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.

I'll chime in too to add my disappointment at seeing Jeff Hall go. He really did show a genuine concern for the core 40K gaming community, and he'll be missed.

So Armored company is/was broken?

What a bunch of crybabies.  Ever play it, or just cringing in inexperienced anxiety and fear?

Realize that an armored company list requires the pruchase of at a minimum 2 command tanks, with a purchase penalty of 150 points? Those 2 tanks alone will eat about 500 points out of a list.  Destroying the command tank, normally nets about 300 VPs and it's not much more effective than a regular tank...

I have played on both sides of the armored company list, I own the army, and for the record, its a very hard army to play! Furthermore, I say its harder to play with, than against it.  here are some examples you may not have even consdiered:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Escalation? Yea, the tanks drive on 2 at a time.

Remember the rules for targeting a model with a barrage? A Leman Russ isn't even a match for the standard las plas squad, and its more expensive...

How much AP2 does an armored company get? Very little, 2+ save units can almos walk around with impunity.  A tyranid Zilla list would destroy them every time, with 2+ save 4 wound models, any leman russ could easily spend all game firing at one and not kill it.

Drop pods? I played an armored company game versus a deathwing pod army, and I couldnt even scratch them. 8 tanks died in 2 turns.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Also, for those who say its no fun playing against tanks, well how about, all the mech lists?...

9 speeders and 6 dreads

3 monoliths and whatever

3 super falcons and 4 waveserpents

3 demolishers and 6 chimeras

3 Railheads and 4 fish of fury

All legal by the current rules, but for some reason:

6 leman russes and 2 Basilisks, WAY OVER THE TOP,...

Absolute Rubish!

(Also, this ridiculous oscilating decision is why I have never bothered to buy any of the imperial armor books, looks like that was a great call!)

Oh yes, and in summary:

Everyone play Iron Warriors/doctrine marines and Orks need not apply.

Armored Company is a broken list in the sense that it does not fit into the rules very well. It's also extremely rock/paper/scissors. Walks all over some armies, gets chumped by a couple of others. Regardless of whether it's overpowered on the whole, I think it has an excessive tendency to less-fun games. Does the current version still have the option for batteries of multiple Basilisks as a single HS choice, BTW?

There is also the aforementioned point about there being multiple versions of the rules out there, thus leading to potential confusion. If the IA version was allowed, were they going to make that section of the book available free online?

While I agree that the AC is a bit on the broken side and some scenarios are either just bad or too good for them, as you probably wont be playing the scenarios that are suggested while playing an AC in a tournament. I would hazard to say that it would be nice to have the option to bring them.

But, this is a grand tournament afterall. People should come with lists that balance competitive lists with fun. I know GW is trying to gear everything towards a centralized, less crowded list selection, it would be the one place to expect to play cool variant lists you have lovingly constructed.

But I think there is a nice medium there with events such as Adepticon being able to hold GT's and to tweak the tourney rules to their own needs. Like gladiator, where its a no holds barred rumble with some really cool lists.

Posted By Augustus on 02/14/2007 12:05 PM

Also, for those who say its no fun playing against tanks, well how about, all the mech lists?...

9 speeders and 6 dreads

3 monoliths and whatever

3 super falcons and 4 waveserpents

3 demolishers and 6 chimeras

3 Railheads and 4 fish of fury

All legal by the current rules, but for some reason:

6 leman russes and 2 Basilisks, WAY OVER THE TOP,...

Well that's because they are not

6 land raqiders and 2 vindicators

6 monoliths and ...2 more monoliths

6 falcons and 2 fireprisms

6 railheads and 2 skyrays.

You already pointed to it...3 Leman Russes back by chimeras and hellhounds...completely legal in the new sanctioned tourney setting.  they just donn't seem to want 8 pie plates throwing down on an enemy every turn.

I think it's probably good it's gone from big time play. The real crazy stuff ( the kind of stuff seen currently at the GT level) is really the kind of stuff that should be on the local/less serious tournament level.  The True High level tournament play really should be with more centralized and more carefully maintained lists.

I've always thought it was a farce the kinds of awards that are given in these settings.  Instead of "best general" prize, I would like to see "won the first turn roll off mosT" award and the trophy for "best war story told about bad die rolling while not slowing down the game".  The fact that people take a stupid game about moving little lead men about a table and thinking themselves military geniouses so seriously boggles my mind.

I'm sorry the card says MOOPS!!

Too bad about the Ferals they are fun to play against and add variety to all those meq lists you will see. They tend to do well against meqs so that is probably why they are getting the snip.   You mean I could have played against a ork list but yet again I get to play my 4th marine opponent (or equivalent) in a row.

Meh, I'm used to the bad news now.  I had a lot of contact with Jeff Hall specifically in regards to allowing Forgeworld at GTs, and he seemed sympathetic to my cause.  Definitely the wrong move by GW.

So, I'm sitting on 1850 points of painted Kroot, with 500 points of Forgeworld models, and I'm just waiting.  Every once in a while a local tournament will come around that allows Forgeworld, but I've won those and the only next step for me is a GT.  I'm on pause with GW right now, they won't be getting my money until they change things.

And at this point, I believe it will be much more likely that they will just ban my Kroot list rather than allow Forgeworld models at GTs.

Now Warmachine, that's a fun game.

- Oaka

derling> The True High level tournament play really should be with more centralized and more carefully maintained lists.

Well lets try and come at it from another direction:

All published lists ought to be balanced enough that they are all suitable for tournament play.

How about that?

Realistically, I think the fringe armies are always candidates for what I call sleeper armies.  Its much harder to stand out in a crowd of like competitors, but if you have something unique, well, then you have shot.  This is porbably a large part of the rason why a lot of veteran players always have new armies, and choose to play almost anything besides Space Marines.  IMO anything that reduces this, like the eleimination of non SM lists from the tourney rosters is a bad thing.

Assuming the coordinators have a alot of levers to pull to balance things, and assuming, changing/publishing for free/excluding codices are out of the question, why not balance the game with the missions? Write specific missions to balance the event for everyone? I don't think it would be easy, but I think it would be better than out right refusing to permit published materials and risk alienating some of the (long time, and well informed) user base.

Boy coordinating the GTs must be tough, what a way to have the Tiger by the Tail...

?

In closing:

A Salute to Jeff Hall!

and to everyone who competes at GTs, not playing MEq!

Posted By Augustus on 02/14/2007 3:26 PM

derling> The True High level tournament play really should be with more centralized and more carefully maintained lists.

Well lets try and come at it from another direction:

All published lists ought to be balanced enough that they are all suitable for tournament play.

IMO anything that reduces this, like the eleimination of non SM lists from the tourney rosters is a bad thing.

Assuming the coordinators have a alot of levers to pull to balance things, and assuming, changing/publishing for free/excluding codices are out of the question, why not balance the game with the missions? Write specific missions to balance the event for everyone? I don't think it would be easy, but I think it would be better than out right refusing to permit published materials and risk alienating some of the (long time, and well informed) user base.

while idealistically some of what you say is true, historically, tournaments of wargames with longer histories than GWs tend to go the exact opposite direction from your "All published lists ought to be balanced enough that they are all suitable for tournament play" wish.  Were we to be discussing items like some of these older and more wisened games, we would likely find our army lists preassembled when walking into a tournament, with each race having it's own pre-pointed army list for valid tourney use.

I personally consider GW's attempt to continually promote  individual army design in competitions, despite the wicked problems it creates.

and regarding your last point, anyone who has truly been in this hobby a "long time", is likely fully aware that any unit or army you play in this game is might get the axe in a year or two...and when you buy smaller or more extreme army types, you are running a far greater risk of that kind of loss.

As a veteren player who has seen many of his models annd even armies go by the wayside, I can tell you that I know that anything I am fielding right now might not be legal or "official" next month or next year.  The one constant in the universe is change.  The wise adapt. the rest visit Dakka Dakka ! ...kidding on that last part.

As a veteren player who has seen many of his models annd even armies go by the wayside, I can tell you that I know that anything I am fielding right now might not be legal or "official" next month

Indeed, I have 7 wraithlords now....

and 4 squads of blood angels scouts without CC weapons and rocket launchers and 3 leman russ W/ autocannons, a griffin, 3 squads of vipers with star cannons, Eldar Guardians with Rocket Launchers, Conversion Beamers, A Kroot army...

Ah well. I like building new stuff!

Posted By Oaka on 02/14/2007 3:07 PM

Meh, I'm used to the bad news now.  I had a lot of contact with Jeff Hall specifically in regards to allowing Forgeworld at GTs, and he seemed sympathetic to my cause.  Definitely the wrong move by GW.

So, I'm sitting on 1850 points of painted Kroot, with 500 points of Forgeworld models, and I'm just waiting.  Every once in a while a local tournament will come around that allows Forgeworld, but I've won those and the only next step for me is a GT.  I'm on pause with GW right now, they won't be getting my money until they change things.

And at this point, I believe it will be much more likely that they will just ban my Kroot list rather than allow Forgeworld models at GTs.

Now Warmachine, that's a fun game.

- Oaka

You once posted you'd gack a Black Templars player who took the hits on 3+ vow on their comp score. I would hope you would go and play Warmachine and get out of the GW hobby, with that kind of attitude.

Are you posting old trash just to pick a fight?

I'm working on a 102-model Lost and the Damned mutant-heavy army, and barring local games, I wouldn't be surprised if it up and Poofed soon. 

I'm still gonna finish it though.  Dammit.

Posted By Augustus on 02/14/2007 3:26 PM

All published lists ought to be balanced enough that they are all suitable for tournament play.

How about that?

   I don't like it at all. 

EDIT:  I know that Dakka is a haven for tournament players, but GW needs to take all of its customer into account.  That includes the beer and pretzels crowd (of which I consider myself to be a member) who enjoy playing with the occasionally quirky, unbalanced list such as Gnoblars, Snotlings, Zombie Pirates, or Armoured Company.  I would hope that, moving into the future, they would LABEL such lists as "Just for fun, not to be taken seriously," which seems to be the way they were moving with such things as the Lustria book, to cite a recent example. 

Posted By Mannahnin on 02/14/2007 6:22 PM
Are you posting old trash just to pick a fight?

If you look at his posting history, that's all Hobbs does.

Posted By Augustus on 02/14/2007 12:05 PM

So Armored company is/was broken?

What a bunch of crybabies.

I agree. Last game I played with my Armoured Company I lost. Granted, we each had about 3 models left on either side (it was a complete blood-bath - LatD vs AC in a CoD game - mission was 'Acronym Assault' I believe), but it wasn't as if I just stomped him to death.

AC is not as good as people think it is... unless you're fighting foodslogging Necrons with nothing but Warriors.

BYE

All published lists ought to be balanced enough that they are all suitable for tournament play.

How about that?

Pariah Press> I don't like it at all. 

EDIT:  I know that Dakka is a haven for tournament players, but GW needs to take all of its customer into account.  That includes the beer and pretzels crowd (of which I consider myself to be a member)

What's a true beer and pretzels player doing at a tournament? Indeed?

That kind of opponent, is my prey.

Thanks HBMC,

for the record my last game with AC, was a cleanse loss to the Deathwing and before that it was a tie, in a take and hold escalation vs. footslogger orks.

Posting seasonal rules and changing them during the season: Bad Decision

Reducing the number of non-MEq options in a tourney: Unfortunate Decision

Taking armies out of the rules during the season: Worse decision

Removing relatively obscure low/average powered armies: Doesn't make much sense...

If I had to guess, I'd say they did it so that only officially supported codices were played at the GTs, as that at least makes some sense (just currently published stuff).

???

Posted By Augustus on 02/14/2007 12:05 PM

So Armored company is/was broken?

What a bunch of crybabies.  Ever play it, or just cringing in inexperienced anxiety and fear?

I have played against it...a lot.

And I hate Armored Companies.

If you are playing in tournaments, you are building take-all-comers lists. The AC is such an odd list, that you will either beat it, or lose to it, and strategy and tactics will have no influence one way or another.

If I played Space Marines and I had a lot of las/plas squads, and tornados, I would laugh at an AC army. But I don't play Space Marines, and most of my armies would have no chance against it. It is not because I can't build competitive lists, or because I don't account for my opponent having tanks, it is just the sheer amount of AV 14 that a lot of armies can't account for.

I don't see GW banning ACs as them punishing non-MEQs, but encouraging them.

Posted By Augustus on 02/14/2007 3:26 PM

In closing:

A Salute to Jeff Hall!

and to everyone who competes at GTs, not playing MEq!

Amen, brother!

 

Remember kids:  Everytime you bring a non-MEQ army to a tournament, an angel gets it's wings.

 

 

Posted By Blackmoor on 02/15/2007 12:04 AM

If you are playing in tournaments, you are building take-all-comers lists. The AC is such an odd list, that you will either beat it, or lose to it, and strategy and tactics will have no influence one way or another.

You could make a similar argument about horde armies.  Or non-MEq armies in general.

Posted By derling on 02/14/2007 1:37 PM

6 monoliths and ...2 more monoliths

Monolith Company!  Or Monolith Kingdoms?  I like where this train of thought is going -  next stop: AWESOMELAND!!!

Posted By carmachu on 02/13/2007 1:13 PM
Now is that rhinox riders list banned, ro just the riders rules or both?

from what i can gather it is the ghark list, as it allows multiple rhinox units as core.. it's a pretty common one trick pony army and hits hard, but it's really not that difficult of an army to beat.. hell the ghark army isn't half as destructive as the all butcher army, with gorgers and skrag the slaughterer leading the way.  Now that's one hard ass army.. (i actually use both)

Posted By yakface on 02/15/2007 12:08 AM

Remember kids:  Everytime you bring a non-MEQ army to a tournament, an angel gets it's wings.

Do my Imperial guard count as MEQ if  if I give them all power armor and use space marine rules?

Posted By Augustus on 02/14/2007 10:50 PM

All published lists ought to be balanced enough that they are all suitable for tournament play.

How about that?

Pariah Press> I don't like it at all. 

EDIT:  I know that Dakka is a haven for tournament players, but GW needs to take all of its customer into account.  That includes the beer and pretzels crowd (of which I consider myself to be a member)

What's a true beer and pretzels player doing at a tournament? Indeed?

That kind of opponent, is my prey.

  Never been to a tournament in my life.  That was my point.  I'm reasonably certain that most 40K players don't go to tournaments.  There are plenty of fun army concepts that simply cannot be balanced for tournament play.  Tournament balance can have the effect of leeching the interesting variations out of the game in favor of a more even-handed, chess-like approach.  The way to balance the armies is to make them all the same.  This is the ultimate goal of tournament optimization, if taken to the logical conclusion.  Obviously it will never go that far, but I would like to see some army lists suitable for tournament play, and some which are not, and don't pretend to be. 

I'm trying to figure out what tournament armies have trouble with AC, at least more trouble than with any other army. World Eaters, Orks, and genestealer heavy nids come to mind. Sisters of Battle without three exorcists. In my experience, the fact that AC's tanks are vulnerable to every Anti-tank option available (melta bombs, lances, monstrous creatures, rending, Rear AV 10, etc.) means that nearly any unit with an anti tank option can threaten it. Clearly, firewarrior heavy tau is screwed. But as was pointed out, it's hard to kill either hammerheads or broadsides with LRBTs, and crisis suits can shoot up the side armor.

Certain builds of AC can rip up certain builds by other armies, but that can be said about nearly any army. Watching firewarriors light up terminators is almost as fun as watching them try to pen AV14.

Pariah Press> plenty of fun army concepts that simply cannot be balanced for tournament play.

Why not? Why couldn't simple changes in all lists, bring things in line, for example, antitank weapons in ork armies, ogryns with choppers, standardization of the feral ork list.  I just disagree with this statement.  Imbalanced armies and units (largely refering to disadvataged ones) are just bad game design.  The case that they are intentionaly included to create fun from a handicapped doesn't make any sense.

Whats fun about being disadvantaged?

Pariah Press> The way to balance the armies is to make them all the same.

Certainly, well said, but that is one way.  Surely it is not the only way.  Who would want to play tournaments where everyone plays the same list, its already that way, somewhat, with the MEq proliferation, that's the point, it's going that way and shouldn't.  Likening army selection to team selection in sports is a good analogy, its definitely part of the grand tactics of the game.

Uniform armies could be construed as balance, or could be construed as reducing the tournament to who get's luckiest.

Pariah Press> This is the ultimate goal of tournament optimization, if taken to the logical conclusion.

Not necesarily.  Other competative arenas don't mandate standardized elements.

Pariah Press> I would like to see some army lists suitable for tournament play, and some which are not, and don't pretend to be.

Obviously there is merrit to your concepts, but this could be a have your cake and eat it too situation, why can't their be both, variant lists, a diverse background and suport for historic armies?

Remember, we are talking about taking away, questionably competative lists here, not taking away overly effective ones, in the spirit of "leveling the tournament playing field".

Posted By Augustus on 02/15/2007 12:14 PM

Pariah Press> plenty of fun army concepts that simply cannot be balanced for tournament play.

Why not? Why couldn't simple changes in all lists, bring things in line, for example, antitank weapons in ork armies, ogryns with choppers, standardization of the feral ork list.  I just disagree with this statement.  Imbalanced armies and units (largely refering to disadvataged ones) are just bad game design.  The case that they are intentionaly included to create fun from a handicapped doesn't make any sense.

It's not that I don't think that disadvantaged lists shouldn't be fixed; all of your suggestions above sound good to me. It's more that I would like to see specialized army list (along the lines of the armoured company) that simply cannot be made into a balanced army designed to compete with other balanced armies. A list, suitable and balanced for special scenarios, which would either be horribly disadvantaged or overpowered in a standard tournament environment.

Whats fun about being disadvantaged?

Pariah Press> The way to balance the armies is to make them all the same.

Certainly, well said, but that is one way.  Surely it is not the only way.  Who would want to play tournaments where everyone plays the same list, its already that way, somewhat, with the MEq proliferation, that's the point, it's going that way and shouldn't.  Likening army selection to team selection in sports is a good analogy, its definitely part of the grand tactics of the game.

Plenty of chess tournaments. I don't hear people complaining about how all of the armies are the same.

Uniform armies could be construed as balance, or could be construed as reducing the tournament to who get's luckiest.

Pariah Press> This is the ultimate goal of tournament optimization, if taken to the logical conclusion.

Not necesarily.  Other competative arenas don't mandate standardized elements.

Granted. I think that a balance needs to be found, and, actually, I think it's pretty close right now. Fix the Orks, nerf the marines and chaos marines a bit, and things would be pretty close to sufficiently balance, IMO.

Pariah Press> I would like to see some army lists suitable for tournament play, and some which are not, and don't pretend to be.

Obviously there is merrit to your concepts, but this could be a have your cake and eat it too situation, why can't their be both, variant lists, a diverse background and suport for historic armies?

Remember, we are talking about taking away, questionably competative lists here, not taking away overly effective ones, in the spirit of "leveling the tournament playing field".

   Well, I'm certainly not qualified to make any sort of judgement about this particular situation.  I simply objected to your statement that all published lists should be tournament-balanced.  To only offer rules support to tournament players would be unfair to the rest of us, and to assume that the rest of us want to play nothing but tourney-style lists would be wrong. 

Meh.
Never been to a GT, never gonna go.
But AC is quite hard to beat with Orks, especially with the slowed new rules for ordinance and "guessing".
You'd probably have to build a specific list to do it.
Ferals looked a bit hodge podge and I don't agree with the rationale of them being "shootier" even though they should have no firearms really.

Posted By Da Boss on 02/16/2007 5:43 AM
But AC is quite hard to beat with Orks,

 

You can pretty much replace AC in that statement with any list and it's just as true.