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.

Posted By GWEvents on 01/03/2007 6:27 AM


Yak
Abhumans, Zealots, and Blood Pact are not permitted in the GT. As for Mounted Daemonettes, well there is always something we forget! I will get those added to the list for the appropriate armies! Sorry about that.

Hope that answers your questions!
Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Thanks again Jeff. I didn't see demonette cav.  as an "optional" addendum. Thanks for the clarifications to all our queries, espeically braving the potential Dakka fire.  I would suggest a similar posting to Warseer if it has not already been done.  

Posted By Doctor Thunder on 01/02/2007 7:48 PM
I'm thinking it would be pretty expensive to buy an army painted to a high enough quality level to get you in range of the winner's circle. Most of the armies on ebay are really low quality.
Anyway, that's actually a change from the last few seasons, where they made no distinction at all whether you painted your army or not. Presonally, I say judge the army, not where it came from. A great army is a great army is a great army.

No, i'm completely with engine on this. The awards for the GT are given to people that can compete in all aspects of the hobby. All.  That includes painting. 

A great army is a great army, but the great overall player/gamer/hobbyist is not the great overall if he can't or won't or refuses to paint his own army.  Takes all meaning away from it.  The award goes to the person that uses and made the army, not just TO the army itself. 

What you are advocating is like saying that you can enter a finely painted piece into the Golden Daemons, that you did NOT paint yourself, and you should be allowed to compete and win anyway.  The award goes to the person that did the work, and all of the work, not just to the bonehead with a fat wallet and no sense of fair competition.

I have nothing constructive to add here, but think it should be said more:

Thanks for posting, Jeff!

Perhaps there is some confusion as to what each award actually is?

Is it like this?

Overall Winner: Guy with the highest overall score (Battle, Painting, Sports, Bonus)
Best General: Guy with the highest Battle Points
Best Painted: Guy with highest Painting Score
Best Sportsman: Guy with highest Sports Score

If that's not how it goes, then could someone explain what the awards are?

Actually, I agree that Golden Demons should only allow people to enter things they painted themselves, but GT's are different in my mind. I don't see much difference between making the effort to paint an army yourself, and making the effort to earn the money to have it professionally painted. Using your available resources to the best result is just good life management in my mind.

I'm sure some people may bring up the idea that players with more money should not have an advantage, but I would argue that they always have an inherant advantage, because players with more money are able to buy more cool custom bits to convert their models with to a higher degree, which is reflected in their scores as well. Players with more money are also able to buy armies more quickly, meaning that they can adjust their armies to changing rules and enviornments faster then other players, giving them a further advantage.

Another problem is that the rule is ultimately unenforceable. Tournament organizers do not have the time or resources to investigate claims of "he didn't paint that." It also opens the door for disgruntled players to create havok by falsly accusing players of using armies they didn't paint themselves.

Consider also the fact that, in every other aspect of the tournament, we only judge the result, not the source of it. 

We make no distinction between players who live close by the venues and have copious amounts of free time, and players who live thousands of miles from the nearest tournament and a tight schedule, we only rate them on whether or not they attend.  We make no distinction between players with good upbringing and a naturally easygoing nature and players with poor upbringing and a naturally short temper, we just judge the sportsmanship.  We make no distinction between players with a natural inclination for tactics, who have honed that skill with practice and patience, and players who have no time to practice and have little natural talent for tactics, we simply judge their preformance.

In every other aspect in the tournament, we only judge the result, not the source, so why draw an artificial line in the sand when it comes to painting?  Why not simply judge the result, as we do in every other part of the tourney?

I think the simplest solution is to judge the army, regardless of where it came from, but other people are welcome to disagree with me on this point.

I thought that they had clarified the conflicts between the Slayer list and the new Dwarf army book in the Dwarf FAQ, but I see your point on the other two lists. Perhaps you should add the lists that you can not use to the packets just for clarity's sake.

What's the logic behind picking and choosing which Chapter Approved armies/units can (i.e. Kroot Mercs, etc.) and cannot (BP, WH Zealots, etc.) be entered?

IMO, It makes 0 sense that an entire ARMY from CA can be fielded but a WH player cannot include 1 CA unit within their army. That just seems a**-backwards to me.

Just be glad we have the ones we do.
In england none of the non main armys are allowed.
feril, speed, kroot 13th, Lost and damned, armored company

I think we are lucky Jeff listed to our feedbake and set it up as it is, it could be a whole lot worse.

Friday special events........RIGHT ON JEFF............

All hail the death of comp.............................. Hurray hurrah


Thanks again Jeff

I have a quick question:   What about Albion stuff?

I think it's a pretty good effort on the whole.

But there's just some inconsistences. Why all the PDF armies (i.e. Kroot Mercenaries etc.) but not Catachans?

Why allow some stuff from White Dwarf (i.e. the Ork Warboss on bike, Deathwatch teams, etc.) and not others (like the IG Abhuman doctrines)?

Makes little or no sense to me.

If GW could fix those things, I'd be a little more happy.

Posted By stormboy97 on 01/03/2007 10:20 AM
Just be glad we have the ones we do.
In england none of the non main armys are allowed.
feril, speed, kroot 13th, Lost and damned, armored company

I think we are lucky Jeff listed to our feedbake and set it up as it is, it could be a whole lot worse.

Friday special events........RIGHT ON JEFF............

All hail the death of comp.............................. Hurray hurrah


Thanks again Jeff

I don't agree with the whole "just be happy with what you're given" bit.

Seriously, it makes absolutely no sense to continue to release Chapter Approved rules periodically and then pick and choose which Approved rules are the supremely "approved" rules. This is, by far, my biggest problem with GW.

If you make something "official", in whatever format you release it in, it should be official across the board. EVERYTHING that is official should be such. If GW doesn't like the rules, either edit them or don't release them in the first place. No other company I buy/play from does this.

Don't worry, I don't think future Chapter Approved rules will be an issue for you.

The reason behind including some things but not others is that the Design Studio released certain items as "official" while others were considered Trial and Optional. So we tried to include all the Official releases in the rules and not the optional items. That is why some are cool and others are not. As many of you have noticed, the has not been any rules in Dwarf articles for some time, and this is because of the fact that it became very unwieldy to sort through all the optional vs. official rules. Now, everything is Codex and Army book based to keep things a bit more concise. We tried to include as much of the older items as we could to not exclude players.

One final note in regard to the Catachans - This book is considered out of print and replaced by the IG Codex from the official standpoint of Games Workshop in regard to tournaments and other events. So we are only going with Codex: Imperial Guard for the Catachans.

I hope that clarifies what we are thinking a bit more. I know you won't all agree, but from a tournament standpoint, we think it helps keep things workable and provides the as many options as possible for a great deal of players.

Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Thanks for the reply. Sometimes we feel that we're just howling into an echo chamber. People may not agree with your reasoning, but we all appreciate the response.

It's not cheating if you score someone based on the criteria setout by the organizer. The sportscore at the US gt's is based on how much fun someone has, which can be as much list as player. Its lame, i admit but it's not cheating.

And my point was it could be worse: it used to be possible to sandbag both comp and sports and they both made up more of the overall points. Infact they are trying to cater to people like yourself as much as possible, yet you still whine.

Posted By GWEvents on 01/03/2007 11:38 AM
The reason behind including some things but not others is that the Design Studio released certain items as "official" while others were considered Trial and Optional. So we tried to include all the Official releases in the rules and not the optional items. That is why some are cool and others are not. As many of you have noticed, the has not been any rules in Dwarf articles for some time, and this is because of the fact that it became very unwieldy to sort through all the optional vs. official rules. Now, everything is Codex and Army book based to keep things a bit more concise. We tried to include as much of the older items as we could to not exclude players.

One final note in regard to the Catachans - This book is considered out of print and replaced by the IG Codex from the official standpoint of Games Workshop in regard to tournaments and other events. So we are only going with Codex: Imperial Guard for the Catachans.

I hope that clarifies what we are thinking a bit more. I know you won't all agree, but from a tournament standpoint, we think it helps keep things workable and provides the as many options as possible for a great deal of players.

Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Reasoning works for me.

I would argue that sportsmanship is about rating behavior, but my problem is
that the rubric is a bit too vague too really say that. I know the word
sportsmanship is there, but some people read that as army list building, too.
Then when you read the score breakdown (the rubric), they give you a
vague list of how a game "felt" rather than specific behaviors.

I think sample behaviors would be best. I liked Mannahin's checklist, for
example.

I tried to look for it, but could not find the painting rules to compare the rubrics.

If that's how you wanted sportsmanship read, then ok.

btw: Under the link to the Warhammer Fantasy rules the text link is labeled
"Warhammer 40,000 Rules Packet." Just in case you missed it. It still points
to WHFB, but the link mislabeled.

I like the return to judged painting. It helps address "score tanking," and will hopefully lead to some actual disparity in painting scores. Under the old format, too many people got max or near-max painting scores. So why bother even having it as a category under that system?

Good work, Jeff.

Thanks Jeff for the response. I have fought with many people in the past over simple issues such as "Counts as" is nice to have an official validation.

Posted By GrimTeef on 01/03/2007 8:04 AM

Posted By Doctor Thunder on 01/02/2007 7:48 PM
I'm thinking it would be pretty expensive to buy an army painted to a high enough quality level to get you in range of the winner's circle. Most of the armies on ebay are really low quality.
Anyway, that's actually a change from the last few seasons, where they made no distinction at all whether you painted your army or not. Presonally, I say judge the army, not where it came from. A great army is a great army is a great army.

No, i'm completely with engine on this. The awards for the GT are given to people that can compete in all aspects of the hobby. All.  That includes painting. 

A great army is a great army, but the great overall player/gamer/hobbyist is not the great overall if he can't or won't or refuses to paint his own army.  Takes all meaning away from it.  The award goes to the person that uses and made the army, not just TO the army itself. 

What you are advocating is like saying that you can enter a finely painted piece into the Golden Daemons, that you did NOT paint yourself, and you should be allowed to compete and win anyway.  The award goes to the person that did the work, and all of the work, not just to the bonehead with a fat wallet and no sense of fair competition.

I have a friend here in helena that loves to go to tournaments.

he paid his other buddy to paint his army for them. When he goes to tournaments, he does claim that the models are his own creation in order to get the prize.

BUT (and this is a big but) BUT he also comes home and gives the award to the guy who painted it. I go to almost every tourney with him and I know for a fact that the guy with the army he didnt paint gives credit where credit is due.
Matt has alot of painting awards because his armies are spread far and wide. And he hardly ever goes to the tournaments himself.

I know there is a possibility to abuse that rule, but there are other ways like the example I gave that is also a good thing.

Posted By skyth on 01/03/2007 5:56 AM

Posted By winterman on 01/02/2007 7:20 PM

So comp and painting are worth more than battle. Figures.

I suggest you reread the packet. There's no comp score.

Like people won't cheat and use the sports score as a comp score. 

"Come and see the subjectivity inherent in the system! Help, I'm being oppressed!"

It'll happen - suck it up. I went to the [EDIT]second UK GT interested in seeing how my 'generalship' (GW's term) stacked up. I came fourth overall in that category and somewhere quite a bit lower once painting, sportmanship and army list were factored in.

Which is exactly what I epxected - manage your expectations and your blood pressure tends to be a lot lower.

Posted By Tribune on 01/03/2007 1:10 PM

Posted By skyth on 01/03/2007 5:56 AM

Posted By winterman on 01/02/2007 7:20 PM

So comp and painting are worth more than battle. Figures.

I suggest you reread the packet. There's no comp score.

Like people won't cheat and use the sports score as a comp score. 

"Come and see the subjectivity inherent in the system! Help, I'm being oppressed!"

It'll happen - suck it up. I went to the first UK GT interested in seeing how my 'generalship' (GW's term) stacked up. I came fourth overall in that category and somewhere quite a bit lower once painting, sportmanship and army list were factored in.

Which is exactly what I epxected - manage your expectations and your blood pressure tends to be a lot lower.

Not only that, but the low ballers have one less way to drop you in points. No comp = 50% less lowballing.

Its not perfect, but alot better than what we had in the past.

Here's an idea. Go with the intent to enjoy yourself win or lose.

I forgot to add that the three guys who finished above me in battle points were also 1-3 overall. They did 'everything' right and were no doubt there with a more serious intent to take the prize.

I'll admit I just had a good time geeking out for the weekend!

Posted By winterman on 01/03/2007 12:01 PM

Like people won't cheat and use the sports score as a comp score.

It's not cheating if you score someone based on the criteria setout by the organizer. The sportscore at the US gt's is based on how much fun someone has, which can be as much list as player. Its lame, i admit but it's not cheating.

And my point was it could be worse: it used to be possible to sandbag both comp and sports and they both made up more of the overall points. Infact they are trying to cater to people like yourself as much as possible, yet you still whine.

Actually, I was talking both about people who either score full points or none, with no graduation and the people who tank sports because of army composition.  Both are cheating.

And one query for Jeff-Any chance of a USGT rules FAQ similar to the UKGT rules FAQ? Just borrow the UKGT FAQ or the YAKFAQ.

I really would like to know which rules interpretations are being used if I were to go. This creates a better game for both people, as it prevents rules arguments.

My favorite army (Daemonhunters) has more than it's share of rules arguments, especially since people don't know how the army works. But I don't take it to tournaments any more because of all the rules arguments.

No offense to yakface, as I know he has put alot of effort into his FAQ.

But I find that his opinions and interpretations about intent makes him biased against RAW.

I for one would not follow many rules he has issued as cannon because popular consensus and RAW both go against his written interpretation.

But thats my opinion.

I've found that the FAQ's he made in most cases go with Popular consensus first, then RAW a close second unless the RAW is perfectly clear.

I do disagree with some of them, but the point is simply having FAQs available before the tourney, regardless of what they say, will help. Especially with the rarer armies. I don't want to wonder if I'll be facing infiltrating statured princes, for instance...I'd like to know if Mystics work vs drop pods. I'd like to know if Rhinos block LOS to a Land Raider. There are many other possible rules arguments that I'd like answered. All before I chose my army for a tournament.

Posted By skyth on 01/03/2007 4:19 PM
I've found that the FAQ's he made in most cases go with Popular consensus first, then RAW a close second unless the RAW is perfectly clear.

Correction. He goes with his consensus first. Then goes by raw.

I tire of arguing points and people agreeing with me just for yak to say nothing is response. I have points that side with both raw and popular consensus, yet am told his iterpretation of intent is not going to fly with that. I think there is a certain amount of hubris involved there, but I digress.

Regardless, we do need a unifying FAQ for reference for sanctioned play. No matter what the source is.

Posted By malfred on 01/02/2007 9:50 PM

It should go without saying that illegal casts of Games Workshop
models will in no way be permitted. Please do not try and play
with your clear resin Stealth Suits.

That's such a cool idea. I wonder if GW will actually ever try to produce their own
clear resin stealth units. I remember someone (probably KK) posting some clear
resin predators that were out there. Very neat.

Hellfury: I thought that "counts as" referred to modeling and not paint schemes?

casting models you have bought and own in clear resin is not an illegal recast if it is for personal use, no matter how much they tell you. Fair use still counts for something.

Maybe, maybe not, but either way they can disqualify you from the tournament for doing so.