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.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
It was brought to my attention, on Facebook, that I made it seem from my earlier post in here that I would be attending this tournament. While excited to play a 7th ed tournament sadly the August event will have to be my first. Sorry for having misled my many fans.

Did I sound enough like Lebron James?

You would have to go play a few tournaments at another store then come back after meeting with Travis, who had written an angry post about you leaving.

Knights are OP!

So you won?

Adam's 4 Imperial Knights took it all.
Andrew, ticked off at and shelving, his tau, took Best Xeno performance.
Jonathan had Best Imperial performance.
Daryl's DE edged out MikeFox's orks for Best Paint. Maybe because Mike had a few new models not fully painted. Speculation on my part.
Best Sportsman, me.

Highlight: Round 2, one player had a wedding to go to, scheduled far earlier than he thought. He left early, being summoned (wha-PAH!) by his g/f. The usual chauvinistic reactions resulted throughout the day.

PS:
Julio and the Fresno crew: Bummer on the no shows.

PPS:
Is "Weeoo - tish!" a better whip-snap onomatopoeia? I dunno as I hardly ever hear it ....



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bahkara wrote:
Knights are OP!

I brought two lists, one my all eldar BAO, scaled back for 1500 and the other the 'Unbound' list (IG & tau). Not OP in any WAAC "Unbound" way, but with enough tau FusionBlasters to deal with heavily armored enemies. I couldn't decide. Finally, I went with needing BAO practice, but I drew Adam and his 4 Imperial Knights as an opponent round one.

I think, Mr. OP, that 8 Fusion Blasters might've crimped your day. You tabled my eldar, and I garnered, what? 5 glances?

So LOW didn't rear their ugly heads?

Someone brought a Shadowsword. they went 1-2

Sorry guys that I wasnt keeping the thread up to date, I moved from NoHo to Hawthorne and work has been insane. Anyway, updated the front page.

No Lord of War didnt really make a splash, but Travis has seen fit to not allow them in the near future. Everything else is fine though. My orks will be making a come back now that I have the Ghaz suppliment, the Bully Boyz formation is my hot ticket. 15 fearless, fear cause Mega Nobz with +1WS in trucks. Have fun with that.



So 7th seems to be all that and a bag of orks killing each other with mob rule. Our last two 7th tournaments went well and games are starting to finish on time. In addition the mix of Eternal war and Maelstrom missions seemed to make the crowd happier.

Our next tournament will be another simple RTT style event with an increase in point level from 1500 to 1750. Lord of War will not be allowed, forge world is cool to bring, and basically everything else in the rulebook is fair game. Just check in with the TO if you want to bring an Unbound list, as supreme D-baggery will not be tolerated.

Our normal scedule of events has been thrown off by the new edition but Ill try and get in one last bigger themed event this year before the Holiday madness tournament. If you didnt go last year you missed out, bloodcrushers killed everything. If you have any suggestions for such an event Im all ears. Highlander was something that came up but a one unit per entree restriction seems a bit restrictive.

Any rationale on banning LOW for the future?

I'm just sad to see Ghazzy (and potentially Logan) go.

Is there a reason LoW will not be allowed in the next tournament? It seems from the other posts that the only LoW used was a practical non issue so why the change?

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Is there a reason LoW will not be allowed in the next tournament? It seems from the other posts that the only LoW used was a practical non issue so why the change?

I agree that the LoW *is* practically a non-issue, given that only one showed up, and no one submitted one in a list per the TO's request to submit 'em. The list *I* submitted was just some slightly 'unbound' Tau / IG traitors, no LoW.

The TO held a brief post-tourney discussion on LoW before announcing prizes. An informal survey of the attendees, yielded a 'if the LoW is in the codex, it will prolly be allowed', sort of response. So, Ghaz and Logan will likely be okay.

I think I was paying adequate attention enough to have got that right.

LoW being out is really just an aspirin for me, I don't want the headache!

I just don't get what GW is going for with that part of the game. A blanket declaration that LoW is kosher isn't the answer, since there's just waaay too much disparity between the stuff in that bracket. On the one hand, you have Baneblades and Titans and C'tan oh my, on the other you have... regular old Ghaz? Being boggled as to just how *not* a "Lord of War" he is was a common theme of the day .

He's not an Eternal Warrior?? (lol nope)

He has no Invulnerable save? ( for a turn, I guess)

Is his Power Klaw a D weapon or something?? (lerp)

He just has a Shoota? (yerp)

He's got some super Waaagh, though, right? (spoiler: no)

He's side by side with the frikkin Stompa, for Emperor's sake. It's just weird. So, I'm currently working with the worldview that any LoW found in a Codex will be legit, all the supplement stuff not so much, since, theoretically, the Codex stuff is reasonably balanced and the armies are now being designed with their LoW in mind, as opposed to the wild ride of stuff from before that includes Reavers and all sorts of nonsense.

This concept will hold up through the BA and SW books, when Logan and Mephiston get shackled to LoW status, and then will be scheduled to go right out the window when Necrons get a book and there's the C'tan ready to flip tables up and down the store.

In any case, until we get a clearer picture from seeing more 7th style codices, I'm of the mind that LoW are still largely an optional element of the game and one that is quite easy to remove until there's a better understanding of how it's supposed to work without causing any trouble with the game. People are still feeling out the new missions and little tweaks and mods to the rules, anyway. We've all got plenty of allied detachments and formations and whatnot to keep us occupied without the wild swing potential in LoW anyway. It's not that only one guy here or there brings them and they don't necessarily win or do great or whatever, it's that they provide a very narrow avenue for play and very lopsided games. Did you bring drop melta or a gakload of lances / lascannons / Knights? You might have, and if so, you're probably going to be fine. If not, you're kinda screwed. The games seemed, honestly, kinda lame, and I'm talking about for the LoW player!

That's where I'm at after admittedly not much to observe. I was hoping we'd see a Stompa too, maybe another couple super heavies but no luck. If people have a compelling argument for LoW I'm all ears.

Regardless of all that, it was a blast as usual and I hope everyone had a good time. We'll see you all again in August!

Sorry guys I couldn't make it. Our ride had to work last minute. We did have our local RTT here in Bakersfield on Sunday. We had 10 players show up and I was able to take 1st going 3-0 with 40 pts.

Hopefully I can make the August RTT at Game Empire.

I'd like to open the discussion on best army tie breakers being decided by sportsmanship.

It's not really about winning to me but... I suffer from OCD and I tend to obsess about small details which really turns people I play against off. It sucks as I feel I dont have an equal chance to compete because my opponent can judge me on his perception of my personality.

I understand having it be an enjoyable game for both but whats the balance? If I let everything go I have a bad time and if I bring anything up the other person has a bad time.

criteria for knocking someones sportsmanship score is a rules disagreement and were only 2 tournys into a new ediition for cripes sake.

There already is a sportsmanship prize. I know its a hold over from the RTT days but that doesnt mean its not unfair.

anyone else want to chime in?

Where you in contention for best army? Just wondering.


As to sportsman awards; Casey is going to win it anyway so why even argue over it lol. No ok on a serious note, I've win best sport at big GTs and have had plenty of rules disputes in those games. There is a way to play them off and keep the game going while still having a good time. I'm not saying your not good at it, rather your opponent might take the argument as hostility. Try working through It together slower and in a way that will not impact either side negatively. And yes people it's a new edition, so let's be a little understanding of rule questions. It's not like we are playing with a certain handlebar mustached man here.

If your opponent is a dick and knocks for sports because of that I sorry but hey there are dicks out there. But in place of sportsman breaking a painting tie what would you suggest?

Anyone can win sportsmanship. I know this because I won it once, with three riptides. We were all surprised too.

I think he means best xenos/imperial where sportsmanship is used as a tie breaker.

Lol, even though I lost I wouldnt argue that Knights are OP. Just knights + VP game is.... frustrating to deal with. Especially at 1500.

Even still it was still a super fun event and seemed to go much more smoothly. My thoughts on things:

LoW: still ok with (with restrictions). . But im also ok with them not being in the game either

FW: yay! keeep it innnn

Maelstrom: also super fun, still argue for my ususal arguments (d3 = 2, impossible = free redraw), but overall i think they've been a hit and seem to go well, without too much slowdown.
Having the cards helped massively and really sped things up. If anything they just prevented confusion about what you've accomplished and what you have left to do, and also prevented rolling the same objective multiple times.

VP games: ewww. I think we need to modify these, or just have knights count double or something

General timing: definitely better but man starting up can take a while. Especially now that <4 rounds = loss.. things seem like they could be faster in that initial setup.

Some ideas:

1. Having a "clock" for startup. I wouldnt necessarily say we use it to enforce anything, but at the very least it wakes people to "hey 15 minutes have gone by and you should have setup by now". Then if one player is still taking a while the other can use that to nudge them forward or get some more official help. I know that I myself have taken a while a times, mostly because I just lose track of time. So an official on deck countdown I think could be a big help.

2. Slowly working our way torwards an official definition of slowplay and some ways to enforce it. There have been games where the first turn has taken... a while (aka 1-1.5 hours). Granted this is a general "problem" with 40k, and difficult to address, which is why i think it's something we should start thinking about but not necessarily implement for next month.

3. Maybe we as a community can make up a more permanent cheat sheet that we can use as part of the main mission sheet. So we could decide here what kinds of stuff we want to see on it/seems to be slowing people down the most so that way we can just have it right there for everyone to get past that initial setup/first turn hump just a bit faster. Then we can assemble it and give it to Mike or whoever so that way they arnt always making everything lol. Hell we could more optionally develop cheat sheets for each army so people could get a better sense of what they have or what they are facing pre-tournament (something I was looking to do for BAo anyways, if enough time). Again though this is something we should do, not expect Mike/Travis to make for us.


Finally as for using sportsmanship as tiebreakers for best painted/xenos/imperial.. what else would we use? there arnt any metrics left other than some sort of paint score?

Honestly I think the main problem with OCD on the small details isnt the obesession of the small details... its how much time it usually takes to resolve them. It's not so much the balance of you or the other player having a good time, it's the balance of finishing in time at all (ie: >4 rounds). So at a certain point both player's enjoyment of the game has to take a backseat so that the game can continue in a timely fashion, and thus shortcuts may need to be made (either by letting it slide, or rolling it out, or taking the average result, doing to both players...etc).

Furthermore I would also say that the obsession with detail also implies a deliberateness of play which can be another source of exacerbation for ones opponents. It's ok to contest rules, that's perfectly in ones right. However if player goes in knowing that rules contests are likely (either because they are unfamiliar with the game or they know that their opponent is unfamiliar with the game), they need to hustle in all other aspects of their game in order to make up for that lost time. Otherwise yes you should expect a ding on sportsmanship, because that's the only outlet players have to delineate a game that went too slowly. This will be even more of a problem when we hit 1750. So unless we come up with a player speediness/readiness to play (where readiness to play is defined by both knowedlge of the rules and just ready to go from a dice/books/models/etc perspective) metric, sportsmanship is really going to be the only outlet there is for that sort of thing.

In the end it still comes down to winning, more than anything. Most of the time the games are decided by the BPs, so if you are concerned on losing out due to sportsmanship, also consider that even if you had an equivalent score to someone win/loss wise, more than likely they edged you out barreeellly based on BPs. Focus on those and having elements of your army that are capable of getting those. More specifically quarters and units that are fast enough to "daisy chain" when the inevitable "no more than 12 away" BP arrives. Obviously the kill all FA/HS/Troops/HQ ones are pretty straightforward, and the HQ killing something is relatively tough to plan ahead for (unless you have a particularly beefy HQ). But the ones that involve board control you can account for and should definitely be something to focus on, as getting those BPs will start winning you things much more quickly.

I think we should play "Purge the alien" for all 3 games next tourney but I'm a little biased

I feel like that's a shot at me and all ork players

And us DE players....

Just testing the water here... are people generally cool with using two CAD?

We have an averagely competitive list, which we'd like to use as the models will fit in a smaller case, ready to cross The Pond.

We have not had any issues with it thus far and the master TO allowed it last tournament. So I see no reason why it would not be allowed.

Thanks, Mike. Hope we get to see yer Orks.

I just want to point out that I normally do not complain that much about my own army(or try not to), but man I have not had a game so discouragingly bad as to make me not want to play them anymore. I mean 7 failed nova charges in a row with rerolls? 14 1s out of 20 rolls? Common game, not cool man. What I will say for Levi's sake is that Levi, if you think I gave you bad sportsmanship because my dice failed and you stomped me, please do not believe that I would stoop to something so low. I don't consider myself a bad sportsman, and I would hope others don't think I am an donkey-cave on the table. (Assuming my memory serves me) I believe I gave you the max for sportsmanship, which is a 6 right? (6-4-2-0, if I am not mistaken?) If I am wrong, and Travis says that I did (and mistakingly I might add) give you a low sportsmanship score, then I will happily give up my prize. I don't want any reward not legitimately earned.

With that aside, I would like to point out that orks probably would have taken tournament if someone had paid more attention in his games *wink* *wink* you know who you are.

I GOT MY ASS KICKED BY ORKS. SO HARD IN FACT THAT IT MADE ME WANT TO QUIT MY TAU(my dice may have been a contributing factor) nuff said hahahahahah

Andrew, are you referring to one very specific and very heroic drop pod? I have christened it 'marbo 2' for its service during battle.

maybe.... just, maybe...

I also heard word of some sort of "killpoints" game where "things" may have been ignored in favor of victory

I GOT MY ASS KICKED BY ORKS. SO HARD IN FACT THAT IT MADE ME WANT TO QUIT MY TAU(my dice may have been a contributing factor) nuff said hahahahahah

I'll trade you Orks for Tau!

Something that came up after the first few league games at the store last night: Are Knights too much?

...

...

...

Ok, now that Adam's done hyperventilating, hear me out. While discussing the impact and effect of Knights after my game last night, it occurred to me that the same rationale that I was using to remove LoW from the pool applies, in some respects, to Knights as well. It's difficult to handle, of course, since they have their own Codex and are specifically *not* Lords of War, but it did get me thinking about the types of games Knights have (and I have played plenty with and against them, so I'm not just spouting theory). Just like with Lords of War, it's not that Knights are coming in and sweeping every tournament without breaking a sweat, it's the kind of game playing against them (or, at least, a lot of them) creates: you ready for Knights? Good, got a game. You not ready? Lol!

Thus, in the interest of looking at all sides, here's some things to consider:

1. What if Knights could only be taken as Allies (so no Knight Warlord with crazy Warlord traits)

2. What if Knights were limited to 0-2, but could still be taken as your primary detachment and include your Warlord?

3. What if Knights were allowed in any number and format the way we've been doing, but they gave up VPs and a bonus to seize the initiative like Lords of War? (So every three HPs dealt in damage to a Knight meant +1 VP to the opponent, each dead Knight coughs up 2 total)?

Does that kneecap Knights too much? Make them irrelevant? Not harsh enough? Knights are meant, balance-wise, to be a hard counter to deathstar-style lists and are weak to flyers, but as a meta we don't really see lots of deathstars and flyers are diminishing in prominence now that Maelstrom missions are a thing. I guess the real question is do Knights create more problems than they solve, and what kind of gaming experience do they bring to 40k? When you see that pairing against the Knights the first time, are you thinking boss I want to see how those things really work, or are you thinking crap, not that list again? What about when you see the pairing the second or third time?

Something to consider for the future, particularly as the points value of the events start to creep back up. I'm definitely interested in what you all have to say about.

Except Adam.

Well, I have never particularly been a fan of knights, but it has nothing to do with the knight as a codex, 4 unit army, warlord night, etc. My biggest and really ONLY true problem with the kinghts is that they are not LoW and yet they use the same damage charts as a titan/ super heavy. There is nothing more frustrating with them than knowing that you can never do significant damage to them with a single lucky shot (yes remove extra D3 hullpoints on explodes, but none of the normal vehicle ddamage table, shaken, stunned, immobilized, weapon destroyed.) This exception in their rule makes me hate them and think they are another thing that shouldnt be allowed in games below 2000 points or APOC/ Escalation games.

Making them worth more VPs doesnt help the issue, it is more like a band-aid on a wound that is heavily infected. Double VPs still doesn't help the balanced armies that aren't kitted to fight 4 titans (and they are titans, baby titans maybe but titans nonetheless). I would rather face LoW than knight lists, because at least i know the LoW was very expensive and there is only the one.

I don't think we can wholeheartedly really remove knights, since they are so ingrained and some people will surely wander in and want to play with their massive robots of doom. Which is fine, however they do create a very interesting warping sensation in the meta game (and not the chaos-y kind, BAZING chaos and your lack of knights).

I do agree that the problem really reside sin your preparedness for them, and inherently some armies deal with them better than others, however, there are quite a few things that have this effect. If I bring 120 nids and you don't have high rate of fire, a fair number of blasts, or are otherwise bringing an elite army, well you're going to have a bad time. Similarly playing MC nids vs DE is, well, almost an auto-lose.

However, what we can do is mitigate this. The most egregious place where knights shine is in the KP games, where literally Adam's army was worth 4 KPs, while John's was 14 or something. Adam was almost a sure thing to win that. So, I'm not entirely sold on limiting the army building capabilities of knights, but I do think we should balance them on a per mission basis.

For example, if we're playing maelstrom, then the other player, even if they have no good answers to the knights, can at least run around trying to avoid stuff and sniping objectives. Same with other objective games, except for the relic where the knights can pick up the relic, or just encircle it.

I would propose the +1 KP per 3 HPs for knights in addition to the KP for killing the knight, similar to LoWs, but not VPs. Here's why:

1. In a 1500 KP game like we saw last week, Adam's army becomes worth 12 KPs (1 per knight, plus 2 for the 6 HPs), which is much closer to a normal army for KPs.
2. If we make it +2 VPs, then stripping 12 HPs from the knights is now worth the same as the KP mission itself, meaning you have to down 2 knights and you basically win/tie the KP game.

For every other game type, especially if we stick to maelstrom, the cards balance this out for us due to ObSec and the need for greater mobility, both of which the knights generally lack. I would really hate to invalidate Adam's 4 knights from a listbuilding perspective, but they do indeed warp the game and make quite a few things no longer viable by the pure threat of facing them.

I definitely agree on adding more KPs to knights in KP games (but NOT making them VPs, that would definitely be unfair).

Also a fun little note that I just noticed that would have potentially been key in our game:

if you in CC with something that you cannot possibly hurt (the lone marine) you can elect to fail morale checks. That could have swung things my way a bit more, though i think in all those cases he failed to hit and run out anyways, so it's potentially moot.