG or Age of Sigmar.
I would encourage you to ask and re-ask, if you need to every time. 40k is sooo complicated and detailed (the designers' own words). I would have no problem repeating the toughness, save and wounds every time you decided to shoot. It'll serve you better to make a satisfying decision for target priority. It also establishes a rhythm of communication that you hear at good players' tables:
Bob: "What are the Wraith ... ?"
Fran: "WraithGuard."
Bob: "What's their stats?"
Fran: "T-six, Armor save three, three wounds each."
Bob: "Okay, (measuring) so six Death Guard within eighteen inches, so four double tapping bolters and 2 double tap plasmagees. Strength four versus your toughness ... ?"
Fran: "WraithGuard are T six."
Bob: "Hit on threes, re-rolling ones because my Lord is right behind them. Hmm, should I supercharge the PGs (plasmaguns)? How many wounds?"
Fran: "Three wounds per model."
Bob: "Yikes. I am going to Supercharge the plasmaguns.
(rolls)
'Kay, 8 bolter hits, wounding on fives. 3 PG hits. Reroll that Crap! Still a Wound on threes for those. "
Fran should be happy to continually repeat info every time Bob asks. There are so many models that will have different toughness, armor saves, invuln saves and other goofery. No one should get impatient.
Look me up. I might be the howling guy in the kiddie pool (1st round loss) section, wearing a BeerHammer t-shirt. One of the few, tiny, skinny guys among the sea of ... bigger fellows.
I wanted to check on something that I heard at the last tournament that I went to.
Previously I had seen it ruled that the Baneblade line of tanks and other super-heavies with similar rules could overwatch even if there were enemy models within 1" of it.
However, Someone said that they heard that LVO was going to issue a FAQ on this to say that they could not. Is there an official statement on this? It is causing some confusion to us as we prefer to play following ITC, but I could not find anything written down.
Amadaes wrote: I wanted to check on something that I heard at the last tournament that I went to.
Previously I had seen it ruled that the Baneblade line of tanks and other super-heavies with similar rules could overwatch even if there were enemy models within 1" of it.
However, Someone said that they heard that LVO was going to issue a FAQ on this to say that they could not. Is there an official statement on this? It is causing some confusion to us as we prefer to play following ITC, but I could not find anything written down.
I would also like an answer to this. I submitted the question it to FLG, but got no answer.
Assume no you cannot, I am actually waiting for word on that one, too, FWIW. As soon as I can give an accurate answer, O will but as stated, assume you will not be able to as of this time.
@Budzerker
How did you reach out to us? I did not see an email on this topic if you emailed in.
How did you reach out to us? I did not see an email on this topic if you emailed in.
I used the “ITC 40k Rules Question Submission Form” in the ITC menu a few months ago (shortly after Nova). Nova judges ruled Steel Behemoth I n Baneblade variants let you fire overwatch at additional charging units even when engaged. I don’t agree with this, so I’m pleased that your leaning towards a “no”.
Ah yes, I need to shut that down. We were getting so many questions it became overwhelming, it was not possible to keep up without hiring someone part time to just answer rules questions which is obviously not an intelligent business decision.
Sorry you didn't reach anyone, but we just couldn't keep up with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Amadaes
So, no, you cannot fire overwatch with the Steel Behemoth rule if the model is engaged in melee.
Now, this is not official until GW says it is of course, but that is how we will play it at the LVO and I would suggest folks play it that way in general terms.
Apologies if this has been explained somewhere before, but for the purposes of both primary and secondary mission scoring that involves killing an enemy unit, do the following count as having killed an enemy unit?
- Enemy's psyker kills himself by perils
- Enemy unit runs away due to morale
- Enemy unit dies from either their own vehicle explosion or perils from a nearby psyker
Last question! When the 2.5 hours are up, do we end the game at the end of whatever turn that is? Does that mean that one player could have had say 3 turns while the other 2?
That can happen although I sincerely hope you go further than 3 turns, lol!
But jokes aside, we have a 20 minute rule wherein if players are down to about the 20 minute mark and are going to play another turn, each player gets half that time, total. You time your opponent, they time you. That way you get an entire turn and it is fair to both players.
I recently heard that you know require models to be based correctly. Specifically the bloodletter. Does that apply to all other units aswell that switched bases recently.
I often post just before an LVO with advice. Continuing the tradition:
If you're a tool fielding 3 codexes worth of armies (like me ) then there are a lot of things for you to remember and even more for your opponent to try to remember what's going on, which psy-powers are on-going, strategems that may affect a unit for a whole turn, etc.
I strongly recommend getting the Data-cards for your armies. Placing a card next to the affected unit really helps keep track of stuff. Or make your own markers.
I gave these a recycled purpose ... as you know, I had a lot laying around.
I have a question and a rant about ITC format. It seems impossible for player 2 (the one who goes 2nd) to win if the round ends on player 1s turn. That's an easy 4 points for killing a unit, holding and objective, killing the most, holding the most objective , and that's without primary and secondary objectives. It seems impossible for player 2 to win unless the clock runs out on their turn.
Without anything official to the only thing I can think of is before the roll off for 1st Turn is to form a gentleman's agreement that the last 10 or 15 minutes of the round belongs to player 2 and set a timer.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The rule is, if player one gets a turn, so does 2. If you can't slot it in. The game ends.
That often breaks down when player 1 unintentionally thinks player 2 will have time, or less often TFG insists there is enough time and runs out the clock as player 1. It's always been a problem in tournaments, and it seems like a bigger deal now.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The rule is, if player one gets a turn, so does 2. If you can't slot it in. The game ends.
That often breaks down when player 1 unintentionally thinks player 2 will have time, or less often TFG insists there is enough time and runs out the clock as player 1. It's always been a problem in tournaments, and it seems like a bigger deal now.
Please see below the answer I got from Reece, the tournament organizer: We have a 20 minute rule wherein if players are down to about the 20 minute mark and are going to play another turn, each player gets half that time, total. You time your opponent, they time you. That way you get an entire turn and it is fair to both players.
To your original post, I am not sure what happens if a player's turn ends with ~20 minutes left, whereby that player has played one extra turn and the 20 minutes isn't enough to finish the other player's turn...
hotsauceman1 wrote: The rule is, if player one gets a turn, so does 2. If you can't slot it in. The game ends.
That often breaks down when player 1 unintentionally thinks player 2 will have time, or less often TFG insists there is enough time and runs out the clock as player 1. It's always been a problem in tournaments, and it seems like a bigger deal now.
Please see below the answer I got from Reece, the tournament organizer: We have a 20 minute rule wherein if players are down to about the 20 minute mark and are going to play another turn, each player gets half that time, total. You time your opponent, they time you. That way you get an entire turn and it is fair to both players.
To your original post, I am not sure what happens if a player's turn ends with ~20 minutes left, whereby that player has played one extra turn and the 20 minutes isn't enough to finish the other player's turn...
Sounds like a good rule. If it's player 2s turn at the 20 minute mark I take that as don't start another turn.
Yeah, there is some confusion on this topic but I would not come to the LVO assuming I could use Daemon strats on anything other than units that were Daemon Faction units.
Once again, FAQ proves that Reece has the insider info....
Reecius wrote: @andysonic1
Yeah, there is some confusion on this topic but I would not come to the LVO assuming I could use Daemon strats on anything other than units that were Daemon Faction units.
Once again, FAQ proves that Reece has the insider info....
It's not like I didn't know he would tell me the answer when I asked it. They DO know whats in the pipeline and have tested it and helped mold it.
And yes, these are in play for the LVO which is a tight timeline but we’re thankful to GW for pushing these out fast for everyone’s benefit and clarity. And as the Daemon Dex has only been out for a week and change, it hopefully is close enough to avoid having disrupted too many people too much. But in order to use all the fun new stuff for Daemons, we had to get it in in a short window of time.
The 20 minute rule kicks in for a Battle Round, not a Player Turn. As always, it is the responsibility of the players to keep their eye on the clock and manage their and their opponent's time politely but wisely.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And also gang, we're in crunch mode here so this will likely be my last post on this thread prior to the event. I will do my best to pop in and look for questions but I may not be able to.
Thanks to everyone who is coming, can't wait to see you there and to those of you coming, good luck and I hope you all have a wonderful time!
schadenfreude wrote: It seems impossible for player 2 to win unless the clock runs out on their turn.
Andrew,
I think it was in a FLG comment section, but Reece posted that players going second had a 56% Win percent, compared to 44% wins for going first, data coming from ITC events.
And with the comments in between your old post and me posting this, you ought to now have a better feeling about players going second.
schadenfreude wrote: It seems impossible for player 2 to win unless the clock runs out on their turn.
Andrew,
I think it was in a FLG comment section, but Reece posted that players going second had a 56% Win percent, compared to 44% wins for going first, data coming from ITC events.
And with the comments in between your old post and me posting this, you ought to now have a better feeling about players going second.
I hope that helps.
Do you have a link for that, by chance? I'd love to look more at it or the data...maybe quiet some complainers about not getting their first turns.
schadenfreude wrote: It seems impossible for player 2 to win unless the clock runs out on their turn.
Andrew,
I think it was in a FLG comment section, but Reece posted that players going second had a 56% Win percent, compared to 44% wins for going first, data coming from ITC events.
And with the comments in between your old post and me posting this, you ought to now have a better feeling about players going second.
I hope that helps.
Do you have a link for that, by chance? I'd love to look more at it or the data...maybe quiet some complainers about not getting their first turns.
ITC Champion’s Missions:
The player going first wins: 44% of the time.
The Player going second wins: 56% of the time.
So I’m sill confused about the detachment differentiation’s with regard to modeling. If I have 3 detachments, 2 are alaitoc 1 is Ynarri. They don’t share any similar squads between them do I still need to differentiate between what is Ynarri and what is alaitoc on the model/base itself? Even though I don’t share same type squads between the 3 detachments?
Or is it only if I say have a squad of 3 dark reapers in the Ynarri detachment and 3 dark reapers in one of the alaitoc detachments that I would have to mark them?
That's interesting, it could mean what Reese thinks it means, but it's a small sample size so the uncertainty of the data is high, and we may just be seeing noise rather than signal. With that said, my hunch is that Reese is right, and that is really a trend in the data, but it's less about making informed decisions than it is the first one to expose themselves is at a disadvantage. People turtle up during deployment, so being the first one to expose yourself to your opponents alpha strike puts you at a disadvantage. If it were harder to turtle you'd see more first turn advantage, but with the amount of LOS blocking terrain in ITC matches your opponent is reliant on deep strikers or indirect fire to get you. This is supported by Reeses other observation that without the LoS blocking rule, games end up horribly lopsided in favor of shooting and first turn.
And indeed which timezone that time relates to, so I can do some clever and work out when I can tune in?
GW Seminars Friday Announcement:
0900-1000 "What is GWs vision through 2019?"
1000-1100 "Marketing to nerds I - Online changes"
1100-1200 ”Marketing to nerds II - Nerd Rage”
1200-1300 LUNCH
1300-1400 "Maximixing Profit Minimizing Model Count”
1400-1500 "Neckbeards and the Moms who love them.”
1500-1600 "Why we hate Orks"
And indeed which timezone that time relates to, so I can do some clever and work out when I can tune in?
The GW seminar is actually tonight at 8pm PST, and will be on twitch.
8:00pm. Pete and Andy will deliver a now legendary studio preview, which as always will feature a first look at a range of exciting upcoming releases as well as an opportunity for a Q&A session.
Frontline's stream has a more competitive game for round 5: two undefeated players on Table 3 - Jonathan Camacho's Genestealer Cult vs. Sam Henley's Chaos
buddha wrote: So eldar, particularly reaper spam dominates another edition. *Sigh*
That is sure to be fixed in March, when they do their next major FAQ update, and "fix" Reapers, while they break something new to become the hotness to sell everything.
If you really look at the lists, only 1 of them spams reapers. 1 list takes 3 minimum squads, 1 takes 1 larger squad, and the other Eldar list takes none.
buddha wrote: So eldar, particularly reaper spam dominates another edition. *Sigh*
That is sure to be fixed in March, when they do their next major FAQ update, and "fix" Reapers, while they break something new to become the hotness to sell everything.
I'll believe it when I see it. GW has a long. long history of Eldar being the top dogs. And everytime there was a general expectation Eldar would be toned down, GW took it even further over the top.
4 of the top 8 lists are Eldar, with 3 of them having Dark Reapers which make up about a quarter of each lists' model count.
I mean, eh? It's hard for me to care that much when you have fething Blood Angels, Daemons, some kind of Space Wolves/Assassins/BA abomination and Tyranids in there too.
If anything is disconcerting its that all the Eldar lists are basically Alaitoc. Understandable, but very dull.
Dark reapers spam is the new hotness and it's probably going to be nerfed soon but... suprprise suprise.... SM are still among the best lists. Some of them are soups of course but most of the stuff being SM and not AM, while there's even a BA list with only BA.
No matter what, power armour based lists are still among the most competitive ones, even if SM players always complain about their codex.
And this is one the most competitive metas, a famous tournament. Now consider semi competitive metas or local tournaments, SM are still quite strong even with eldar, tyranids and AM around.
Blackie wrote: Dark reapers spam is the new hotness and it's probably going to be nerfed soon but... suprprise suprise.... SM are still among the best lists. Some of them are soups of course but most of the stuff being SM and not AM, while there's even a BA list with only BA.
No matter what, power armour based lists are still among the most competitive ones, even if SM players always complain about their codex.
And this is one the most competitive metas, a famous tournament. Now consider semi competitive metas or local tournaments, SM are still quite strong even with eldar, tyranids and AM around.
Where to start... What evidence do you have that they'll "fix" dark reapers soon? The Eldar codex is new and the Chapter approved is new and GW stated they won't do another rebalance for a year. There is no reason to believe that it'll change all that soon. After all, GW was too consumed with nerfing Corsairs than Dark Reapers.
Also, Blood Angels are codex: SM so I'm not sure why you keep using the term to describe the top lists? Are there Sanguinary Guard in the SM Codex because that's what was being used along with Death Company. The only good SM lists were using Guilliman and vehicles NOT "power armor". As for Powered armored lists being good, again what armies were using those? Cultists and AM don't have power armor and just because they are in a CSM list doesn't mean anyone gives a damn about the space marine part of the codex.
Again, Blood Angels doing well with their unique units has nothing to do with overall SM issue.
Not a single one of those lists is truly reaper spam. Look at the lists properly!
"Quarter of each list's model count", with them being infantry, is an emotional not logical comment.
There was a whole lot of creativity going on with those eldar lists in the top 8. And a really refreshing mix of other lists in there too. No IG! No Nids, particularly tyrant spam!
Blackie wrote: Dark reapers spam is the new hotness and it's probably going to be nerfed soon but... suprprise suprise.... SM are still among the best lists. Some of them are soups of course but most of the stuff being SM and not AM, while there's even a BA list with only BA.
No matter what, power armour based lists are still among the most competitive ones, even if SM players always complain about their codex.
And this is one the most competitive metas, a famous tournament. Now consider semi competitive metas or local tournaments, SM are still quite strong even with eldar, tyranids and AM around.
Where to start... What evidence do you have that they'll "fix" dark reapers soon? The Eldar codex is new and the Chapter approved is new and GW stated they won't do another rebalance for a year. There is no reason to believe that it'll change all that soon. After all, GW was too consumed with nerfing Corsairs than Dark Reapers.
Also, Blood Angels are codex: SM so I'm not sure why you keep using the term to describe the top lists? Are there Sanguinary Guard in the SM Codex because that's what was being used along with Death Company. The only good SM lists were using Guilliman and vehicles NOT "power armor". As for Powered armored lists being good, again what armies were using those? Cultists and AM don't have power armor and just because they are in a CSM list doesn't mean anyone gives a damn about the space marine part of the codex.
Again, Blood Angels doing well with their unique units has nothing to do with overall SM issue.
Except just a month ago GW said they'd be doing a re-balance twice a year. They specifically said...
We’ll also use these to address balance issues in the game, so these might include a few changes to rules for overly powerful, or underrepresented units.
Where to start... What evidence do you have that they'll "fix" dark reapers soon? The Eldar codex is new and the Chapter approved is new and GW stated they won't do another rebalance for a year. There is no reason to believe that it'll change all that soon. After all, GW was too consumed with nerfing Corsairs than Dark Reapers.
All the hated units that were spammed in the most competitive tournament lists have been nerfed after a few months. The conscripts+commissar, plasma scions, brimstones, ass can razorbacks, malefic lords spams were all nerfed. The "stormravens only" list was nerfed as well. If dark reapers are truly dominating the scene they will be nerfed with the next FAQs .
Addressing "Reaper Spam" is tricky, they are currently very good but any serious meddling with them will just result in lists changing to the next 'best' unit, most likely Spectres, Spiders, Spears, Dragon or even Wraithguard depending on theorycraft / meta
Based on that logic nothing gets addressed because that is always true. There are plenty of ways to fix reapers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sadhvikv wrote: Not a single one of those lists is truly reaper spam. Look at the lists properly!
"Quarter of each list's model count", with them being infantry, is an emotional not logical comment.
There was a whole lot of creativity going on with those eldar lists in the top 8. And a really refreshing mix of other lists in there too. No IG! No Nids, particularly tyrant spam!
Well no IG is misleading as it appears in 2 top 8 lists just not a a majority of points mostly as chaff.
But I agree reaper "spam" is not a huge thing here only Nick has what I might call spam 17 reapers. No one else has more than 9. Nayden has 0. I'm interested by some of the character heavy lists I have seen I'm surprised they are doing so well with the beta rules in effect.
Also interesting that the pairings ended up with all the Aeldari players playing other Aeldari. So only 2 Will make the top 4, the other 2 will be either BA, SW, or DG.
Coldsteel wrote: If you really look at the lists, only 1 of them spams reapers. 1 list takes 3 minimum squads, 1 takes 1 larger squad, and the other Eldar list takes none.
If you notice, the 4th list of the top 4 is missing the last part of the spearhead detachment. Also, the list adds up to 1742 from what is shown, giving about 258 points for 3x three reaper squads.
If the spearhead is filled out with three reaper squads, it's essentially the same list as Nanavati's.
Coldsteel wrote: If you really look at the lists, only 1 of them spams reapers. 1 list takes 3 minimum squads, 1 takes 1 larger squad, and the other Eldar list takes none.
one of them takes a few min squads so that they can get most benefit from soulburst I think
Seems like eldar and blood angels are the strongest lists.
I’m actually surprised I thought chaos spam would do better but at least one list cracked the top 8. (I don’t think thousand sons codex will help much)
Tyranids kinda disappointed hopefully a genecult codex helps those poor bastards out.
I still think Astra militarum overly nerfed commissars and made conscripts overpriced so you didn’t get any real AM lists either.
Tau, necrons, dark eldar (and Orks in time) codex are due soon so they should get a boost
Ad mech are getting new knights, and a fw book soon so they should get a boost.
Overall I’d like to see reaver nerfed for eldar and commissars unnerfed and conscripts back to normal cost but same restrictions.
The reaper issue is really not a reaper issue. You're talking about a T3 3+ sv 27pt model with no ablative usually taken in small sqds. They are very squishy. The problem comes when you combine with Alaitoc (which basically every list did). If you nerf reapers, it hurts them in non Alaitoc lists, so somehow you have to address the -1 to hit issue, but that cat is probably already out of the bag.
Eldar are certainly not the powerhouse they once were, while still good, there is just a lot of xenos hate on here.
bullyboy wrote: The reaper issue is really not a reaper issue. You're talking about a T3 3+ sv 27pt model with no ablative usually taken in small sqds. They are very squishy. The problem comes when you combine with Alaitoc (which basically every list did). If you nerf reapers, it hurts them in non Alaitoc lists, so somehow you have to address the -1 to hit issue, but that cat is probably already out of the bag.
Eldar are certainly not the powerhouse they once were, while still good, there is just a lot of xenos hate on here.
Four of the top 8, out of 450 people, are Craftworld Eldar armies.
Not a powerhouse. People just hating on xenos. Right.
The problem with the reapers are the cost. They were closer to fairly costed in the Index, but I felt still low (I play Eldar myself, no hate here). Then the codex made them even cheaper. For a unit that can always hit on 3+, no matter your special rules otherwise, has multiple GREAT firing options... they are just way to cheap. Eldar have no end of solid heavy support options. The only one you ever see people bring in a competitive environment is the Reapers though. Because the value that they bring, for the points that you pay, makes it a no brainer. There is no competition with everything else. Make them alaitoc, put them in cover, with some farseer support, and you've got arguably the best unit in the game.
Three of the four are actually Ynnari Eldar mixed with craftworld, not specifically 'Craftworld Eldar.' There are combinations that Ynnari lists can achieve that can make them very powerful compared to using craftworld only. Which is why they had some nerfs after the Eldar codex was released.
Dark Reapers in the index were not undercost. They were probably a few points over because there were no craftworld attributes--alaitoc put them over the top with the price decrease in the codex.
bullyboy wrote: The reaper issue is really not a reaper issue. You're talking about a T3 3+ sv 27pt model with no ablative usually taken in small sqds. They are very squishy. The problem comes when you combine with Alaitoc (which basically every list did). If you nerf reapers, it hurts them in non Alaitoc lists, so somehow you have to address the -1 to hit issue, but that cat is probably already out of the bag.
Eldar are certainly not the powerhouse they once were, while still good, there is just a lot of xenos hate on here.
Four of the top 8, out of 450 people, are Craftworld Eldar armies.
Not a powerhouse. People just hating on xenos. Right.
The problem with the reapers are the cost. They were closer to fairly costed in the Index, but I felt still low (I play Eldar myself, no hate here). Then the codex made them even cheaper. For a unit that can always hit on 3+, no matter your special rules otherwise, has multiple GREAT firing options... they are just way to cheap. Eldar have no end of solid heavy support options. The only one you ever see people bring in a competitive environment is the Reapers though. Because the value that they bring, for the points that you pay, makes it a no brainer. There is no competition with everything else. Make them alaitoc, put them in cover, with some farseer support, and you've got arguably the best unit in the game.
Take out the Reapers, how many Eldar are in that slot? Take out Alaitoc instead, how many are there? It's not an "Eldar cheese" issue, it really isn't.
I wouldn't mind an increase in cost of reapers to 33pts a model (I don't play them anyway), but I still don't think it addresses the real problem.
Look how many Space Marine lists are in the Top 8, nobody crying there. Other Xenos races (minus nids) don't have Codexes yet so understandable that they aren't in Top 8.
bullyboy wrote: The reaper issue is really not a reaper issue. You're talking about a T3 3+ sv 27pt model with no ablative usually taken in small sqds. They are very squishy. The problem comes when you combine with Alaitoc (which basically every list did). If you nerf reapers, it hurts them in non Alaitoc lists, so somehow you have to address the -1 to hit issue, but that cat is probably already out of the bag.
Eldar are certainly not the powerhouse they once were, while still good, there is just a lot of xenos hate on here.
Four of the top 8, out of 450 people, are Craftworld Eldar armies.
Not a powerhouse. People just hating on xenos. Right.
The problem with the reapers are the cost. They were closer to fairly costed in the Index, but I felt still low (I play Eldar myself, no hate here). Then the codex made them even cheaper. For a unit that can always hit on 3+, no matter your special rules otherwise, has multiple GREAT firing options... they are just way to cheap. Eldar have no end of solid heavy support options. The only one you ever see people bring in a competitive environment is the Reapers though. Because the value that they bring, for the points that you pay, makes it a no brainer. There is no competition with everything else. Make them alaitoc, put them in cover, with some farseer support, and you've got arguably the best unit in the game.
Take out the Reapers, how many Eldar are in that slot? Take out Alaitoc instead, how many are there? It's not an "Eldar cheese" issue, it really isn't.
I wouldn't mind an increase in cost of reapers to 33pts a model (I don't play them anyway), but I still don't think it addresses the real problem.
Look how many Space Marine lists are in the Top 8, nobody crying there. Other Xenos races (minus nids) don't have Codexes yet so understandable that they aren't in Top 8.
There are zero Codex: Marines lists in the top 8 actually. There are two Blood Angels lists (which may mean that the Death Company Captain warrants a nerf, he is pretty insane for his cost) and a Space Wolves list that is far beyond my feeble comprehension.
Four of the top 8, out of 450 people, are Craftworld Eldar armies.
Not a powerhouse. People just hating on xenos. Right.
The problem with the reapers are the cost. They were closer to fairly costed in the Index, but I felt still low (I play Eldar myself, no hate here). Then the codex made them even cheaper. For a unit that can always hit on 3+, no matter your special rules otherwise, has multiple GREAT firing options... they are just way to cheap. Eldar have no end of solid heavy support options. The only one you ever see people bring in a competitive environment is the Reapers though. Because the value that they bring, for the points that you pay, makes it a no brainer. There is no competition with everything else. Make them alaitoc, put them in cover, with some farseer support, and you've got arguably the best unit in the game.
Have you thought that maybe some of the US top players are actually using eldar because they like them and are fun to play?
Primark G wrote: I heard one of the top 8 players was DQd. Not sure why though.
It wasn't a DQ, Josh voluntarily stepped down from the finals because of an incorrect scoring issue during his game with Brad Chester, which instead jumped Brad in the top 8 from 32nd place.
Where to start... What evidence do you have that they'll "fix" dark reapers soon? The Eldar codex is new and the Chapter approved is new and GW stated they won't do another rebalance for a year. There is no reason to believe that it'll change all that soon. After all, GW was too consumed with nerfing Corsairs than Dark Reapers.
Um ... read the last line on their announcement in the March/September part of their update-policy.
If there is one unit that will be addressed in March, it's Dark Reapers, not least because Codex-release-to-CA-printer-deadline was probably not a window for anything.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: 4/8 top players are Eldar soup/Aeldari - clearly OP, must nerf!
3/8 top players are Imperial soup/SM - *whistles and walks away*
Makes you wonder about the motivations of some people...or I guess some people just like to complain in general.
It's the LVO. The list of the guy or girl ranked 500the is almost certainly still seriously OP and, for a fully balanced game of 40K in its entirety, in need of some adjustment vis-a-vis the entire game of 40K as a whole.
For balance 40K, stuff doesn't need to be balanced just against other stuff at tournaments. It needs to be balanced against a guy starting 40K with 2 Boxes of Dark Imperium or a guy running his fluffy all-Kroot list. Otherwise, it's not balance.
Looking at a highly self-selected sample that is in no way or shape representative of all mathematically possibly lists of 40K doesn't really give you that much insight into balance on, say, the bottom 30% of 40K lists (from the full range of all mathematically possible lists in the game as opposed to just the tournament stuff).
It would seem the bigger issue than any particular unit or faction is the use of multiple factions in order to abuse strategems in my mind. These lists are specifically designed to unlock a much larger toolbox of strategems. Something that was specifically thought to be abusive with the new daemon book and nerfed, but not with eldar and imperium. Shrugs...
HuskyWarhammer wrote: 4/8 top players are Eldar soup/Aeldari - clearly OP, must nerf!
3/8 top players are Imperial soup/SM - *whistles and walks away*
Makes you wonder about the motivations of some people...or I guess some people just like to complain in general.
People have been calling for Guard to be nerfed to the ground since the edition started so I have no idea what you're talking about. The pure Blood Angels list is a surprise and may point to the Death Company Captain being too good for such a low investment.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: 4/8 top players are Eldar soup/Aeldari - clearly OP, must nerf!
3/8 top players are Imperial soup/SM - *whistles and walks away*
Makes you wonder about the motivations of some people...or I guess some people just like to complain in general.
People have been calling for Guard to be nerfed to the ground since the edition started so I have no idea what you're talking about.
...Did you miss the part where they actually did nerf the guard significantly? Repeatedly? (Besides, these are more SM-focused than Guard...which is why I said "soup/SM" and not "soup/IG")
Interestingly, you just demonstrated my point exactly - Ynnari also took a massive nerf (also called for over a long time), but you jumped to the defense suddenly of Imperium players...
Primark G wrote: I heard one of the top 8 players was DQd. Not sure why though.
It wasn't a DQ, Josh voluntarily stepped down from the finals because of an incorrect scoring issue during his game with Brad Chester, which instead jumped Brad in the top 8 from 32nd place.
If something that minor can propel a guy from 32nd place to top 8, shouldn't we be examining the lists of, say, the top 50?
perrin23860 wrote: It would seem the bigger issue than any particular unit or faction is the use of multiple factions in order to abuse strategems in my mind. These lists are specifically designed to unlock a much larger toolbox of strategems. Something that was specifically thought to be abusive with the new daemon book and nerfed, but not with eldar and imperium. Shrugs...
This is the most significant factor in my opinion. Balance would be much smoother to figure out with 'pure' codex lists. When certain factions can cherry pick through a variety of codex or index options/strategems/wargear/etc and others cannot (orks, necrons, nids, and other independent factions) then there is an obvious disadvantage occurring.
At the top national tournament level, lists should be limited to one codex/index, but that will likely never happen.
If something that minor can propel a guy from 32nd place to top 8, shouldn't we be examining the lists of, say, the top 50?
I would do that regardless, if I had access to the bcp player app. It says it's not compatible with my device. I'm guessing my android 4.4 os isn't up to par any longer.
People need to drop the soup hate. We are far away from that argument. Soup is 40k.
However when 1 unit is in every soup and codex list it’s not soup issue it’s that single unit.
The blood angel captain may also be an issue but once again it’s a single unit issue. Space marine by and large weren’t great and few units in the space marine codex were an issue.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: 4/8 top players are Eldar soup/Aeldari - clearly OP, must nerf!
3/8 top players are Imperial soup/SM - *whistles and walks away*
Makes you wonder about the motivations of some people...or I guess some people just like to complain in general.
People have been calling for Guard to be nerfed to the ground since the edition started so I have no idea what you're talking about.
...Did you miss the part where they actually did nerf the guard significantly? Repeatedly? (Besides, these are more SM-focused than Guard...which is why I said "soup/SM" and not "soup/IG")
Interestingly, you just demonstrated my point exactly - Ynnari also took a massive nerf (also called for over a long time), but you jumped to the defense suddenly of Imperium players...
I've stated previously in this thread that the Death Company Captain is probably too strong for his points, but sure, I'm white knighting for a faction I don't even play.
I would do that regardless, if I had access to the bcp player app. It says it's not compatible with my device. I'm guessing my android 4.4 os isn't up to par any longer.
You know it's up to Android 8.1 right? lol might be time for an upgrade.
gungo wrote: People need to drop the soup hate. We are far away from that argument. Soup is 40k.
However when 1 unit is in every soup and codex list it’s not soup issue it’s that single unit.
The blood angel captain may also be an issue but once again it’s a single unit issue. Space marine by and large weren’t great and few units in the space marine codex were an issue.
This isn't hate, Realize that not all criticism is 'hate.' If someone cannot see the inherent disadvantage of choosing a faction that has no option to ally in with other codex books then there's some brick wall mentality going on.
I would do that regardless, if I had access to the bcp player app. It says it's not compatible with my device. I'm guessing my android 4.4 os isn't up to par any longer.
You know it's up to Android 8.1 right? lol might be time for an upgrade.
DVoS gives fnp 5+ and +1 attack on charge and can benefit from Lemartes' rerolls (charge, hit). BA have also Mephiston who can be buffed with CP, red rampage strat is also good for this. My point is that 1CP to buff a single HQ with the above isn't a game breaking.
I would have assumed that ravenguard would been higher, the strike from the shadows strat is nasty with fe. Aggressors to clear screens..
I want to ask, is it automatic that every list/unit that reaches top tables is in automatic need of a nerf? I'm a bit provocative here, but so far in 8th ai haven't seen any double demi-company free cheese shenagians etc. Hope that last wave of codex releases will give some enjoyment.
Really the only thing in those top lists I've seen that made me go "yuck, that's dirty" is the triple Eldar flyer. Wouldn't they have been at -2 to hit? Obnoxious.
Colonel Cross wrote: Really the only thing in those top lists I've seen that made me go "yuck, that's dirty" is the triple Eldar flyer. Wouldn't they have been at -2 to hit? Obnoxious.
They just finished playing that game which aired on the flg livestream. Jeff lost to Nanavati's Ynnari/Alaitoc list, 13-40 I think. Jeff used the flyers to target opportune targets (hiding in cover) up close in his first turn--sacrificing the -1 to hit at more than 12" range.
Where to start... What evidence do you have that they'll "fix" dark reapers soon? The Eldar codex is new and the Chapter approved is new and GW stated they won't do another rebalance for a year. There is no reason to believe that it'll change all that soon. After all, GW was too consumed with nerfing Corsairs than Dark Reapers.
Um ... read the last line on their announcement in the March/September part of their update-policy.
If there is one unit that will be addressed in March, it's Dark Reapers, not least because Codex-release-to-CA-printer-deadline was probably not a window for anything.
I give Dark Reapers about another 6 weeks or so.
If GW cared about balance and didn\t have history of BUFFING obviously broken units I might agree. As it is since it's been shown already GW still doesn't care about balance and changes are £££ driven not so sure.
There are zero Codex: Marines lists in the top 8 actually. There are two Blood Angels lists (which may mean that the Death Company Captain warrants a nerf, he is pretty insane for his cost) and a Space Wolves list that is far beyond my feeble comprehension.
"Space Wolves" list isn't that. It's essentially a dozend or so beatstick-characters (wolf lords, Assassins, Mephiston) you cannot target due to the character protection rules. And a few guardsman for CP with mortars sitting in the back).
It's essentially a variation of the all-Assassins list that won something early in 8th.
I think a variation of this might become popular with Custodes Jetbike-Captains instead of Thunderwolf-Lords. Lots of T6/W7/2+/4++ things coming at you for a melee-beatdown, that you cannot target (i.e. no split-shooting declarations until the front-most-one is dead, etc..) effectively (though Harald Deathwolf on point might remain popular, given he has a 2++ against shooting).
Ynarri dark reapers. Yep they're a problem. Dark reapers in general seem to have shaped the meta by themselves which to me seems like the hallmark of an OP unit. And I told you guys that ynarri shining spears were damned good!
To me, what really makes a mess of the whole eldar thing is the strats and psychic powers are god tier good. Deepstriking, minus to hit, shoot move shoot, move after deployment are all really good strats, doom, guide, conceal all really good powers. Throw all that on top of some units that are borderline OP and you have a top 8 which 50% of is one faction in a 20 faction tournament.
Imperium soup has a new dance partner though and it isn't wearing smurf blue.
All the people screaming gulliman is OP, there are more eldar players in the top 8 than there are guilliman lists in the top 100. Let that sink in for a minute.
Obviously there is something going on with BA because if eldar are OP1 at this tourney then BA are OP2. I think captain smash-fer is probably under-costed but I'm not sure how you dial him back because most of his power comes from those other buffing characters. I think DC are good but not OP, very similar to berserkers but with a bit better delivery option and a little worse combat ability.
Dark angels did pretty well. A couple 4-2 lists, a few spots in the top 100 (3). Seem to work better as part of soup though.
Not sure why people are so down on Nids. Between them and GSC there are hella them in the top 100 (just not in the top 8). Maybe they don't like to be reduced to soup but everyone's doing it (eldar/ynarri, BA/IG, nids/guard, CSM/Demons).
Surprised with how many Tau and Orks are in the top 100. For all the crying that goes on around here about how they are not competitive they performed better than Codex SM...With no Soup!!
I'm not sure how to look at Sisters. It looks like they performed pretty well but then you dig into their lists and they are very soupy. They seem to be a really good soup addition but I think they are getting replaced by BA.
IG has fallen out of the top spot but they are still well represented in the top 100. Didn't think I'd see that many DKoK units at a major but I guess if you are spending 1k+ to attend the tourney whats another 1k on a couple units...
Chaos is really well represented in the top 100 but them missing from the top tables points out that the bash-brothers lists have been countered (classic gate keeper list) and that their other combos are good but not broken (I still think oblits are a problem but that doesn't seem borne out by these results)
GK still doing their soup thing. Not a terrible showing
I don't know why people are saying Space Marines are well represented in Top 8.
First, Space Marine codex is not represented at all.
However, if you must lump all space marine fluff armies together, they made 3 out of 8, which sounds good until you realize that
- 2 of the 3 lists are half AM - 1 list isn't really space marines, just a couple strong beat stick wolfy commanders, without a single non-commander space marine unit.
- Out of the 12 released, 5 of them are space marines (6 if you include chaos space marines). Given that ratio, you'd expect half of the top 8 to be from power armored codexes, so 2-3 is actually underperforming.
ashmizen wrote: I don't know why people are saying Space Marines are well represented in Top 8.
First, Space Marine codex is not represented at all.
However, if you must lump all space marine fluff armies together, they made 3 out of 8, which sounds good until you realize that - 2 of the 3 lists are half AM - 1 list isn't really space marines, just a couple strong beat stick wolfy commanders, without a single non-commander space marine unit. - Out of the 12 released, 5 of them are space marines (6 if you include chaos space marines). Given that ratio, you'd expect half of the top 8 to be from power armored codexes, so 2-3 is actually underperforming.
Ooh! I can play this game!
"Craftworld Eldar are hardly represented at all."
-The lists are largely half Ynnari mix, not CWE. -These lists aren't *really* CWE lists, because they might contain CWE units supplementing other Eldar factions. -Of the 4 Eldar factions, only 1 has a codex, so you'd expect 100% of the Eldar lists to be pure CWE, so it is actually underperforming.
Sorry if this comes across as harsh, as it says you're a new user with no other posts...but this sort of logic doesn't really hold weight. Especially considering the large access that other SM armies have to the core and base units, they're similar enough that people generalize - it's the same reason people aren't really differentiating Ynnari/CWE lists, but rather talking about Eldar as a whole.
Where to start... What evidence do you have that they'll "fix" dark reapers soon? The Eldar codex is new and the Chapter approved is new and GW stated they won't do another rebalance for a year. There is no reason to believe that it'll change all that soon. After all, GW was too consumed with nerfing Corsairs than Dark Reapers.
Um ... read the last line on their announcement in the March/September part of their update-policy.
If there is one unit that will be addressed in March, it's Dark Reapers, not least because Codex-release-to-CA-printer-deadline was probably not a window for anything.
I give Dark Reapers about another 6 weeks or so.
If GW cared about balance and didn\t have history of BUFFING obviously broken units I might agree. As it is since it's been shown already GW still doesn't care about balance and changes are £££ driven not so sure.
If GW cared about balance the only thing allowed in matched play would be one codex only armies. But that is not going to happen so dont take the game to seriously.
bananathug wrote: Surprised with how many Tau and Orks are in the top 100. For all the crying that goes on around here about how they are not competitive they performed better than Codex SM...With no Soup!!
Im a long time ork player; and I want some things fixed in the new codex when it eventually drops, but the ork playerbase on this forum is absolutely toxic. Persecutory delusion everywhere
The best part about tournament results is to see arm-chair generals try to do mental gimnastics to prove their points and narrative, normally reaching totally opposite conclusions from the same data. Its hilarious.
I'm concerned that the new character rules coupled with the tournament terrain rules seem far too abusable, and it creates an abnormal reliance on hero hammer.
Annoyingly, they aren't showing factions on this page for most players. They were earlier. Something must have broken. You can still click on players to see their factions.
If GW cared about balance the only thing allowed in matched play would be one codex only armies. But that is not going to happen so dont take the game to seriously.
If tournament organizers cared about balance, they'd just do it that way. It's not like ITC plays remotely anything like 40K to start with.
Hell, just go all the way and do the next LVO with everyone having to play a specific list by the organisers for a perfect mirror-match for everyone on perfectly symmetrical table everywhere. Done.
Galas wrote: The best part about tournament results is to see arm-chair generals try to do mental gimnastics to prove their points and narrative, normally reaching totally opposite conclusions from the same data. Its hilarious.
I don't really know tournament scoring 40k, how 'narrow' the gap between top 8 and say top 32, as in X-Wing or MTG tiny variations in whatever tiebreaker used can cost a fair few places in final standings, so should we be looking at a bigger range rather than top 8 ?
Galas wrote: The best part about tournament results is to see arm-chair generals try to do mental gimnastics to prove their points and narrative, normally reaching totally opposite conclusions from the same data. Its hilarious.
I don't really know tournament scoring 40k, how 'narrow' the gap between top 8 and say top 32, as in X-Wing or MTG tiny variations in whatever tiebreaker used can cost a fair few places in final standings, so should we be looking at a bigger range rather than top 8 ?
As others have said, in a 500 tournament were even the last placed is gonna have a good list, we should be looking at top 100 or 150.
Look how many Space Marine lists are in the Top 8, nobody crying there.
I mean, at least look at the lists before making weird statements like this. You hurt your own argument with ignorance lad.
Does the army include a detachment of Adeptus astartes? Then its Space Marines as that is literally the same name. And drop the crap at the end of your post, its childish.
Look how many Space Marine lists are in the Top 8, nobody crying there.
I mean, at least look at the lists before making weird statements like this. You hurt your own argument with ignorance lad.
Does the army include a detachment of Adeptus astartes? Then its Space Marines
If you're desperately, frantically trying to fit a narrative, maybe. By any form of logical categorization though that's not true. A list that's 1/3rd Space Wolves 1/3rd Guard and 1/3rd assassins is not a "Space Marines list" to anyone with intellectual honesty. Similarly a list that's 50% guard and 50% marines is a Guard list as much as it is a Marine list.
And drop the crap at the end of your post, its childish.
Primark G wrote: Wow I feel so bad for Alex what happened in his semi final. :’(
Wasn't a great advertisement for tournaments, was it?
Its hard to argue with players who don't go to tournaments "because they are all WAAC dicks" when this is the side of the scene that gets shown to the world.
The Imperium player Alex started his 2nd turn move phase, moved a few units, then started placing his assassins which were in reserve and arrive at the end of the movement phase. He still had units left to move when doing so. After he had placed his assassins and then attempted to move the remaining units, Tony (Ynnari/Alaitoc player) called him on it and told him he could no longer move units since he placed his assassins, signaling the end of the phase.
Apparently there was more contention from viewers because both players agreed to play based on intent at the start of the game. I didn't see that part, so can't comment on whether it happened.
Edit: Tony was also called out as slow playing by viewers, the game ended at turn 2. I don't know the time of each player turn, so can't comment on slow play on either player, but the game was obviously moving slowly.
Additional edit: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/223317017 time stamp is around 4:57:03. Alex moved a wolf lord in his lower left, then proceeded to mark drop points. About a minute after places reserve models, and Tony calls out 'that's the end of the movement phase, dropping guys in' as Alex attempts to move the rest of his units at 5:00:44.
Primark G wrote: Wow I feel so bad for Alex what happened in his semi final. :’(
What happened?
It had been a relatively slow game, Tony just had seen his chances of winning die with some good rolling by Alex, and then Alex deepstrikes his units and then starts to move his units, you know like it always has been for 7 editions, to speed things up. Well Tony says sorry you cant move because you have already deepstruck. Instead of being an adult and a sportsman, Tony G was adamant about not letting alex redo his turn order (honest mistake) and Alex could not recover.
What happened to sportsmanship in this game? If I were the LVO organizers I would let Tony G keep playing, but disqualify him from the prize due to poor poor poor Sportsmanship.
Glad I dont goto these things
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mchaagen wrote: The Imperium player Alex started his 2nd turn move phase, moved a few units, then started placing his assassins which were in reserve and arrive at the end of the movement phase. He still had units left to move when doing so. After he had placed his assassins and then attempted to move the remaining units, Tony (Ynnari/Alaitoc player) called him on it and told him he could no longer move units since he placed his assassins, signaling the end of the phase.
Apparently there was more contention from viewers because both players agreed to play based on intent at the start of the game. I didn't see that part, so can't comment on whether it happened.
Tony and Alex agreed at the start instead of measuring out charges etc etc, that the opposing player would tell him what they needed so there would be no contention. All is fair though when 5k on the line though amirite?
Douchebaggery at the top tables? How unsurprising... Especially from the names we typically see at them. Doesn't surprise me one bit. Having played against both, seems completely believable. If there's one guy I'd always root for, it is Alex. True gentleman. I would always give that man the benefit of the doubt. I guess greed and pride trumps friendship in some people's minds
It was really rough watching that game, even before the deep strike incident. Through Tony's entire turn, for nearly every unit, he would say things like, "Well, the unit could do this...or I like it because it can do other thing...maybe it could do another thing." Over and over and over. Even if it was unintentional, it was insufferable.
xxhikaru123 wrote: There were alot of diverse list, but kinda sad that Dark Reapers had to ruin abit of the fun.
Tony vs Alex was just painful, and really make the game look terrible.
The funny thing? Tony tried in the finals to use a Stratagem after advancing, but you should used it before advancing, so his opponent didn't allow him to do that.
xxhikaru123 wrote: There were alot of diverse list, but kinda sad that Dark Reapers had to ruin abit of the fun.
Tony vs Alex was just painful, and really make the game look terrible.
The funny thing? Tony tried in the finals to use a Stratagem after advancing, but you should used it before advancing, so his opponent didn't allow him to do that.
He then threw a hissy fit and ended with "I would have done the same thing".
Karma's a bitch.
Yea, while several people in that twitch chat enjoyed what Nick did to Tony, and while I do admit it was karmic, it ultimately just makes the whole thing even worse. You know, the whole two wrongs not making a right thing. Had he not done that he probably would have lost as well.
ryzouken wrote: They are said to be painted, but the colors are light and the lighting poor so the camera doesn't pick it up well.
More concerned about the sportsmanship on display
I see, thanks for the clarification.
Ironically, he said in an interview after the finals that he used 5 colors just so people wouldn't give him crap about painting to the bare minimum standard. I guess he should've chosen 5 more bold colors.
Red Corsair wrote: Yea, while several people in that twitch chat enjoyed what Nick did to Tony, and while I do admit it was karmic, it ultimately just makes the whole thing even worse. You know, the whole two wrongs not making a right thing. Had he not done that he probably would have lost as well.
Tony lost because he made a mistake. His sportsmanship cost him the ability to get a pass. This doesn’t make it worse. The majority of people are happy he lost. He lost fair and square. He wasn’t cheated.
It's unfortunate that this happened. This Tony character is exactly the kind of person that gives tournaments a bad name. You're always going to encounter the odd gluebag here and there but at a broadcasted event that GW is supporting, it really doesn't do the hobby any justice. Especially because the guys at FLG try to do their best to promote the hobby and how fun it is, then this happens. Honestly I think the thing that bothers me most about this debacle is just that. There are so many people that are doing so much good for the hobby but when someone pulls a stunt like this, it's going to leave a lasting negative impression.
At a tournament, I expect people to bring WAAC lists (that's kinda the point), but you don't win any points for being a , so why do it? Definitely not the kind of person I want to play against, especially if I'm spending money to go to an event.
At a tournament, I expect people to bring WAAC lists (that's kinda the point), but you don't win any points for being a , so why do it? Definitely not the kind of person I want to play against, especially if I'm spending money to go to an event.
That was exactly what the Riot Co-Founder said. Theres no problem with bringing the most powerfull and refined lists (Or even the most spammy ones like the death guard player). Is a tournament. But keep the maturity and respect your opponent.
ryzouken wrote: They are said to be painted, but the colors are light and the lighting poor so the camera doesn't pick it up well.
More concerned about the sportsmanship on display
I see, thanks for the clarification.
Ironically, he said in an interview after the finals that he used 5 colors just so people wouldn't give him crap about painting to the bare minimum standard. I guess he should've chosen 5 more bold colors.
ryzouken wrote: They are said to be painted, but the colors are light and the lighting poor so the camera doesn't pick it up well.
More concerned about the sportsmanship on display
I see, thanks for the clarification.
Ironically, he said in an interview after the finals that he used 5 colors just so people wouldn't give him crap about painting to the bare minimum standard. I guess he should've chosen 5 more bold colors.
5(0) shades of grey apparently. :p
That may well be. It may also be pastels or fine details that a wide angle shot from cameras in poor lighting might not pick up. It's not a determination I can make, as I wasn't there in person.
Ynarri dark reapers. Yep they're a problem. Dark reapers in general seem to have shaped the meta by themselves which to me seems like the hallmark of an OP unit. And I told you guys that ynarri shining spears were damned good!
To me, what really makes a mess of the whole eldar thing is the strats and psychic powers are god tier good. Deepstriking, minus to hit, shoot move shoot, move after deployment are all really good strats, doom, guide, conceal all really good powers. Throw all that on top of some units that are borderline OP and you have a top 8 which 50% of is one faction in a 20 faction tournament.
Imperium soup has a new dance partner though and it isn't wearing smurf blue.
All the people screaming gulliman is OP, there are more eldar players in the top 8 than there are guilliman lists in the top 100. Let that sink in for a minute.
Obviously there is something going on with BA because if eldar are OP1 at this tourney then BA are OP2. I think captain smash-fer is probably under-costed but I'm not sure how you dial him back because most of his power comes from those other buffing characters. I think DC are good but not OP, very similar to berserkers but with a bit better delivery option and a little worse combat ability.
Dark angels did pretty well. A couple 4-2 lists, a few spots in the top 100 (3). Seem to work better as part of soup though.
Not sure why people are so down on Nids. Between them and GSC there are hella them in the top 100 (just not in the top 8). Maybe they don't like to be reduced to soup but everyone's doing it (eldar/ynarri, BA/IG, nids/guard, CSM/Demons).
Surprised with how many Tau and Orks are in the top 100. For all the crying that goes on around here about how they are not competitive they performed better than Codex SM...With no Soup!!
I'm not sure how to look at Sisters. It looks like they performed pretty well but then you dig into their lists and they are very soupy. They seem to be a really good soup addition but I think they are getting replaced by BA.
IG has fallen out of the top spot but they are still well represented in the top 100. Didn't think I'd see that many DKoK units at a major but I guess if you are spending 1k+ to attend the tourney whats another 1k on a couple units...
Chaos is really well represented in the top 100 but them missing from the top tables points out that the bash-brothers lists have been countered (classic gate keeper list) and that their other combos are good but not broken (I still think oblits are a problem but that doesn't seem borne out by these results)
GK still doing their soup thing. Not a terrible showing
Fire raptors obviously under-costed. Good job CA.
Poor necrons, AdMech, Knights, R&H
I agree with pretty much 100% of this post. I would add that the lack of Magnus or Mortarion near the top shows how silly it is that Magnus is about to be further nerfed with points increases and a big survivability drop. Though in an ideal world of prescient GW game balancing it's being done in anticipation of nerfing stuff that can kill big units very easily like dark Reapers.
As a fun note, I played Necrons for the first time ever this week and ended around top 125 with 4-2. Boy did it feel frustrating to play hard to win with Necrons at a serious event.
Well you can really only judge units and armies according to the meta.
Dark Reapers are a logical result of the way to powerful -hit traits. -hit is extremely good and many armies use it to increase their survivability. Dark Reapers completely ignore that. Moreso, they can easely get -hit themselves. Up to -3 for a single unit and -1 for the rest of them. And because Dark Reapers are now so good in the meta, any other unit they are naturally good against suffers. Meaning any big model.
Make -hit rare and give it only to really sneaky units (scouts, rangers, ...) and you basicly have the Dark Reaper spam removed. They would still be a very good unit. But not overwhelmingly meta breaking like right now.
Remove -hit army traits alltogether or make it only outside of 18 or 24 inches. 12 is too powerful. Or "shooting with a heavy weapon removes all -hit modifiers against that unit until your next shooting phase".
Saying the game ended on turn 3 implies they made it there....game ended on turn 2 because Alex took 15 minutes to do his first turn and tony took between 60-90 minutes for his....then after he called Alex on the deepstrike, proceded to slow roll his 2nd turn as well. It was to the point that LVO for the finals had a judge stationed by the table and implemented a new rule that meant slow playing could have you auto lose.
Last two game showcased the absolute worst in the hobby...which is why you will never see the GW twitch stream broadcast top tables if they can help it.
Weidekuh wrote: Well you can really only judge units and armies according to the meta.
Dark Reapers are a logical result of the way to powerful -hit traits. -hit is extremely good and many armies use it to increase their survivability. Dark Reapers completely ignore that. Moreso, they can easely get -hit themselves. Up to -3 for a single unit and -1 for the rest of them. And because Dark Reapers are now so good in the meta, any other unit they are naturally good against suffers. Meaning any big model.
Make -hit rare and give it only to really sneaky units (scouts, rangers, ...) and you basicly have the Dark Reaper spam removed. They would still be a very good unit. But not overwhelmingly meta breaking like right now.
Remove -hit army traits alltogether or make it only outside of 18 or 24 inches. 12 is too powerful. Or "shooting with a heavy weapon removes all -hit modifiers against that unit until your next shooting phase".
Yeah, but you need some more shooty survivability somehow. If you remove the -1+ hit things from the game, you're back to being blown off the table by a shooty leafblower if you don't get first turn, be it Guard, AdMech, FW-Marines, Oblit-Spam, non-Dark Reaper Eldar-shooty lists, possibly Tau when they get a Dex, etc.., etc.., etc.. , which structurally goes back to a lot of core decisions of 8th Ed. to begin with (twin-linked becoming double shots, re-rolls being a thing, etc., etc..).
Gotta find the balance than that a super-shooty Guard lists or something along those lines couldn't Alpha Strike more than, say, 20% or 25% of any given list off the table on average rolls against a not super-tough, no -1 hit army on the other side before -1 modifies stop being a thing.
I might be missing something about Ynnari since i don't run them but is it an ITC specific thing that you can use specific craftworld stratagems in an Ynnari detachment?
Because my interpretation is that you need one "pure" detachment with the specific craftworld keyword <Saim Hann> to be able to use <Saim Hann> specific stratagems for <Ynnari> units marked as <Saim Hann>.
the <craftworld> keyword as i view it is meant be replaced by a craftworld name, and not be generic.
LVO revealed/drilled it in, that we have 3 main problems, IMO:
1. Eldar - duh. Solution: nerf em. 3 identical lists being top 3 in a 500 people tournament is beyond stupid
2. Soups being a no-brainer. Solution: make them lose the free 3cp for battleforged. At least will make people think twice before souping it up.
3. Lone Big Guys are TERRIBLE. The only exceptions are Magnus and Mortarion. Solution: All big guys should be tuned to their level, at least. If you think that'd create a problem - remove the stupid 3 superheavy detachment or make it only give 1 CP
X078 wrote: I might be missing something about Ynnari since i don't run them but is it an ITC specific thing that you can use specific craftworld stratagems in an Ynnari detachment?
Because my interpretation is that you need one "pure" detachment with the specific craftworld keyword <Saim Hann> to be able to use <Saim Hann> specific stratagems for <Ynnari> units marked as <Saim Hann>.
the <craftworld> keyword as i view it is meant be replaced by a craftworld name, and not be generic.
This was also my belief.
Lol and vis a vis the awkward rules bs - what do you expect? Neckbeards gonna Neckbeard. The guys on these tables are some of the beardiest necks or neckliest beards around. There was bound to be some awkwardness. At least they aren't all obese, riddled with acne and have a severe lack of personal hygiene, as was the case with the "best" players in my youth.
I'm just going to weigh in as someone that got stomped by one of those Alaitoc/Ynnari lists with Reapers, fliers, and Spears It was easily the worst game of 8th Ed I have ever played out of over 100 games. I basically just picked up models for three turns and vainly fished for 5's/6's with the few units I had left after the alpha. I literally killed zero units in a three turn game.
I don't care if Eldar are going to be dominating top tables, I just wish they did it with something I can actually pretend to play a game against.
It's not front line gaming's job to write game balancing FAQ for games workshop, but GW does seem to listen to their input. How to balance the -1 to hit and reapers is tough. The only thing I can think of is if the nerf fire and fade with an FAQ that states units can not use any extra movements to embark if they disembarked in the same turn.
ITC missions can easily nerf soup. IMO the easy solution is at the end of the game turn if both players control an equal amount of objectives then whoever controls more objectives with obsec units wins the tie and controls more objectives. Any buffs to obsec will nerf soup.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I had a great time this weekend. LVO was an overdose of awesome and I'm exhausted.
schadenfreude wrote: It's not front line gaming's job to write game balancing FAQ for games workshop, but GW does seem to listen to their input. How to balance the -1 to hit and reapers is tough. The only thing I can think of is if the nerf fire and fade with an FAQ that states units can not use any extra movements to embark if they disembarked in the same turn.
ITC missions can easily nerf soup. IMO the easy solution is at the end of the game turn if both players control an equal amount of objectives then whoever controls more objectives with obsec units wins the tie and controls more objectives. Any buffs to obsec will nerf soup..
True, but a lot of ITC houserules nerf elite armies really hard. Things like all-Primaris or possibly future all Custodes armies for example do a lot better on Warhammer World tournaments for example, as they can play to the mission. Less Maelstrom or pseudo-Maelstrom for example, no first blood for the second guy to get it, still RAW auto-first turn for fewer drops on the BRB missions, etc..
Having (potentially) some missions where the army with fewer drops gets auto-first turn, can grab a non-counterable first blood from an army that filled out large detachments with cheap chaff and play the advantage to turn 5 because there isn't a Maelstrom and it's just Kill Points or the Relic or something is a balancing trade-off to armies that go for massive board control, maximizing CPs and such.
Houseruling the CA version of first turn for all games, being able to "take back" First Blood makes the No. of drops less relevant. Having lots of objectives and/or Maelstrom-style elements in nearly every game (not to mention things like Recon, etc..) buff large footprint armies even further (which also often comes with the added benefit of having more CP, since the trade-offs for large detachments with cheap filler are nerfed away by ITC).
In that sense, ITC balance IS a lot worse than vanilla-40K balance for a lot of non-soup armies, but you cannot expect GW to write FAQ to a popular houserule variant of their game, as opposed to their actual game.
If ITC/Frontline makes all those houserule changes to 40K for ITC tournaments, the balancing falls to them. If they wanna rely on GWFAQ for balance, they shouldn't use so many houserules and homebrew missions at tournaments.
X078 wrote: I might be missing something about Ynnari since i don't run them but is it an ITC specific thing that you can use specific craftworld stratagems in an Ynnari detachment?
Because my interpretation is that you need one "pure" detachment with the specific craftworld keyword <Saim Hann> to be able to use <Saim Hann> specific stratagems for <Ynnari> units marked as <Saim Hann>.
the <craftworld> keyword as i view it is meant be replaced by a craftworld name, and not be generic.
Depends on rules. IG doesn't require tallarn detachment to use tallarn strategem. You need IG detachment(whatever type) with tallarn UNITS.
So detachment consisting of units from IG codex only like this:
cadian commander
2 tallarn infantry squad
valhalla conscript
mordian heavy support
Can use cadian strategem for commander(albeit not useful here), tallarn strategem for infantry squads etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote: It's not front line gaming's job to write game balancing FAQ for games workshop, but GW does seem to listen to their input. How to balance the -1 to hit and reapers is tough. The only thing I can think of is if the nerf fire and fade with an FAQ that states units can not use any extra movements to embark if they disembarked in the same turn.
They could have made -1 to hit cost money but they screwed up as usual and made traits free. Which also resulted in index armies being screwed. Done properly -1 to hit would at least add hefty price and this way index armies wouldn't be as screwed. But GW cares not about balance but shifting what sells periodically.
Colour Of War wrote: I cant help but feel this is why I prefer tournaments with sportsmanship and painting scores as well.
Those last couple of games really go against the spirit of the hobby which is a shame.
Problem with sportmanship scores is that it just adds another venue for WAAC's to exploit. 0's for each opponent.
the problem is when in something called HOBBY you put monetary prizes, is awful, that makes some players waac. If it is a hobby cant get monetary prizes, or become a job, period.
X078 wrote: I might be missing something about Ynnari since i don't run them but is it an ITC specific thing that you can use specific craftworld stratagems in an Ynnari detachment?
Because my interpretation is that you need one "pure" detachment with the specific craftworld keyword <Saim Hann> to be able to use <Saim Hann> specific stratagems for <Ynnari> units marked as <Saim Hann>.
the <craftworld> keyword as i view it is meant be replaced by a craftworld name, and not be generic.
Its not ITC specific.
Having a Craftworld Detachment (A detachment with all models from Craftworlds (does not need to be the same) and no Ynnari unlocks all Craftworld Stategems.
If you have all units from the same Craftworld you get the trait (like the 2 pure Alaitoc detachments), But not the units in the Ynnari detachment.
Once you have unlocked the Craftworld stategems you can use them on units in the Ynnari detachment so long as they have the relevant <Craftworld> trait.
Orktavius wrote: Saying the game ended on turn 3 implies they made it there....game ended on turn 2 because Alex took 15 minutes to do his first turn and tony took between 60-90 minutes for his....then after he called Alex on the deepstrike, proceded to slow roll his 2nd turn as well. It was to the point that LVO for the finals had a judge stationed by the table and implemented a new rule that meant slow playing could have you auto lose.
Last two game showcased the absolute worst in the hobby...which is why you will never see the GW twitch stream broadcast top tables if they can help it.
Saying the game ended on turn 3 implies that's where I thought it ended. I made a mistake on the final turn partly because the game was going so slow I stopped paying attention to it. I edited my original post.
It's bad when a top table at a major tournament ended at turn 2, and nothing was done to stop it while it was happening. Timed rounds should have been in place for all games in the top 8.
Colour Of War wrote: I cant help but feel this is why I prefer tournaments with sportsmanship and painting scores as well.
Those last couple of games really go against the spirit of the hobby which is a shame.
Problem with sportmanship scores is that it just adds another venue for WAAC's to exploit. 0's for each opponent.
the problem is when in something called HOBBY you put monetary prizes, is awful, that makes some players waac. If it is a hobby cant get monetary prizes, or become a job, period.
Alas this kind of behaviour kicks in without even money prize or even one small enough it costs waaaaaay more to chase the win than you get.
If GW cared about balance and didn\t have history of BUFFING obviously broken units I might agree. As it is since it's been shown already GW still doesn't care about balance and changes are £££ driven not so sure.
If GW cared about balance the only thing allowed in matched play would be one codex only armies. But that is not going to happen so dont take the game to seriously.
I don't get this comment at all. We put up with 5 editions that suffered from wild imbalance issues at tournaments precisely because they required one-codex only armies. Lots pf players went years with armies on the shelf because their codex wasn't competitive and GW didn't really do errata or in-edition balancing. One-codex armies aren't a panacea for what ails the edition, and the soup meta, given the generally much wider availability of unit X to army Y is probably way easier to 'balance' at the competitive level.
People might not like it, but the current Overpowered=$$$=6 month nerf cycle is still way better than your codex sucks, please wait 5 years for another.
I couldn't agree more. Having been the victim of slow play more times than I care to remember over the years, it is unfathomable that someone that is ranked so high can be that obtuse and inconsiderate to their opponent. It makes one realize rather well that that person is willing to do anything at all to win, damn the other guy.
2 turns. Let that sink in.............. from someone on team America, highly ranked, and obviously willing to pull other unseemly stunts to win
Preposterous and shameful for these players. I don't give a gak who you are or what you do, but to slow play to this extent is a grievous issue and MUST be addressed -immediately.-
I don't care if Ynnari win it all. But at the end of the day, these "top players" slow playing like this is obscene and unacceptable.
FLG should have seen this coming and should have implemented timed turns. This has been an issue for GW games since the dawn of time.
I remember the dude playing at a Games Day Tournament years back. Empire player with a gun line. If he got first turn he would kill a unit or two and then scurry off to the bathroom until time was called.
"I like this unit because, errm, ehhhhm, uhhhm, etc" is the exact same thing.
It also doesn't seem to make any difference if money is on the line or not. People still slow play and it has to come to an end.
This is an unacceptable blemish on the hobby and every player that was in this top tournament that slow played is a horrible representation of our hobby and should be held to a much higher standard then they are.
ALSO - FLG - put in some goddamned sportsmanship and painting awards. This is shameful.
omg when the other guy didnt let him use the strat because he was a d*** in the last game hahahahahahahaaaaaa....
When you have thousands of dollars as prize money i don't expect anything less.
I went to a 4 team doubles tournament at my friend's shop on saturday where i knew everyone and seems from what i'v watched of this 'event' like i had more fun than any of these guys combined.
but hey thats just my opinion, if you want to take 40k to a level where its fundamentally flawed and it does something for you... go for it.