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.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am very happy that there are alt-format tournaments that are looking good.
ITC isn't bad and is fun to play (I do it fairly routinely) but it's apparent that GW is also trying to make a good tournament format. Time will tell which is best, as I think we don't have enough data to judge anything for GW, while the data we have for ITC is kinda... un-inspiring.
Personally I am not a fan of the LVO style. I will admit that I don't play it but my opinion centers on two reasons. From paying attention to it for a long while, it always seems to encourage the same copy/pasta lists.. though I could be wrong. Mostly though it's the rules changes implemented by FLG. 7th is an example of this with Tau, changing the interpretation of how a rule in the Codex worked. Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
I like the concept of the GW tournament. It appears to just be straight up Warhammer 40k, from the Warhammer 40k game. Not a modified, unrecognizable version of 40k done by someone outside the development team.
But... like I said, I haven't played an LVO event, just watched from afar. I could be wrong. Happy to admit it.
On a lighter note. Does anyone know the list for the Slaanesh Daemons that placed in that list?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 15:03:51
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am very happy that there are alt-format tournaments that are looking good.
ITC isn't bad and is fun to play (I do it fairly routinely) but it's apparent that GW is also trying to make a good tournament format. Time will tell which is best, as I think we don't have enough data to judge anything for GW, while the data we have for ITC is kinda... un-inspiring.
Personally I am not a fan of the LVO style. I will admit that I don't play it but my opinion centers on two reasons. From paying attention to it for a long while, it always seems to encourage the same copy/pasta lists.. though I could be wrong. Mostly though it's the rules changes implemented by FLG. 7th is an example of this with Tau, changing the interpretation of how a rule in the Codex worked. Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
I like the concept of the GW tournament. It appears to just be straight up Warhammer 40k, from the Warhammer 40k game. Not a modified, unrecognizable version of 40k done by someone outside the development team.
But... like I said, I haven't played an LVO event, just watched from afar. I could be wrong. Happy to admit it.
On a lighter note. Does anyone know the list for the Slaanesh Daemons that placed in that list?
This would be a far more fair criticism if they house ruled 8th anywhere near to the level they did 7th but they effectively only alter 1 core rule in the current ITC set up.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
He plays Orks so I'm not sure this holds a ton of weight. His preferred form of Eldar is footdar as well. I'm not saying Reese is perfect but this is ascribing to him some pretty grievous moral flaws.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 15:08:30
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am very happy that there are alt-format tournaments that are looking good.
ITC isn't bad and is fun to play (I do it fairly routinely) but it's apparent that GW is also trying to make a good tournament format. Time will tell which is best, as I think we don't have enough data to judge anything for GW, while the data we have for ITC is kinda... un-inspiring.
Personally I am not a fan of the LVO style. I will admit that I don't play it but my opinion centers on two reasons. From paying attention to it for a long while, it always seems to encourage the same copy/pasta lists.. though I could be wrong. Mostly though it's the rules changes implemented by FLG. 7th is an example of this with Tau, changing the interpretation of how a rule in the Codex worked. Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
I like the concept of the GW tournament. It appears to just be straight up Warhammer 40k, from the Warhammer 40k game. Not a modified, unrecognizable version of 40k done by someone outside the development team.
But... like I said, I haven't played an LVO event, just watched from afar. I could be wrong. Happy to admit it.
I think the thing with LVO is that, since you have more control over your objectives, it's easier (and in fact intended) to game the system. I'm not sure how to explain it if you've not read them, but a huge part of the game is choosing the correct objectives each mission to make victory easier. To some, this sounds like "gaming the system", but it's fair because everyone can do it. The downside is, of course, that it takes skill out of the players hands in terms of tactics and more into player's hands in terms of list and strategy.
I know I'll get a lot of flak for this, but let's take the example "Recon". It's a 2018 ITC secondary objective that simply states "you get one point at the end of your turn if you have a model in each table quarter". Simples. To some, that's a very tactical objective, because there's play and counterplay in preventing the opponent from getting to a table quarter, etc.
Except not really, because if they designed their army to get Recon, there's no real counterplay. They score it at the end of their turn, and in the opponent's turn, your units don't get to move or react at all if your opponent doesn't want them to. You can set up to kill them next turn, but aside from flooding the entire space with bodies, there's not much to be done about it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am very happy that there are alt-format tournaments that are looking good.
ITC isn't bad and is fun to play (I do it fairly routinely) but it's apparent that GW is also trying to make a good tournament format. Time will tell which is best, as I think we don't have enough data to judge anything for GW, while the data we have for ITC is kinda... un-inspiring.
Personally I am not a fan of the LVO style. I will admit that I don't play it but my opinion centers on two reasons. From paying attention to it for a long while, it always seems to encourage the same copy/pasta lists.. though I could be wrong. Mostly though it's the rules changes implemented by FLG. 7th is an example of this with Tau, changing the interpretation of how a rule in the Codex worked. Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
I like the concept of the GW tournament. It appears to just be straight up Warhammer 40k, from the Warhammer 40k game. Not a modified, unrecognizable version of 40k done by someone outside the development team.
But... like I said, I haven't played an LVO event, just watched from afar. I could be wrong. Happy to admit it.
On a lighter note. Does anyone know the list for the Slaanesh Daemons that placed in that list?
This would be a far more fair criticism if they house ruled 8th anywhere near to the level they did 7th but they effectively only alter 1 core rule in the current ITC set up.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
He plays Orks so I'm not sure this holds a ton of weight. His preferred form of Eldar is footdar as well. I'm not saying Reese is perfect but this is ascribing to him some pretty grievous moral flaws.
True they didn't seem to modify it as much. It still seemed really different when I watched some LVO test games for Vegas. But fair point!
On front about Reece, it is a pretty hard accusation and I'm not sure I fully believe it myself. It was from a particularly whiny Tau player to be fair lol.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am very happy that there are alt-format tournaments that are looking good.
ITC isn't bad and is fun to play (I do it fairly routinely) but it's apparent that GW is also trying to make a good tournament format. Time will tell which is best, as I think we don't have enough data to judge anything for GW, while the data we have for ITC is kinda... un-inspiring.
Personally I am not a fan of the LVO style. I will admit that I don't play it but my opinion centers on two reasons. From paying attention to it for a long while, it always seems to encourage the same copy/pasta lists.. though I could be wrong. Mostly though it's the rules changes implemented by FLG. 7th is an example of this with Tau, changing the interpretation of how a rule in the Codex worked. Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
I like the concept of the GW tournament. It appears to just be straight up Warhammer 40k, from the Warhammer 40k game. Not a modified, unrecognizable version of 40k done by someone outside the development team.
But... like I said, I haven't played an LVO event, just watched from afar. I could be wrong. Happy to admit it.
On a lighter note. Does anyone know the list for the Slaanesh Daemons that placed in that list?
This would be a far more fair criticism if they house ruled 8th anywhere near to the level they did 7th but they effectively only alter 1 core rule in the current ITC set up.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
He plays Orks so I'm not sure this holds a ton of weight. His preferred form of Eldar is footdar as well. I'm not saying Reese is perfect but this is ascribing to him some pretty grievous moral flaws.
I think it's largely based on his public comments regarding Grey Knights and other elite armies, which basically boiled down to "you aren't meant to stand alone like other Codex armies, go buy some Guard".
Followed up by him publishing an article for GW which can be summed up as: "I love Guard! "
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am very happy that there are alt-format tournaments that are looking good.
ITC isn't bad and is fun to play (I do it fairly routinely) but it's apparent that GW is also trying to make a good tournament format. Time will tell which is best, as I think we don't have enough data to judge anything for GW, while the data we have for ITC is kinda... un-inspiring.
Personally I am not a fan of the LVO style. I will admit that I don't play it but my opinion centers on two reasons. From paying attention to it for a long while, it always seems to encourage the same copy/pasta lists.. though I could be wrong. Mostly though it's the rules changes implemented by FLG. 7th is an example of this with Tau, changing the interpretation of how a rule in the Codex worked. Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
I like the concept of the GW tournament. It appears to just be straight up Warhammer 40k, from the Warhammer 40k game. Not a modified, unrecognizable version of 40k done by someone outside the development team.
But... like I said, I haven't played an LVO event, just watched from afar. I could be wrong. Happy to admit it.
On a lighter note. Does anyone know the list for the Slaanesh Daemons that placed in that list?
This would be a far more fair criticism if they house ruled 8th anywhere near to the level they did 7th but they effectively only alter 1 core rule in the current ITC set up.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
He plays Orks so I'm not sure this holds a ton of weight. His preferred form of Eldar is footdar as well. I'm not saying Reese is perfect but this is ascribing to him some pretty grievous moral flaws.
We're talking about the guy who recently wrote an article on how totally awesome a 90 point gretchin unit is (after you spend ~500pts on buffs). I don't know if he's evil, but I would definitely doubt his judgment on balance...
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
TBH I don't believe that stuff about Reece without a legit citation. I disagree with a lot of what he says/does, but that is some pretty serious accusations.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
shortymcnostrill wrote: We're talking about the guy who recently wrote an article on how totally awesome a 90 point gretchin unit is (after you spend ~500pts on buffs). I don't know if he's evil, but I would definitely doubt his judgment on balance...
He runs a business selling those models so it would stand to reason that he wants to make them sound great.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: These tournament results may not have the same highly acclaimed names of LVO, but for the balance of the game they are surely more important.
After all, THIS is 40k, the other ones are mods.
If i asked a game developer to change the stat of a weapon because it is currently overpowered in my mod, do you think that he would really do that?
I mean GW was clearly making balance decisions based on those mods prior to now so yeah I think those results are valid and are factored in GW's decision making
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 16:17:35
Sure, all data is important. What i'm saying is that we should differentiate between 40K problems and ITC problems.
Outside of ITC for example, Astra Militarum loses one of it's main strenghts. With basic rules putting something out of LOS is much harder, it's ITC that house rules it to make it easier.
At the same time this makes dark reapers even stronger, and in fact there were a lot of dark reapers played. Though, I still need to understand why they didn't make it to the top as easily as they did in LVO.
Sure but the point remains that data gathered at LVO, Adepticon, and similar events is just as important as data gathered at the GW events. To suggest otherwise ("but for the balance of the game they are surely more important") is clearly off base.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Sure but the point remains that data gathered at LVO, Adepticon, and similar events is just as important as data gathered at the GW events. To suggest otherwise ("but for the balance of the game they are surely more important") is clearly off base.
I think there's plenty of room to disagree there. One set of tournaments are being run with missions straight out of the published product, while the other set of tournaments is not. The company would be well within its right and purview to place more importance on one over the other.
Arguably, if the GW tournaments are getting more balanced results, then it's the ITC setup that is causing imbalance. In which case ITC should be looked at more closely.
Correct but that isn't what GW is doing - they made adjustments based on ITC events prior to now. This isn't an argument about what they SHOULD do but what they HAVE done and what they have done at this point is look at ITC styled events as well as their own events for data points. Also I don't think their events are getting more balanced results, just a different set of skewed results.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 16:44:15
I see a lot of modifying to the missions in my area. The GT this past weekend was a good example of that. Overly complicated and clunky. They require the use of the tactical cards. Which I think is wonky. Of all the places I've played only one used regular missions. It was the most fun I'd had so far. The TO's that come up with all these wierd rules and missions are imo trying to fix the game in their vision. Not good.
Spoletta wrote: Sure, all data is important. What i'm saying is that we should differentiate between 40K problems and ITC problems.
Outside of ITC for example, Astra Militarum loses one of it's main strenghts. With basic rules putting something out of LOS is much harder, it's ITC that house rules it to make it easier.
At the same time this makes dark reapers even stronger, and in fact there were a lot of dark reapers played. Though, I still need to understand why they didn't make it to the top as easily as they did in LVO.
I think a lot of the difference lies in secondaries. I don't play ITC but I would hazard a guess it punishes Horde armies, which is a weakness of Reapers. I can see the 'LVO style' Eldar list have an issue getting through 90 Plague Bearers for example.
It doesn't really punish any specific sub-type of army so much as it encourages specific builds to deny points. Its why you see units of 19 instead of 20 for example (giving up 1 bonus point instead of 2).
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
Gotta have a boogeyman.
What a master plan. Purposefully sabotage a book, because no one else would notice and GW would never fix it. Flawless!
It's the same tedious logic people use to call any change by GW a sales gimmick.
Farseer_V2 wrote: It doesn't really punish any specific sub-type of army so much as it encourages specific builds to deny points. Its why you see units of 19 instead of 20 for example (giving up 1 bonus point instead of 2).
Metagamey things like this I absolutely despise. It's one of the reasons why I dislike ITC missions; the secondary objectives encourage gaming list building even more than usual. I like the CA missions, but I like ITC fixed position objectives. The drawback is it lets you plan more in the pre-game phase, and I think a big issue with 40k's balance is the emphasis on list building. When you could have missions that require various things, I think it will encourage a more balanced listbuilding approach because you don't know it will always be hold objectives/kill units and then just have the secondaries be variable (but even then you often plan those out, at least the ones your opponent might be taking against you, so they are another listbuilding/pre-game thing)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 18:17:56
Farseer_V2 wrote: It doesn't really punish any specific sub-type of army so much as it encourages specific builds to deny points. Its why you see units of 19 instead of 20 for example (giving up 1 bonus point instead of 2).
Metagamey things like this I absolutely despise. It's one of the reasons why I dislike ITC missions; the secondary objectives encourage gaming list building even more than usual.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Sure but the point remains that data gathered at LVO, Adepticon, and similar events is just as important as data gathered at the GW events. To suggest otherwise ("but for the balance of the game they are surely more important") is clearly off base.
Much easier for GW's own people to get their feet on the ground, see first hand, and talk directly to the sources at the GTs held in their own house bar, compared to one that requires crossing an ocean or relying on second hand sources.
shortymcnostrill wrote: We're talking about the guy who recently wrote an article on how totally awesome a 90 point gretchin unit is (after you spend ~500pts on buffs). I don't know if he's evil, but I would definitely doubt his judgment on balance...
He runs a business selling those models so it would stand to reason that he wants to make them sound great.
He's willing to admit a faction sucks when he thinks it sucks, just look at how he talks about necrons. Reece is just an unusually optimistic guy and prefers to look on the positive sides of a unit, for better or worse.
Wayniac wrote: TBH I don't believe that stuff about Reece without a legit citation. I disagree with a lot of what he says/does, but that is some pretty serious accusations.
Look at his website around 8th edition release. Or even on this forum in the 8th edition release threads.
You can find it from his own mouth.
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Sure but the point remains that data gathered at LVO, Adepticon, and similar events is just as important as data gathered at the GW events. To suggest otherwise ("but for the balance of the game they are surely more important") is clearly off base.
Much easier for GW's own people to get their feet on the ground, see first hand, and talk directly to the sources at the GTs held in their own house bar, compared to one that requires crossing an ocean or relying on second hand sources.
Well, GW has been AT all the major GTs in the US so far.
Lost in all of this is the assumption that LVO lists wouldn't have mopped the floor in this event. I believe they would have. Mid size GTs will have an entirely different meta, just like smaller RTTs.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
