Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So after 11 games, what was the most wicked combo/list you ran into? Including in the team tourne.

Two situations arose that were truely shocking/devastating:

1) The Flylords of Terra (wicked awesome appearance... entire army was gorgeous) They took the appocalypse 5 plate template thingy that appeared on turn 2 killing/sniping whole units. Apparently its a special HQ Damocles Rhino ? Have not really researced what it was exactly other than what they told us. THIS "space bomb" ONLY COST 60pts!!!!!! Placed anywhere and could have dropped on turn 1! Say bye bye to the unit of harlies. Someone during that tourne got 2 of those dropped on them in a game with the right grouping of teammates! NOTE: Great guys to play, and super awesome army to play against.

2)The Peeker Fex tyranid build...(another team tournement game) I have yet to see this build on here or anywhere so bare with me on it...
Standard monsterous creature lists, CC Flying tyrants, lots of devourers...blah blah blah... however, this is key. On the standard sniper fex, to change it into a killing machine, they used the Peeker build.

The Peeker Build: You buy two kits, the carnifex, the Tyrant. You then take the torso and feet from the tyrant and put them on the base. Then, take the carnifex torso and mount that on top of the torso of the tyrant torso. Then take the huge head of a carnifex and place that on top. You should have something that stands about 9" tall. Put any weapon you like, however, the peekfex is most useful when equiped with a venom cannon!!!

So, now that the peeker fex, or TYRACARN is full revealed, let me enighten how it is most properly used. When all terrain is placed and just before turn one, you begin asking/making sure that the tyracarn is able to SEE OVER the 8.5" pipeing on the table and ALL THINGS NOT AREA.

Example:

Presenting the Majestic Peekerfex!


This had us laughing so much while makeing our 12 hour drive back to Syracuse I nearly crashed off the road.

"Its a PeekerFex 'cause he peeks over stuff!".

NOTE: The guys that ran the list... Awesome guys, super fun game.

You got hosed guy. There were not suppose to be any apoc strategic assets used in the team game, and he used em. You got hosed

And that Peekerfex is a hose job as well. Modeling for advantage is a no-no by Adepticon rules.

moosifer wrote:You got hosed guy. There were not suppose to be any apoc strategic assets used in the team game, and he used em. You got hosed

The damocles's orbital strike was an exception.

Centurian99 wrote:

moosifer wrote:You got hosed guy. There were not suppose to be any apoc strategic assets used in the team game, and he used em. You got hosed

The damocles's orbital strike was an exception.

Could you find it for me?
http://www.adepticon.org/08rules/0840Kteam.html

As hilarious as it is to have a peeking fex, it's pretty unsportsman like to be such a cheese head.

Umm...I use a Damocles for my Lysander-wing...VERY regularly....and I dont recall any huge assed apoc template weapon for that, unless they changed the orbital strike rules.

I am calling foul on this.

[edit]

Reading up on my edition of imperial armour 1

Damocles command rhino doesn't use a large clover apoc template, it uses the ordnance blast template (5" ) Plus, the orbital strike takes up a HS slot.

you got screwed.

moosifer wrote:Could you find it for me?
http://www.adepticon.org/08rules/0840Kteam.html

2008 Adepticon 40K team tourney rules wrote:ForgeWorld Imperial Armor units (but not army lists) may be used with the following exceptions: Flyers, Super Heavies, Super Heavy Fliers, and Gargantuan Creatures are NOT allowed.

Looking over those rules, it looks to me that the damocles is quite legal for play...

...just not the way theblklotus said it was played...

Hellfury wrote:Umm...I use a Damocles for my Lysander-wing...VERY regularly....and I dont recall any huge assed apoc template weapon for that, unless they changed the orbital strike rules.

I am calling foul on this.

[edit]

Reading up on my edition of imperial armour 1

Damocles command rhino doesn't use a large clover apoc template, it uses the ordnance blast template (5" ) Plus, the orbital strike takes up a HS slot.

you got screwed.

Hellfury I am looking at the Apoc IA book now and it does in fact give the damocles the Apoc Orbital Bombardment assest. The reason I think it was not the one you are thinking of is because he said it showed up first turn, which is a vicious result of that wonderful ability ( I lost death company, lemartes, 10 man melee scout squad and 3 tact marines in 1 blast)

Its kind of weird, because it says that:

The following are NOT allowed in the 40k Team Tournament:

* Rules and Army Lists marked as "Trial" or "Optional"
* Warhammer 40,000 Apocalypse rules
* Lost and the Damned Armies
* Feral Orks
* Armored Companies
* Relictors Wargear found in US White Dwarf #280
* Apocalypse Formations
* Apocalypse Strategic Assets


I dont see how IA apoc book was used if youre not allowed to use apoc stuff at all.



I feel small. I just read the part about units being updated with the IA apoc rules being legal.

moosifer wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

moosifer wrote:You got hosed guy. There were not suppose to be any apoc strategic assets used in the team game, and he used em. You got hosed

The damocles's orbital strike was an exception.

Could you find it for me?
http://www.adepticon.org/08rules/0840Kteam.html

INAT FAQ, page 80.

IAA.30.02

Hellfury wrote:Its kind of weird, because it says that:

The following are NOT allowed in the 40k Team Tournament:

* Rules and Army Lists marked as "Trial" or "Optional"
* Warhammer 40,000 Apocalypse rules
* Lost and the Damned Armies
* Feral Orks
* Armored Companies
* Relictors Wargear found in US White Dwarf #280
* Apocalypse Formations
* Apocalypse Strategic Assets


I dont see how IA apoc book was used if youre not allowed to use apoc stuff at all.



I feel small. I just read the part about units being updated with the IA apoc rules being legal.

Don't worry...

Apoc consists of Formations, Strategic Assets, and Units. Units are cool. Formations/Strategic assets were not. Superheavies/Flyers/Gargantuans were restricted from any except the Gladiator. The Damocles had a specific exception to the strategic asset rule in the FAQ.

B

Centurian99 wrote:

moosifer wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

moosifer wrote:You got hosed guy. There were not suppose to be any apoc strategic assets used in the team game, and he used em. You got hosed

The damocles's orbital strike was an exception.

Could you find it for me?
http://www.adepticon.org/08rules/0840Kteam.html

INAT FAQ, page 80.

IAA.30.02

Well then you rules lawyered yourself a cheap ass way of winning my friend. You found the one contradiction in the rules and exploited it, kudos!

So they contradict themselves.

moosifer wrote:

Well then you rules lawyered yourself a cheap ass way of winning my friend. You found the one contradiction in the rules and exploited it, kudos!

First-off...I didn't use a damocles. Kinda hard to take one in a Tyranid Army. (And no, the peakerfex wasn't mine either

2nd...how the heck is that rules-lawyering?

moosifer wrote:Well then you rules lawyered yourself a cheap ass way of winning my friend. You found the one contradiction in the rules and exploited it, kudos!

Not only is this a violation of Dakka forum rule #1 (Be Polite), but you've managed to mouth off to an uninvolved third party who has done you the favor of answering your rules question.

Cent99 is part of the FAQ council, not the guy who used the thing.

This is a warning. - The Mgmt.

So sorry.

What I am really wondering which rule superceeds which. I understand that the INAT FAQ is out-there, but this is a case where the FAQ comes in direct contradiction with the rules of the tourney. Does the INAT FAQ really trump the Rules for the tournament? I did not go, but if I saw something like this which could make or break a game drastically then I would be terribly upset

moosifer wrote:So sorry.

What I am really wondering which rule superceeds which. I understand that the INAT FAQ is out-there, but this is a case where the FAQ comes in direct contradiction with the rules of the tourney. Does the INAT FAQ really trump the Rules for the tournament? I did not go, but if I saw something like this which could make or break a game drastically then I would be terribly upset

Since we wrote the FAQ, stated that it was being used for all 40K Tournaments at AdeptiCon, and publicized the FAQ...

Centurian99 wrote:

moosifer wrote:So sorry.

What I am really wondering which rule superceeds which. I understand that the INAT FAQ is out-there, but this is a case where the FAQ comes in direct contradiction with the rules of the tourney. Does the INAT FAQ really trump the Rules for the tournament? I did not go, but if I saw something like this which could make or break a game drastically then I would be terribly upset

Since we wrote the FAQ, stated that it was being used for all 40K Tournaments at AdeptiCon, and publicized the FAQ...

So why the confusion on my part then? I mean I am pretty new to the hobby and competitive gaming, but how does the tourney rule of "no strategic assets" get trumped by a FAQ? Am I really missing something here?

Man. I don't think a whole lot about cents list, but to vape him for something that was pretty clear (well...ok, it has a few flaws but still, the FAQ has been around for long enough for you to read it)....yeesh. Be kind, rewind.

Stelek wrote:Man. I don't think a whole lot about cents list, but to vape him for something that was pretty clear (well...ok, it has a few flaws but still, the FAQ has been around for long enough for you to read it)....yeesh. Be kind, rewind.

I had the FAQ before the Doubles Tourney in Waltham so Feb. Granted I have not yet commited it to memory, but I see a clear conflict here and that is why i brought it up. I might have brought it up poorly by assuming cent was a member of the team, but that still doesn't mean that my point is any less valid.

Yes the FAQ has been out, Yes it is very helpful and used alot, but at what point does the FAQ override the Tourney rules? I see exceptions to the rules in the Adepticon 08 rules, but no where does it include the damocles rhino

moosifer wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

moosifer wrote:So sorry.

What I am really wondering which rule superceeds which. I understand that the INAT FAQ is out-there, but this is a case where the FAQ comes in direct contradiction with the rules of the tourney. Does the INAT FAQ really trump the Rules for the tournament? I did not go, but if I saw something like this which could make or break a game drastically then I would be terribly upset

Since we wrote the FAQ, stated that it was being used for all 40K Tournaments at AdeptiCon, and publicized the FAQ...

So why the confusion on my part then? I mean I am pretty new to the hobby and competitive gaming, but how does the tourney rule of "no strategic assets" get trumped by a FAQ? Am I really missing something here?

To share the timeline, the rules for the various events are set in Oct-Nov (when we open registration).

The IA:Apoc book came out in Dec, and the FAQ was released in Feb (I think). That's why the following answer was written:
"A: Yes, this is one exception where a strategic asset may be used in a standard game of 40K."

Centurian99 wrote:

moosifer wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

moosifer wrote:So sorry.

What I am really wondering which rule superceeds which. I understand that the INAT FAQ is out-there, but this is a case where the FAQ comes in direct contradiction with the rules of the tourney. Does the INAT FAQ really trump the Rules for the tournament? I did not go, but if I saw something like this which could make or break a game drastically then I would be terribly upset

Since we wrote the FAQ, stated that it was being used for all 40K Tournaments at AdeptiCon, and publicized the FAQ...

So why the confusion on my part then? I mean I am pretty new to the hobby and competitive gaming, but how does the tourney rule of "no strategic assets" get trumped by a FAQ? Am I really missing something here?

To share the timeline, the rules for the various events are set in Oct-Nov (when we open registration).

The IA:Apoc book came out in Dec, and the FAQ was released in Feb (I think). That's why the following answer was written:
"A: Yes, this is one exception where a strategic asset may be used in a standard game of 40K."

Adepticon rules were changed 2.18 which is around time that FAQ was released. Thank you for the explaination.

I personally would be pretty offended if I was playing a regular game of 40k only to find out that someone was able to use an apoc rule while i was stuck with just my codex and the BBB. That is just me I guess

Read the FAQ, buddy. Always read the FAQs. Being hand-held by Jervis into simpletonland is making for some mighty lazy, entitled gamers out there.

You have to stay up-to-date when playing in a competitive setting. That means reading all the rules, not making assumptions, and not being peevish when you get screwed for making assumptions. You're not "stuck with just your codex and the BBB" when things are distributed via the tournament rules packet. 'Sides which, Adepticon and other adult-oriented tourneys allow lots of sources for lists, including all the IA books. if you haven't read everything on the list, that is your fault, not your opponent's.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the trend of oversimplifying the game because people don't want to read more than two books is really, really pissing me off. i mean, I understand not wanting to keep up with periodicals like WD, I guess. But the central rules statement for an event, and the major published armylist sources? Come on.

Savnock wrote:Read the FAQ, buddy. Always read the FAQs. Being hand-held by Jervis into simpletonland is making for some mighty lazy, entitled gamers out there.

You have to stay up-to-date when playing in a competitive setting. That means reading all the rules, not making assumptions, and not being peevish when you get screwed for making assumptions. You're not "stuck with just your codex and the BBB" when things are distributed via the tournament rules packet. 'Sides which, Adepticon and other adult-oriented tourneys allow lots of sources for lists, including all the IA books. if you haven't read everything on the list, that is your fault, not your opponent's.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the trend of oversimplifying the game because people don't want to read more than two books is really, really pissing me off. i mean, I understand not wanting to keep up with periodicals like WD, I guess. But the central rules statement for an event, and the major published armylist sources? Come on.

edit: NM, Found it in the downloads section.

The damocles has too much impact on the opponent for the cost. I think the allowance of the vehicle is fine along with the normal special rules it comes with, but tacking on the strategic asset outside of apocalypse rules was a little weird.

In our game it just brought up a lot of questions and confusion. I was familiar with the INAT_FAQ, but hadn't ventured into the Apocalypse sections because, well, they weren't allowed for this event. So what happens if we kill the damocles? It doesn't drift? It can really hit on turn 1? You're really sure you can use this apocalypse strategic asset?
As our team manuevered with the threat of it landing any time for the first 3 turns, and when it did land entirely wiping out a harlequin squad in prime position for some great charges at the top of 3. It all just seemed a little out of place.

Wouldn't start to cry cheese over it though, as in that very game we won by ramming invincible holofield tanks down their throats. Rules don't have to be fair, but this particular allowance of the Apoc rules in normal games just didn't fit.

We had the same situation come up when we played them in the final round. I had no problem with it, except for the fact that when the unit is killed the asset still works for some reason (which isn't the case with other units that give you assets..i.e. masters of the chapter). That was the rub for us. The army we took could care less about it's effects and it showed in that game...we tabled them. I had no issues playing with them. They were a great team to play against and had a great army theme.

Capt K

Sounds strange it was allowed.

G

The Damocles was an exception because it is an exception. It is the only standard unit (i.e. not a formation) that uses a strategic asset.

The old version of the Damocles had the ability to make an orbital strike (albeit a much more restricted one) and they simply replaced those rules with the Orbital Strike strategic asset.

I do personally agree that the Orbital bombardment asset is a steal at 60 points (not to mention the other benefits the Damocles has), however that's really an issue with the cost of the unit which isn't something we were regulating with the FAQ.

Obviously this will be something that will be taken a look at for the next tournament to see if it should be changed.

yakface wrote:
The Damocles was an exception because it is an exception. It is the only standard unit (i.e. not a formation) that uses a strategic asset.

The old version of the Damocles had the ability to make an orbital strike (albeit a much more restricted one) and they simply replaced those rules with the Orbital Strike strategic asset.

I do personally agree that the Orbital bombardment asset is a steal at 60 points (not to mention the other benefits the Damocles has), however that's really an issue with the cost of the unit which isn't something we were regulating with the FAQ.

Obviously this will be something that will be taken a look at for the next tournament to see if it should be changed.

Thanks yak, appreciate it. Just a quick question though, why not just give it the old orbital strike from say a DH/WH codex which fits in perfectly with a regular 40k game, instead of the Apoc Assest?

Edit: Would it also be a reasonable conclusion if this version of orbital strike is the latest, then the WH/DH Orbital Strike should be the same

moosifer wrote:

Thanks yak, appreciate it. Just a quick question though, why not just give it the old orbital strike from say a DH/WH codex which fits in perfectly with a regular 40k game, instead of the Apoc Assest?

Edit: Would it also be a reasonable conclusion if this version of orbital strike is the latest, then the WH/DH Orbital Strike should be the same

No, it's just that the actual unit entry for the Damocles in Imperial Armor Apocalypse gives the player the Orbital Bombardment asset. Again, this is the only unit entry found in both the Apocalypse rulebook, in Imperial Armor Apocalypse, or posted online at GW that uses a strategic asset (I'm talking about unit entries here, not battle formations).

We could have said that it uses the DH/WH orbital strike (which is what it previously had in its IA rules) but again, we weren't generally in the policy of making rules changes to units for the sake of game balance. That isn't what a FAQ is supposed to do for the most part.

Hopefully you can see the distinction between allowing the Damocles to use its strategic asset against the general tournament rules and actually changing its rules to something else (like the WH/DH Orbital Strike). Those are two very different concepts IMHO.


Now it just may be that the Damocles is simply too powerful to exist as is in tournament 40K, so moving forward something drastic like changing the rules, disallowing the Orbital Bombardment asset, or barring the Damocles in general may have to be done.