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'm getting info on some of the crap people are planning on bringing to this event. Back to the drawing board to figure out how to deal with 5 wraithknights and 12 jetbike units...

The reason most major tournaments are banning double CAD...

jesse wrote:

I'm getting info on some of the crap people are planning on bringing to this event. Back to the drawing board to figure out how to deal with 5 wraithknights and 12 jetbike units...

The reason most major tournaments are banning double CAD...

Because players can't handle changes in the game?

No, because players can and will find ways to break the game without being given any extra wiggle room to do so.

It's been obvious for some time that GW doesn't care so much about the rules of the game as they do the profit the game generates. It's up to the TO to balance things as much as possible.


On a different note, any chance of the FAQ or missions being updated to 7th edition this week?

That's your opinion, and it's a totally valid one. Mine is that people can't get past 6.5.

Allow me to pose this question since both of our lists have already been sent in; what are you bringing to the tournament? Not specifically, but in general.


On another side note, does anyone know if parking is included in our weekend pass or should we be prepared to pay at the garage?

Guess I missed a memo, didn't see anything about sending lists in. Anyways, my 2k no FW Double CAD is my Brodar, 2 rune priests, 2 farseers, wraithknight, jetbikes, drop pod GH with terminator guard, night spinner, reapers, long fangs, warlocks, etc. . Mainly summoning.

Sounds like a tough list. Good luck in the tournament.

Actually maybe I will play, 6 titans and a seer council seems like fun to play against, along with everyone else of coarse.

I am personally limiting myself to one main one allied since that is what most tournaments will be doing, no point in trying to get practice with a list I will never get to use.

Also that eldar army is meh at best. It would be annoying, but it has little to no offense ability.

 MyJasmineRose wrote:
Guess I missed a memo, didn't see anything about sending lists in. Anyways, my 2k no FW Double CAD is my Brodar, 2 rune priests, 2 farseers, wraithknight, jetbikes, drop pod GH with terminator guard, night spinner, reapers, long fangs, warlocks, etc. . Mainly summoning.

Lists should be submitted to Gallagher.b@connecticon.org.

Parking is not included, it is $60 for the weekend to park at the convention center, or you can park at the hilton which is where the event is for I believe $18 per day.

As for lists being über broken, no list has more than 8 troops this far, and none has more than 4 of any one unit other than troops. Though one list has 5 heavy support choices. So it is very possible with the big boys going 1 cad that people are self limiting anyway.. And 5 wraith knights is so much scarier than 4 right? Same with 12 jet bikes instead of 8. Not saying 2 cad cannot be abused, but so can self allies, or just allies.

6 titans and a seer council I'm pretty sure won't fit into a 2 detachment max tourney.

Parking is not included, it is $60 for the weekend to park at the convention center, or you can park at the hilton which is where the event is for I believe $18 per day

Thanks for the tip, you saved me some $.

Missions can be found here http://connecticon40k.blogspot.com/p/connecticon-missions-packet.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They will be more detailed at the event (having scoring sheets, deployment diagrams etc.) but that is the short version. FAQ will be posted up later today. For the most part it will be similar to the NOVA FAQ, but I'll note the changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since I cannot update my Tourney website at work I'll post some key differences in the FAQ here.

1.) Units cannot Jink unless they are directly targeted (so if 2 wave serpents are next to one another and a blast targets one and hits both only the target can jink.)- Counting other units as "targets" causes issues to me for things like invisibility.

2.) NOVA rules 25% cover counts if target is 25% in cover from any part of the model. We won't. I'm not a fan of having models get cover because my toe cannot see the model well. Cover will be determined from the majority of the model being able to see 25% or more, when in doubt check from the eyes, or ask a TO.

3.) Psykers cannot manifest more powers than their mastery level. I.e. a Level 1 psyker can only manifest one power per turn. (not sure that this is different, but just additional clarification.)

4.) Strike the allowed Fortificaitons as that is covered in the tournament info.

5.) Serpent Shield can be destroyed by Weapon destroyed results. - it is a weapon and can be twin linked by laser lock.

6.)Remove references to GK powers that no longer exist.

7.) No addition of Objective secured by using unyielding anvil.

8.) Add Warp Storm results that are not blasts hitting things that require snap firing (similar to Immotek)

New Orks are not allowed so included ruling not included.

Can you post some of the reasoning behind 1, 3, and 5?

So my reasoning is as follows.

1.) You can only Jink when you are targeted by an attack prior to hits being rolled. A skimmer that is not the declared target then has no permission to jink. Now targeting something next to it to get around jink is gamey, so I get the NOVA ruling that you can jink. However, I feel that sets a precident of secondary targeting, which leads to things like I put an invisible wave serpent next to my wave serpent. Now since it counts as being targeted (i.e. it can jink) you cannot place a blast on my non-invis serpent. Now you can rule around that by saying skimmers can jink without being the target I suppose, but it seems like less rules writing and more consistent to say, NO Jink, and if you get too close, and someone blasts you that is on you.

3.)In the BRB at the start of the section on mastery level, it states that the number of powers a psyker can cast depends on his/her mastery level. Now this does not mean it is necessarily equal to his/her mastery level. However, without more GW clarificaiton, there is no other dependent relationship that makes sense. I've seen arguments that you can cast ever power you know, but then powers cast is clearly independent of mastery level as ML is not even the go to for powers known (the book says a units entry will tell you how many powers the psyker knows, and if not use mastery level.).

5.)Ruling for consistency. The serpent shield is either a weapon and benefits from laser lock, or it isn't a weapon, and thus does not benefit from laser lock. You could say it is only a weapon when it shoots I suppose, but this seems more consistent to me.

Breng77 wrote:
So my reasoning is as follows.

1.) You can only Jink when you are targeted by an attack prior to hits being rolled. A skimmer that is not the declared target then has no permission to jink. Now targeting something next to it to get around jink is gamey, so I get the NOVA ruling that you can jink. However, I feel that sets a precident of secondary targeting, which leads to things like I put an invisible wave serpent next to my wave serpent. Now since it counts as being targeted (i.e. it can jink) you cannot place a blast on my non-invis serpent. Now you can rule around that by saying skimmers can jink without being the target I suppose, but it seems like less rules writing and more consistent to say, NO Jink, and if you get too close, and someone blasts you that is on you.

3.)In the BRB at the start of the section on mastery level, it states that the number of powers a psyker can cast depends on his/her mastery level. Now this does not mean it is necessarily equal to his/her mastery level. However, without more GW clarificaiton, there is no other dependent relationship that makes sense. I've seen arguments that you can cast ever power you know, but then powers cast is clearly independent of mastery level as ML is not even the go to for powers known (the book says a units entry will tell you how many powers the psyker knows, and if not use mastery level.).

5.)Ruling for consistency. The serpent shield is either a weapon and benefits from laser lock, or it isn't a weapon, and thus does not benefit from laser lock. You could say it is only a weapon when it shoots I suppose, but this seems more consistent to me.

FYI on #1, part of the rationale for the ruling is simply that I think too many people get hung up on the ruleset as being this clearly defined thing. In many cases, certain words or even different iterations of key words are entirely different in meaning, and you're forced to rely on basic English. It's also extremely useful to rule as reasonable in a ruleset that often doesn't even really have a clear Rules as Written (which I do think is the case here). With regard to the blast marker thing, there's a difference between clearly "targeting" something and selecting the Target of a shooting attack. The broad group of those who made the ruling on this particular one (ETC council and extras were where we got a lot of our discussion from, both on ones with agreement and disagreement) noted this difference and the import of it. It's not about selecting a legal target, but about obviously targeting something. It seemed unreasonable to a fair extreme to disallow jink in this case, and instead allow a blatant rules exploit.

NM, mis read. my bad!

SIde note: Fateweaver can still 4 witchfires... but really he should be able to fire 7 cmon...

MVBrandt wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So my reasoning is as follows.

1.) You can only Jink when you are targeted by an attack prior to hits being rolled. A skimmer that is not the declared target then has no permission to jink. Now targeting something next to it to get around jink is gamey, so I get the NOVA ruling that you can jink. However, I feel that sets a precident of secondary targeting, which leads to things like I put an invisible wave serpent next to my wave serpent. Now since it counts as being targeted (i.e. it can jink) you cannot place a blast on my non-invis serpent. Now you can rule around that by saying skimmers can jink without being the target I suppose, but it seems like less rules writing and more consistent to say, NO Jink, and if you get too close, and someone blasts you that is on you.

3.)In the BRB at the start of the section on mastery level, it states that the number of powers a psyker can cast depends on his/her mastery level. Now this does not mean it is necessarily equal to his/her mastery level. However, without more GW clarificaiton, there is no other dependent relationship that makes sense. I've seen arguments that you can cast ever power you know, but then powers cast is clearly independent of mastery level as ML is not even the go to for powers known (the book says a units entry will tell you how many powers the psyker knows, and if not use mastery level.).

5.)Ruling for consistency. The serpent shield is either a weapon and benefits from laser lock, or it isn't a weapon, and thus does not benefit from laser lock. You could say it is only a weapon when it shoots I suppose, but this seems more consistent to me.

FYI on #1, part of the rationale for the ruling is simply that I think too many people get hung up on the ruleset as being this clearly defined thing. In many cases, certain words or even different iterations of key words are entirely different in meaning, and you're forced to rely on basic English. It's also extremely useful to rule as reasonable in a ruleset that often doesn't even really have a clear Rules as Written (which I do think is the case here). With regard to the blast marker thing, there's a difference between clearly "targeting" something and selecting the Target of a shooting attack. The broad group of those who made the ruling on this particular one (ETC council and extras were where we got a lot of our discussion from, both on ones with agreement and disagreement) noted this difference and the import of it. It's not about selecting a legal target, but about obviously targeting something. It seemed unreasonable to a fair extreme to disallow jink in this case, and instead allow a blatant rules exploit.

Like I said I can see where the ruling comes from, but then at the same time based on that ruling you would need to disallow any shooting that would target Invisible units (IMO) otherwise you end up with a double standard where in it is an exploit to game blasts against Jink, but not an exploit to game them against invisiblity. If you then take that exploit away, you allow for exploits such as wrapping multiple units with invisible units to make them untargetable by blasts and templates. Which to me is a larger exploit, and one more easily gamed than postitioning blasts to hit multiple targets. One of them can be played around by the opponent (not putting vehicles right next to one another.), the other really cannot. It also seems inconsistent to me to get jink if a blast touches you, but if it scatters you don't. I don't begrudge other events ruling differently, but I see no reason to infer that anything under that blast template is "targeted", but at the same time is not "the target of the shooting attack"

Full FAQ is now up here http://connecticon40k.blogspot.com/p/connecticon-faq.html

Is this battle points or W-L-D?

Battle points

Any plans to post some of the lists? Really curious how the field shaped up at this event.

I will likely post up the lists when I get the chance.

Best general ran

Eldar + iyanden
Spirit seer
Autarch
8x3 jet bikes
4x wraith knight
5x swooping hawks

I'm also interested in seeing the results. Any information is welcome.

Had a great time, got to meet some really cool people

 Saber wrote:
I'm also interested in seeing the results. Any information is welcome.

Here are the full results: http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/Connecticon/2/leaderboard

Breng may have some additional info on lists, etc.

Grats to Amir, seems like you guys got off lucky as he left his 10 wave serpents home.

Not sure if that would have done better than what he ran it was pretty nasty. I do have all the lists, just have not been at a pc ling enough to post them all.

Great, thanks for posting the results.

lots o' knights

Looks like 4 knights and a bunch of bikes was a Dark Eldar players wet dream.... But again Grats to Amir he is a solid player.