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 think what he is getting at Blackmoor, is that back then the power of the Pally-star had the same advantage compared to enemy lists of it's time that a Seer-star might now?

Either way, there is a bit of hypocrisy.

Hapes wrote:
The sad part is this is a massive tournament... on par with things like BAO....ATC....LVO.
yet not a single one of those events put in some rule like this....and you know what.... When they did limit something they asked the player base first....

and yeah sorry I want to bring a list that is a winning list?
Do you relish paying a bunch of money to travel somewhere and bring a list you know you'll get stomped with?
sure if you enjoy paying money to lose then go for it...Some of us pay our hard earned money for a competition and a chance to win...
not some whiny persons idea of what they think it should be

Also maybe I would be OK with this... If every codex was on part with each other.... but they arent. Not even close. A bog standard elder or tau list has a much higher win chance then a standard list from almost all other armies. But it's ok... take away my chances of competing... let the op codexs just run rampant because of some stupid house rule

I would love to cancel and not go to this... anyone want my ticket. Half price

If there was a vote and the majority of the players said they want the restrictions you don't like, would it make it any better for you?

As others have said, 7th editions is all about restrictions. The devs want the game to be a sandbox and for the players to come to an agreement about the game before you start. That's impossible with the time restrictions that are in place at a tournament and the fact that you don't know the person you play most of the time. So tournaments will place restrictions so everyone comes in on the same page about the game. A lot of tournaments will rule differently. I think that's exciting as it forces the players to adapt and some lists will do well at some tournaments and be useless at others.

I also don't think that attendance in this case is a binary decision. If you choose not to go the TO will have no idea why you didn't come. Is it because you don't like the ruling or because something came up?

If you show up to the tournament and explain your case against the ruling to the TO you're helping steer the conversation.

Its not even as though you cant create the same list. You can take a normal SM librarian and just have a greater chance of perils when casting Gate :/. right?

how about don't spend AS much, maybe just pick up an IC that works, and roll it that way.

 Thunderfrog wrote:
I think what he is getting at Blackmoor, is that back then the power of the Pally-star had the same advantage compared to enemy lists of it's time that a Seer-star might now?

Either way, there is a bit of hypocrisy.

You are right. The paladin star was winning all of the tournaments back in 5th edition and the Seercouncil and Beaststar struggles to win half of its games.

Irrelevant.

Just because the Deathstar performs better now doesn't mean that it still wasn't a deathstar then.

Surely you can see his point in saying it's a bit hypocritical?

 Thunderfrog wrote:
Irrelevant.

Just because the Deathstar performs better now doesn't mean that it still wasn't a deathstar then.

Surely you can see his point in saying it's a bit hypocritical?

This was a debate about TOs choosing what limits TOs can place on their tournaments.

Paladin star never won a GT. It was really not a good army and only did well because no one knew it's flaws.

Seer Councils and Beast Stars have won many GTs and have no weakness. That is why TOs did not have to place limits on paladins, but want to stop the new combos.

Troll harder

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
It invalidates the army he spent time, money, and a deal of effort designing, building, and painting. While not invalidating an army, in terms of "codex", it does invalidate his personal army. He built it, painted, and designed it with playing it in mind because it is a legal army. So yes, it was invalidated and I see no melodrama in his original post whatsoever.

Bull. Nothing is invalidated. Invalidated means you can't use your models. Not that they're just slightly less good. He can still run his exact list legally. The only restriction is he can't put this one guy in with this one specific unit for a game-breaking ubercombo. Being prohibited from casting a certain spell on this unit doesn't somehow "invalidate" his time painting the models

Of course, I fully expect his army to eventually be invalidated for real. All stupid gimmick armies that are built around exploiting some minor rule get invalidated sooner or later as those loopholes get plugged. A normal army will never get invalidated, because it's the gold standard that the game is designed around. Stupid combos will.

And please don't harp about how TOs shouldn't be allowed to change the rules. The whole ruleset is built on the premise that players will come to a reasonable agreement about what should and should not be put on the table. 40k is designed with comp in mind.

Good tournament players adapt, that's all you gotta do. Probably more of an issue with a one dimensional army than anything.

Current 40k is almost unplayable without TO's restricting options and bringing the game into line with a competitive atmosphere.

Adapt and win.. or don't? Almost no two tournaments are exactly the same..

you now live in a world of 7th edition 40k

No two Tournaments are the same any more.

adapt or dont play.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Thunderfrog wrote:
Irrelevant.

Just because the Deathstar performs better now doesn't mean that it still wasn't a deathstar then.

Surely you can see his point in saying it's a bit hypocritical?

This was a debate about TOs choosing what limits TOs can place on their tournaments.

Paladin star never won a GT. It was really not a good army and only did well because no one knew it's flaws.

Seer Councils and Beast Stars have won many GTs and have no weakness. That is why TOs did not have to place limits on paladins, but want to stop the new combos.

Troll harder

I'm not trolling.

You are just being obtuse on purpose. I agree with you that these tournaments need comp in order to facilitate a fun time for everyone, not just the Deathstars and cheese lists. In the reading of the thread I came across your petty exchange.

Other guy: "I dont get why you are being this way. YOU played death stars.
You: That's totally different. My Deathstars were less deathier.
Me: Wtf, surely you can see what he's getting at?
You: Stfu troll.

Don't go. I know you want to support the GT, but when it comes down to it, you are validating their choice by attending.

Blackmoor cries like the devil when he doesn't like something. Personally I wouldn't attend this TOk event.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Thunderfrog wrote:
Irrelevant.

Just because the Deathstar performs better now doesn't mean that it still wasn't a deathstar then.

Surely you can see his point in saying it's a bit hypocritical?

This was a debate about TOs choosing what limits TOs can place on their tournaments.

Paladin star never won a GT. It was really not a good army and only did well because no one knew it's flaws.

Seer Councils and Beast Stars have won many GTs and have no weakness. That is why TOs did not have to place limits on paladins, but want to stop the new combos.

Troll harder

I'm not trolling.

You are just being obtuse on purpose. I agree with you that these tournaments need comp in order to facilitate a fun time for everyone, not just the Deathstars and cheese lists. In the reading of the thread I came across your petty exchange.

Other guy: "I dont get why you are being this way. YOU played death stars.
You: That's totally different. My Deathstars were less deathier.
Me: Wtf, surely you can see what he's getting at?
You: Stfu troll.

The problem isn't deathstars. The rule doesn't even stop deathstars.
It stops some of the over the top superkilly ones though. That's Blackmoor's point (I think - I wouldn't say I speak for him). Your insistence that he's being a hypocrite is flat wrong.

Well he played a very powerful DS at one time so take it for what it's worth. The problem with changing rules is where does it stop ?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
. The problem with changing rules is where does it stop ?

Wherever the TO wants it to.

If players aren't interested in playing in an event with the TO's chosen changes, he'll soon find out.