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.

Wait, isn't this the book with the CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT in it???

Hulksmash wrote:@Ozy

I think that's an oversimplification. While I agree that it's possible to glance it to death not all armies are designed like imperial ones and can't take 18+ ML's or 12 TL St8 Shots supported by tons of rending st7. It gets much dicier for Necrons, Dark Eldar, and to an extent Tyranids.

Naturally it's just my two cents but I can see some major issues with quite a few builds. That said I think the model is bitchin and given a chance to use one I'd buy one in a heartbeat

Who says you need to glance it to death? Immobilize it and it's threat is neutered (unless it's already on an objective... ). Honestly it's powers aren't nearly as good as the abilities a GK landraider gets (for less points too).

If I really wanted to, I could take two in a 1750 Deathwing list, but I'd have those two and 21 terminators and frankly I don't see that being an unstoppable list.

Blackmoor wrote:The US's ETC team was looking for a good event on the west coast to be a qualifier for the ETC team. They want a broader cross representation of the country and want to have a quality event out west, and I guess this is not going to be it.

Hahaha, Alan, buck up, buddy! No need for the defeatist attitude. We are putting this to a vote. We would be honored and proud to have the BAO send some players to represent America in the ETC, but at the end of the day, we are committed to building the best event we can for our attendees, and that is more important to us.

We will put this to a vote, and by Sunday, we will have a final decision.

If any of you have strong feelings about this, check your email inbox.

@Dok
Dok, hahaha, you made it to the top table for the finals of the BAO last year and you'd never played against Imperial Guard! You are a perfect example of a good player playing through a lack of knowledge, and of the fact that players don't come to events even knowing the information in the codexes

Ozymandias wrote:Who says you need to glance it to death? Immobilize it and it's threat is neutered (unless it's already on an objective... ). Honestly it's powers aren't nearly as good as the abilities a GK landraider gets (for less points too).

If I really wanted to, I could take two in a 1750 Deathwing list, but I'd have those two and 21 terminators and frankly I don't see that being an unstoppable list.

The threat is "neutered"...

It just becomes an AV 14, -1 on pen table bunker, with two twin-linked multimeltas, a thunderfire cannon, and oh yeah, another multi melta just for good measure. Many times more powerful than a standard land raider.
And if it's on an objective? Might as well pack up if you aren't Tau.

@reece: Yeah, I like to close my eyes and hope that the bad guard doesn't touch me at night. I'm trying to get my hands on the book right now and see what kind of craziness is gonna be dropped on my face in the last round.

ph34r wrote:The threat is "neutered"...

It just becomes an AV 14, -1 on pen table bunker, with two twin-linked multimeltas, a thunderfire cannon, and oh yeah, another multi melta just for good measure. Many times more powerful than a standard land raider.
And if it's on an objective? Might as well pack up if you aren't Tau.

Two twin-linked multimeltas will do squat if it's stuck in it's deployment zone. "Many times more powerful than a standard land raider..."!? Please.

I'd fight that over a GK Land Raider that ignores shakens and stuns and has a S7 assault cannon any day of the week!

Ozymandias wrote:

ph34r wrote:The threat is "neutered"...

It just becomes an AV 14, -1 on pen table bunker, with two twin-linked multimeltas, a thunderfire cannon, and oh yeah, another multi melta just for good measure. Many times more powerful than a standard land raider.
And if it's on an objective? Might as well pack up if you aren't Tau.

Two twin-linked multimeltas will do squat if it's stuck in it's deployment zone. "Many times more powerful than a standard land raider..."!? Please.

I'd fight that over a GK Land Raider that ignores shakens and stuns and has a S7 assault cannon any day of the week!

Yes, you can definitely curb its power if you manage to immobilize it in the deployment zone. Heck, if you are an IG player with 9 vendettas, you have a massive 28% chance to kill or immobilize it if you fire 1200 points of your army at it!

And if you are DE darklight spam with 20 dark lances/blasters, you have a very respectable 19% chance to immobilize it if you shoot your entire army at it!

italiaplaya wrote:Every army got around 1 to 3 new units.

Aw sweet! Sisters of Battle got some new units!

Wait, What? No new Sisters of Battle units?

Reecius wrote:@fetterkey and ph3ar
You guys are making the argument that a single unit is so overpowering that it's mere potential presence means you won't come to a tournament you both had fun at and were planning on attending again, but if they are allowed, you want people to be able to proxy them, therefore increasing the odds that you'd play against them....

Haha, tell me you see the fallacy in that logic.

My intention isn't to offend, it is just funny to me as it appears to be an irrational argument.

I can see how that might be confusing, but it's actually two separate arguments.


Argument 1: I feel that FW rules are poorly designed and often unbalanced and that they should not be allowed.

Looking only at the Space Marine rules, which I am most familiar with, the LRAchilles can't be stopped by several armies, the Siege Dreadnought is objectively better than a normal multi-melta Dreadnought (25 points of upgrades, plus special rule for penetrating vehicles, plus option to take HKMs, all for 15 points?), the Caestus Assault Ram is essentially the Stormraven from hell, and the Lucius Drop Pod-- while IMO no longer unbalanced-- is poorly designed. Generally speaking, units that allow pseudo-guaranteed assaults are unfun and shouldn't be in the game. GW has noticed this and fixed this in recent Codices, with units like Callidus Assassins losing their "automatically assault anything" prowess. If I go to a 40k event, I would prefer to play without such options being allowed.


Argument 2: If FW units are allowed, they should be allowed under the same restrictions as every other model-- namely, that substitutes and conversions are legal.

I don't think that FW units should be available to players. BUT-- given that an option is available to players-- it should be as available to as many players as possible to maintain a level playing field and maintain consistency with everything else in the game.

Conversions for other units that are expensive in money are permitted-- should someone be prevented from using Long Fangs if he doesn't want to pay 9 dollars per missile launcher bit? When I attended the Bay Area Open last year, I saw a LOT of Long Fangs that were holding hunter-killer missiles instead of real missile launchers. Similarly, I saw several Hydras that were made from converting a Chimera with an Aegis Defense Line turret instead of paying for the extremely expensive (though awesome) official FW kit, and lots and lots of Rifleman/Psyfleman Dreadnoughts made with similar conversions instead of the official FW arms. I feel that conversions and personalization are ultimately an important part of the hobby, and I don't see why it should be restricted for the units that are most inaccessible to players otherwise.

If you want to say "no conversions," that's fine, but I'd expect everyone with HKM Long Fangs, Aegis Defense Line Hydras/Dreadnoughts, etc. to be kicked to the curb as well. Preventing conversions for the models that are the most expensive of all seems both inconsistent and likely to result in a non-level playing field.

Hulksmash wrote:@Ozy

I think that's an oversimplification. While I agree that it's possible to glance it to death not all armies are designed like imperial ones and can't take 18+ ML's or 12 TL St8 Shots supported by tons of rending st7. It gets much dicier for Necrons, Dark Eldar, and to an extent Tyranids.

Naturally it's just my two cents but I can see some major issues with quite a few builds. That said I think the model is bitchin and given a chance to use one I'd buy one in a heartbeat

Necrons glance everything, and they now have things that can penetrate armor easily (Phaeron+15-20 warriors, scarab swarms, doom scythes). Dark eldar average 15-20 dark lances)thats still about 1-2 glances / round. Nids have trygons, monstrous creatures that reroll val to hit rolls from what I remember. I think 1 or 2 players might take it, but from what ive heard its 325 points so thats a big chunk to take a risk on in an army.

Coming out of Dakka retirment to post on this:

I had a blast at the bay open last year. It was one of the best tournies Ive ever been too. I was a big fan of playing the book missions, and keeping the game the way it was designed to be so that armies (like my tau) can play without janky missions. The new missions the BAO is running heavily favor marines over all other armies. Thats ok I still felt I could bring either of my armies and do very well. However adding in the FW models is a huge mistake. Marines are already over powered in these scenarios and adding in the overpowered nonsense they get in a Apocolypse book isnt fair to other armies that didnt get a complete "update" in this book.

Ill play in the tourney either way but making people buy FW to stay equal in a competetive event isnt right. Id be alot happier if there were a FAQ to go along with this book.

Defeatmyarmy wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:@Ozy

I think that's an oversimplification. While I agree that it's possible to glance it to death not all armies are designed like imperial ones and can't take 18+ ML's or 12 TL St8 Shots supported by tons of rending st7. It gets much dicier for Necrons, Dark Eldar, and to an extent Tyranids.

Naturally it's just my two cents but I can see some major issues with quite a few builds. That said I think the model is bitchin and given a chance to use one I'd buy one in a heartbeat

Necrons glance everything, and they now have things that can penetrate armor easily (Phaeron+15-20 warriors, scarab swarms, doom scythes). Dark eldar average 15-20 dark lances)thats still about 1-2 glances / round. Nids have trygons, monstrous creatures that reroll val to hit rolls from what I remember. I think 1 or 2 players might take it, but from what ive heard its 325 points so thats a big chunk to take a risk on in an army.

Sorry dude, doesn't hold up. Necrons can glance things within 24" (30" with a Phaeron Lord). 20 shots is 2 glances. .Scarab swarms dissapear thanks to the thunderfire. Doom Scythes aren't consistent. I play Necrons and I see a huge amount of problems against one. Dark Eldar's 20 Dark Lances require the entire army to bail out of their transports and be within 18". So to get 2 glances on a vehicle I have to shoot my entire and be within rapid fire range of my opponent outside of my transports? Yes Nids do have Trygons but most of the more solid builds don't include them right now. They are easy meat for Long Fangs and IG since it's almost impossible to get a cover save. 90% of people that take Carnies don't take the CC variant so that's out too. Like I said, I'd love to have and field one and an event other than Adepticon would be amazing. However I can realistically see it causing major problems with a lot of Xenos races. Saying you can handle something like that with your entire army for example isn't really addressing the issue.

I don't really have a dog in this fight though because it's unlikely I'd be able to make this event anyway as much as I'd love to. I think a vote is a great idea. Let the people interested in attending decide

Fetterkey wrote:

Reecius wrote:@fetterkey and ph3ar
You guys are making the argument that a single unit is so overpowering that it's mere potential presence means you won't come to a tournament you both had fun at and were planning on attending again, but if they are allowed, you want people to be able to proxy them, therefore increasing the odds that you'd play against them....

Haha, tell me you see the fallacy in that logic.

My intention isn't to offend, it is just funny to me as it appears to be an irrational argument.

I can see how that might be confusing, but it's actually two separate arguments.


Argument 1: I feel that FW rules are poorly designed and often unbalanced and that they should not be allowed.

Looking only at the Space Marine rules, which I am most familiar with, the LRAchilles can't be stopped by several armies, the Siege Dreadnought is objectively better than a normal multi-melta Dreadnought (25 points of upgrades, plus special rule for penetrating vehicles, plus option to take HKMs, all for 15 points?), the Caestus Assault Ram is essentially the Stormraven from hell, and the Lucius Drop Pod-- while IMO no longer unbalanced-- is poorly designed. Generally speaking, units that allow pseudo-guaranteed assaults are unfun and shouldn't be in the game. GW has noticed this and fixed this in recent Codices, with units like Callidus Assassins losing their "automatically assault anything" prowess. If I go to a 40k event, I would prefer to play without such options being allowed.


Argument 2: If FW units are allowed, they should be allowed under the same restrictions as every other model-- namely, that substitutes and conversions are legal.

I don't think that FW units should be available to players. BUT-- given that an option is available to players-- it should be as available to as many players as possible to maintain a level playing field and maintain consistency with everything else in the game.

Conversions for other units that are expensive in money are permitted-- should someone be prevented from using Long Fangs if he doesn't want to pay 9 dollars per missile launcher bit? When I attended the Bay Area Open last year, I saw a LOT of Long Fangs that were holding hunter-killer missiles instead of real missile launchers. Similarly, I saw several Hydras that were made from converting a Chimera with an Aegis Defense Line turret instead of paying for the extremely expensive (though awesome) official FW kit, and lots and lots of Rifleman/Psyfleman Dreadnoughts made with similar conversions instead of the official FW arms. I feel that conversions and personalization are ultimately an important part of the hobby, and I don't see why it should be restricted for the units that are most inaccessible to players otherwise.

If you want to say "no conversions," that's fine, but I'd expect everyone with HKM Long Fangs, Aegis Defense Line Hydras/Dreadnoughts, etc. to be kicked to the curb as well. Preventing conversions for the models that are the most expensive of all seems both inconsistent and likely to result in a non-level playing field.

We're going to stand pretty firm on our ruling for the FW models. Players must have the actual model to use it. Now, it all comes down to whether or not you guys as the players want to allow these units in our tournament or not. After votes have been counted up, we'll let everyone know.

Care to justify that?

Also, has the voting email been sent yet? I've yet to receive mine.

Hey now, I'm looking forward the BAO. Just one thing, either there's a typo on this page schedule of events or this is going to be a two day minimalist de-escalation tournament (which is awesome)

I don't have a dog in this fight either, as I will be playing Fantasy if I can make it up there.

I missed that BA cannot take the Luc. Pod, but do you really think it matters? Oh boy, a 1 in 6 chance my basic Dread won't start turn one face raping your rear guard shooting unit. What are the odds of said dread getting off that easily if it were sitting in the open for a turn? I'd say the extra couple points and largely pointless fast attack slot are not that much of a trade. Not everyone are Space Wolves and have a fist guy with counterattack sitting in every unit. Tau and Eldar can get royally screwed by even one of these. And yeah Space Wolves can put their new seige style contemptor dreadnaughts inside one of them, giving them an AV13 walker with WS5. Have fun with that one when it hits you turn one before your vehicles even have a chance to move.

As to every army getting some units, thats just plain false. The MEQs all got new AV13 Contemptor Dreads, Achilles Raiders, Cestus Rams, and most got the Lucius Pod. All are good to outright broken. Guard got... an Ork Truck and a gunless Valkerie to carry it? Eldar got the Wraithseer (descent), Hornet (oh, joy a less overpriced Vyper), and the overpriced Fire Prism copy. Nids got more spore mines and a slow moving MC that sucks in HtH. Orks got the Mek Wagon and the various walkers. Tau got a Special Character and two Piranna type units. Necrons and DE each got one meh unit. Sisters and GKs got jack, but no one cares there. Point being, there was hardly an even distrobution of units, useful or otherwise, in this book.

I think Reece is looking at this book from the prism of a SW/Guard player, who really don't mind anything in that book, but if I were a Xenos player I wouldn't even bother trying because that book widens the gulf between the MEQ and Xenos armies even more. If you are reading this Reece, bust out your Nids (or better yet, Tau) and play a test game against one of your crew where he is fielding an Achilles and two Luc Pod mounted Contemptor Dreads and it will give you a clearer picture of why people are iffy on IA2.

@Fetterkey
The reason we would only allow FW models the first year is because it makes identification of already new units easier on players. If someone has a scratchbuild, it makes identifying a new unit that much harder. Plus, it opens the door to abuse with modeling for advantage, etc. Basically, it causes more problems than it solves, in our opinions. Perhaps in the future, if theses units become official (which little birdies are telling me they will) then it won't be such a big deal.

As for pricing people out of the winner's circle? I disagree. A Mech IG army costs more than a space marine army with 3 Achilles and 3 Lucius patter Drop Pods. I don't feel that argument holds water, but that is my opinion.

@RogueTraderX
haha, thanks for catching the typo! Fixed it.

@Phazael
I actually almost never play my wolves outside of tournaments. I played my IG for the first time in ages yesterday at a tournament. I play predominantly Crons, Bugs, Eldar and Khorne CSM these days.

As for your points, they are all valid, and I don't want to bog this down with an argument as to what unit is or is not broken, OP, or what have you. Everyone has different points of view on that, just like they do with units in the normal codexes.

Suffice it to say, that in our opinions as TO's, not players, looking at the game balance, we feel that this book improves balance.

Why?

Weaker armies got cool units that improve them. Bugs, and especially Eldar got a boost (those units are AWESOME for Eldar).

DE got cool units that are on par with what they have.

IG and GK effectively got nothing and didn't need it.

Wolves got cool stuff, but what they have now is better.

Vanilla Marines got a big boost. Good. They needed it.

Orks got characterful units that don't add much, but they would be fun to play against.

But again, this is a pointless debate as it comes down to opinion. I think Footdar is good, so what do I know! haha.

Also, as for the Lucius drop pod, I played against the Old (better) Lucius in a few tournaments. In real tournaments. Most people haven't even played against these units that are upset about them.

If you KNOW a unit is coming in turn 1 to assault you, plan for it. My opponent dropped down, assaulted a tank I fed him, he killed it. Next turn, I killed the dread and the drop pod.

He gave me two kill points and a larger chunk of my army than he took. Advantage me.

Tactics overcome units. Alwyas have, always will.

If someone put an Achilles across the table from me, I wouldn't care. Play around it, ignore it, whatever, it won't beat my entire army by itself, that is silly to even think. You don't have to kill it to win.

For that points investment, it isn't that hot. I can think of a lot of cheaper units that hold an objective better, are more survivable, etc. But again, that is just me.

At the end of the day, we want this event to be fun, and that is what matters most. We can all go on and on about out views on it, but what the most people want, we will provide.

The event will still be fun, there honestly will probably not be that many FW units if this does pass as most people will just use their normal armies, and I bet the winner is a standard list we see winning most events.

We will know with certainty Sunday how people feel.

Either way, we really look forward to a great weekend of gaming!

I respect what you guys are trying to do here, but I dunno. I think fundamentally we have different views of how the game is balanced right now and hence we aren't likely to agree on what changes like these may bring. Personally I think that Vanilla Marines don't really need a "boost," as IMO they still have what it takes to hang in competitive play. Indeed, I think some of the new units this update gives them are quite over the top.

Regardless, though, I've just looked over my schedule and it turns out that I will not actually be in the area that week, so I suppose it doesn't really matter what I think here. No matter what happens, I wish you well with this event!

Fetterkey wrote:I respect what you guys are trying to do here, but I dunno. I think fundamentally we have different views of how the game is balanced right now and hence we aren't likely to agree on what changes like these may bring. Personally I think that Vanilla Marines don't really need a "boost," as IMO they still have what it takes to hang in competitive play. Indeed, I think some of the new units this update gives them are quite over the top.

Regardless, though, I've just looked over my schedule and it turns out that I will not actually be in the area that week, so I suppose it doesn't really matter what I think here. No matter what happens, I wish you well with this event!

As a person who might attend, I must second my agreement with Fetterkey.

While you think that IA2e adds some nice boosts for the weaker races, I am of the exact opposite opinion.

It gives extremely strong units to Marines, who are already very strong on their own, and gives pseudo, non-useful, or no units to the xenos, IG, SoB.


Additionally, your reasons for not allowing converted FW units makes zero sense.
If you don't want people modeling for advantage, you must also outlaw converted normal units.
If you don't want people being confused by conversions of Forgeworld units, you have already failed by allowing forgeworld, which will confuse those people anyway.

*wonders if it is worth it to buy two LR Achilles and hope to draw Ph34r in the first round*

Ozymandias wrote:*wonders if it is worth it to buy two LR Achilles and hope to draw Ph34r in the first round*

Luckily for us the odds of my going if IA:2e is allowed are diminished. If I am going to attend a tournament where specific armies get significant boosts, I had better be playing one of those armies. I'm bad enough already without handicapping myself.

I find this thread extremely sad, personally.

Reece, I know you're committed to taking a vote and running with the results but I wish you'd stand strong by your decision.

The idea that people don't want to come play in a tournament because 'X' units will be allowed just makes me shake my head. I mean, I get it. You don't want to play in a game where you lose to something you don't care to play against. But it always makes me sad to see people get this caught up about their toy soldier games that they're basically afraid of what they're unfamiliar with.

Let's just say to play the Devil's advocate that GW came out tomorrow and said that Imperial Armor rules were 'fully official' (whatever that means). Now what? Do you all quit the game and stop attending tournaments? Or do you just suck it up and try to enjoy the game while besting some new stuff, some of which may seem especially nifty and powerful until you get some experience against it and then like most things that seem horrible you realize that there are probably some ways around it, either through list building or else with certain tactics.

I mean, seriously, there is absolutely NOTHING in IA 2nd edition that is even close to being as bad as what you find in the Grey Knight codex.

At the end of the day just relax and enjoy playing games of toy soldiers! Are you really that afraid of losing a game on the 'top' tables in a tournament because of some Imperial Armor unit that you want to keep your toys at home and pout about it?

I know that's a gross over-simplification and I'm not trying to put people down but frankly the attitude just saddens me and I don't know how else to really express it.

I just think everyone should lighten up, enjoy your game and y'know what? If you lose because of an Imperial Armor unit, now you have something good to complain about for the next year. Or you can just relax and not worry so much about losing games of toy soldiers...that's always an option too!

My only heartache over allowing FW units (with official FW models) is the timing. It's Christmas. Gotta get toys for the kids. And the kids of family friends. The tree, decorating the house (and tearing it all down). The never ending get-togethers arranged by She Who Must Be Obeyed.
3 months notice around all of that is not enough time to scrape the pennies together, buy the models AND the $50 book, build, and paint. Not to mention playtesting so you know HOW your new toy works and are familiar with its rules (don't you hate playing a guy who does not even know his own Army?).
On a side issue, GW has really just put out this caveat of AI units that are now "40K approved." Is a major Tournament the FIRST place we want to run headlong into this? It may be better to allow these units to filter through the community at the League and RTT level (gaining acceptance and commonality) before amping them up to the top level.

I just think its a bad idea, especially when the game is already so slanted against Xenos armies. But, at the end of the day, its Reece's decision and knowing the effort that goes into these events, I don't begrudge him this indulgence. I guess its largely pointless to argue, because the format already favors the holy trinity of SW, IG, GK already. The addition of IA2 will just reinforce it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Yak-
I am going to have to disagree about the IA2 vs GK codex comment, though. There really is nothing approaching the game changing nature of the Achilles or Luc. Pod in the GK book. GKs are all around powerful, but they do not have a unit that flat out autowins against many armies (Achilles) or completely alters someones entire deployment tactics (Luc, Pod for 65pts) to compensate. Purifiers and Vinicares are annoying, but they are not immortal and neither is going to make the enemy reserve their entire army to counter them.

Phazael wrote:@Yak-
I am going to have to disagree about the IA2 vs GK codex comment, though. There really is nothing approaching the game changing nature of the Achilles or Luc. Pod in the GK book. GKs are all around powerful, but they do not have a unit that flat out autowins against many armies (Achilles) or completely alters someones entire deployment tactics (Luc, Pod for 65pts) to compensate. Purifiers and Vinicares are annoying, but they are not immortal and neither is going to make the enemy reserve their entire army to counter them.

Warp Quake vs. Daemons or Drop pod lists (really, much of the codex vs. Daemons); Sanctuary and Cleansing Flame vs. Tyranids or Orks; Fortitude vs. traditional target priority & army design (need a lot more AT).

Just a few examples. I've been primarily a Tyranid player for the past couple years, and GK are a much nastier thing to encounter than an Achilles (which is just one tank, albeit I'm not a fan of the Thunderfire cannon it carries) or a Lucius (which I can partially mitigate through careful bubblewrap with 'gants or gargoyles).

yakface wrote:Let's just say to play the Devil's advocate that GW came out tomorrow and said that Imperial Armor rules were 'fully official' (whatever that means). Now what? Do you all quit the game and stop attending tournaments? Or do you just suck it up and try to enjoy the game while besting some new stuff, some of which may seem especially nifty and powerful until you get some experience against it and then like most things that seem horrible you realize that there are probably some ways around it, either through list building or else with certain tactics.

I am not limited to "quit the game or suck it up". If only the IA:2e units were available, I would switch to Marines count as Iron Warriors and finally make my dream siege army with the Achilles and Siege Dreadnoughts, and be extremely overpowered to boot. If more IA units were made available I might tool up my IG with IA units (breaching drills). In neither case would I follow your false choices of "quit or suck it up".

I don't have a horse in this race as I will be running the Narrative Event at the BAO, but I completely to agree with Yakface. In my opinion nothing in the 40k official list of IA Apoc 2nd ed is broken, the early books like IA's 1-3 are where the really bad stuff can be found, and FW are redoing them to bring them up to date for 6th.

I am currently going through IA's 4-10 to decide which FW lists and units, I intend on allowing them in the narrative event. I'd love to see the Death Korps of Kreig or Vraksian traitor guard on the tabletop in the intended form if players want to bring them.

@ph3ar
If you live close to Martinez, come by our shop and play that dream army of yours (in proxy) and we'll video tape it and put it up on our blog. You can choose the army I play, any of mine and I will use a stock standard tournament list, not tailored.

This isn't an ego challenge either, please don't take it that way. It is simply me showing that nothing in that book is broken.

As others have said, there is far worse stuff in the codexes, now.

As for our reasoning on not allowing proxy FW models, you may not think it makes sense, but it is rooted in logic. You are free to disagree. And besides, you know that we have the best intentions of our attendees at heart, hell, last year you came to the event without an army and I let you play mine! We are all about making things fun.

@Fetterkey
Thank you for respectfully agreeing to disagree. I may not share your point of view, but you stayed classy in expressing your opinion, and I respect that. Too bad you can't make it this year, we'll miss having you.

@Yakface
I respect your opinion, and agree with you in principle as I often do. However, we have a significant investment of both time and money in this event. It is a lot easier to draw a hard line in the sand based on what we believe is the best course of action if less were at stake, but when we stand to lose our shirts if enough people don't want to come, then we are ultimately the ones who suffer.

@BDJV
That will be awesome! I love the Apoc themed armies and hope to see them, too!

@Thread
There was some talk about the BAO not getting the nod to have a spot for the ETC American team if we do include IA2 units.

I want to unequivocally squash that rumor. I KNOW with absolute certainty that including IA2 units in the BAO would not remove us from offering a qualifier for the event, but would actually be seen FAVORABLY as it shows that the winner had the ability to play through new and unexpected situations.

I can't say how I came across this information yet out of respect to my source, but I can state for 100% certain that what I said is true.

Reecius wrote:@ph3ar
If you live close to Martinez, come by our shop and play that dream army of yours (in proxy) and we'll video tape it and put it up on our blog. You can choose the army I play, any of mine and I will use a stock standard tournament list, not tailored.

This isn't an ego challenge either, please don't take it that way. It is simply me showing that nothing in that book is broken.

As others have said, there is far worse stuff in the codexes, now.

As for our reasoning on not allowing proxy FW models, you may not think it makes sense, but it is rooted in logic. You are free to disagree. And besides, you know that we have the best intentions of our attendees at heart, hell, last year you came to the event without an army and I let you play mine! We are all about making things fun.

@Fetterkey
Thank you for respectfully agreeing to disagree. I may not share your point of view, but you stayed classy in expressing your opinion, and I respect that. Too bad you can't make it this year, we'll miss having you.

@Yakface
I respect your opinion, and agree with you in principle as I often do. However, we have a significant investment of both time and money in this event. It is a lot easier to draw a hard line in the sand based on what we believe is the best course of action if less were at stake, but when we stand to lose our shirts if enough people don't want to come, then we are ultimately the ones who suffer.

@BDJV
That will be awesome! I love the Apoc themed armies and hope to see them, too!

@Thread
There was some talk about the BAO not getting the nod to have a spot for the ETC American team if we do include IA2 units.

I want to unequivocally squash that rumor. I KNOW with absolute certainty that including IA2 units in the BAO would not remove us from offering a qualifier for the event, but would actually be seen FAVORABLY as it shows that the winner had the ability to play through new and unexpected situations.

I can't say how I came across this information yet out of respect to my source, but I can state for 100% certain that what I said is true.

99% sure I can make it regardless of the decision on IA2e. If you are a qualifier for ETC then I am also 99% certain I will be playing 40k not Warmahordes.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

disdainful wrote:The listing on the website says that the Saturday event for Warmachine is 50 points, but uses Casual 35 point time limits.

So... the 50 point tournament uses the round time limits of a casual 35-point tournament, which is... the round time limit of a 50 point tournament?

In all seriousness, why are you using casual time limits for any of the events? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have what amounts to an eternity to conduct my turn, but that only widens the gap between players who are experienced with timed turns and those who are not.

-Dis.

I must say I agree with Dis on this. Warmahordes is a game that uses time limits. Playing with in those time constraints is part of being good at the game, an event as large as the BAO which is trying to become the preeminent GT style event on the West Coast really shouldn't be making the games easier. Using the relaxed time limits in a tournament of this size and competitive focus is like riding a bike with the training wheels on. YMMV but I can't say I would want to play in a Warmahordes event on this level that uses the relaxed time limits.

I am not sure if you are aware of this but the SR2012 round times are already accelerated one tier from the SR 2011. As such the turn rounds would be exactly the same as they were last year using this format.