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.

Good summation, Mannahnin.

Savnock wrote: Congratulations, you have missed the point, misunderstood most of the posters, and probably not read the thread.

Congratulations. You missed my point, and misunderstood what I wrote. I read the entire thread, am running the tournament, and have been talking to GW about the issue. I've posted Dave Taylor's reply to the question.

If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't imply they are wrong, or didn't understand what you wrote, or didn't read the thread. I might just mean that they don't agree with you.

Alright, sure. Ditto the good summary, Mannahnin. I do understand all that, but I guess I failed to track the diverging arguments around the same issue as well as you did. Mikhaila, no bad blood there I hope. We will indeed agree to disagree.

I would like to follow up on the question of an exception for AC tanks to count as scoring units, though. It's an interesting issue, and there are considerations for the base ruleset mixed in with it.

Thing is, 40K is a game of exceptions, much like D&D, Magic, or any number of other complex games. You establish a consistent base ruleset, then you allow players to choose a faction, type, or standard set of modifications that carries an exception to the base rules- often quite radical ones. These exceptions (like WBB, ATSKNF, Fleet for Eldar, synapse, etc.) are not usually extended to the other factions. They do not need to be extended to make things "fair", and should be well-balanced both internally and externally for the faction that gains them.

To say that a ruling to make one army, stranded by the new rules and without a recent codex, playable opens up a can of FAQing for published codices is incorrect. It might open up other similarly neglected armylists (LatD and Kroot, etc.) to being made playable, though, which will most likely be a good thing. The dividing line can be very clear in this case: fixes are for non-codex, ad-hoc lists like AC, etc. that have been made unplayable by the edition change. Published codices are assumed to be playable, if perhaps somewhat weak. Not only are they different in character, their futures are different: ad-hoc lists can never expect a decent update, while the published codices can.

Although I can understand the fear of runaway FAQing, if the changes are clearly stated in the tournament rules ahead of time, they will be presented alongside other important information like scenario choices, armylist restrictions, etc. Anyone who doesn't read that stuff is in trouble anyways. A universal FAQ (or a WD update) to fix AC would be great, but unlikely. Tourney organizers however can fix this quite handily with a bit of playtesting (by, say, community members on a web forum...) and a line or two of text in the rules packet for their event.

There's a really good, concise statement about the "exception-based faction" form of game design in the D&D 3.5 Rules Compendium- one of the "fluff pieces" that are really the best thing about that book. As I work with the folks who designed and edited some of these games, I've heard them ramble about exception-based design before, but never seen it stated so concisely.

AC were an exception to the rules in the last edition, really- their differing force org chart was about the same level of exception as scoring tanks would be in this edition. They will need to be given an exception in the new edition too, if we ever want to see them fielded. I hope the organizers of this event and other events will consider this when outlining their rules and desired attendees for future tourneys. AC are fun to play against, and there's a little treadhead inside almost every 40K player that loves to see all those tanks on the battlefield, even if they are crushing our Spaze Marrinez under their treads at any given moment.

I'd hope that any new Guard codex would have an AC list. Failing that, a new and possibly updated list in WD, that reflects any changes in the new guard codex.

If the AC was run by a friend of mine, then I know it would be fun. Like its been said, this is not for sportsmanship, this is to win. Altering the rules at a first round tourney will only make it worse for the whole tourney. Say store A allows AC tanks to be scoring units but store B doesn't, how would it look when store A's AC guy wins and goes to round 2 when store B's AC guy loses because he can't claim objectives?

It would look like a cluster feth, which is what I am seeing coming down the pike here on a couple of fronts. A cluster feth. All I can say is that I am really glad I am going into this tourney to have a gas and that's it. I'm looking forward to wierd and freaky lists. I'm REALLY looking forward to seeing those lists that everyone theorizes about, but never bring to the table top for fear of getting smacked for bringing that weight in cheddar.

Boy am I glad that GW no longer even bother running tourneys here anymore. We don't have to put up with any of this kerfuffling - and DT at least used to be one of 'us'.

As all of our tourneys are indy by definition, there is no great over-ruling set of tourney rules for any of them (although the TOs all try to communicate with each other and at least try to be consistent across the board), something like this ('Ard boyz) would be a logistical nightmare.

I don't think anyone (here) has fielded an AC army since 3rd ed.