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.

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.

Hello,
I am the one that will be running the Warmahordes Tournaments.

The 35 point times int he 50 point games was probably a typo and will be fixed.

Regarding the times. In the new SR2012 rules all the times have been stepped down one level. So what is a normal timed turn in SR2010 is now called "Casual". So in reference to what you are playing now with SR2010 all of them are standard timed and one is accelerated.

For the Friday Tournament I wanted something a little different. We have Saturday and Sunday for "normal" tournaments It is only Tier 1 requirement and it will get some armies out there to play against that you rarely see. Yes this is a tournament, but we are here to have fun and experience new things too!

BryanC wrote:

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.

I am aware.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

BryanC wrote:

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.

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.

Actually, wouldn't having more give players not as experience with time turns a better chance, as they will be more likely to finish their turns and be able to move most of their armies? Yes, players experienced with time turns will have more time to think, but that will always be 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.

*ph34r

Some day I hope to be able to test that army out, once I have a marine army and am skilled enough to put it to the test. Right now I am only in the planning phases of my force -- if it gets completed in record time you might see me at the tournament with LRA and Siege Dreads.

Menelker wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

BryanC wrote:

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.

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.

Actually, wouldn't having more give players not as experience with time turns a better chance, as they will be more likely to finish their turns and be able to move most of their armies? Yes, players experienced with time turns will have more time to think, but that will always be true.

I have always viewed strict time constraints part of Warmahorde's competitive nature. If those players not as experienced with time constraints want a chance at the top prizes they should play with more time constraints. The whole field shouldn't be handled with kid gloves. I have always viewed Warmahordes as the "play like you've got a pair" truly competitive, no kid glove, game. Maybe that is just our local meta but WM is supposed to be fully competitive, running on all cylinders, no holds barred and in my experience that would mean not dumbing down the game in any way. However the likelihood of my playing in the Warmahordes event rather than 40k is low so I will bow out since no one else seems concerned with this issue.

@Overwatch: I appreciate your impute regardless though. And agree that the hard core aspect appeals to me personally. I went to gencon this year and played in the hard core and quite enjoyed it.

Menelker wrote:Regarding the times. In the new SR2012 rules all the times have been stepped down one level. So what is a normal timed turn in SR2010 is now called "Casual". So in reference to what you are playing now with SR2010 all of them are standard timed and one is accelerated.

Ok.. so to be clear: the 35 point tournaments have 10 minute turns, and the 50 point tournament have 12 minute turns. Is that correct?

Menelker wrote:Actually, wouldn't having more give players not as experience with time turns a better chance, as they will be more likely to finish their turns and be able to move most of their armies? Yes, players experienced with time turns will have more time to think, but that will always be true.

You would think so, but it's been my experience that the opposite is true. If a player isn't used to timed turns, he's going to be under the gun whether he has a couple extra minutes or not; he's going make errors in order to keep to the time, whereas giving more time to a player experienced with timed turns means they have a much reduced chance of making mistakes. In effect, you're letting the better players get a near-perfect turn every time, which is going to put the other players at a greater disadvantage. The shorter turns help level the field because everyone has to make quick decisions and live with errors, no matter their skill level.

Granted, after the first couple of rounds of swiss everyone should be playing against opponents of equivalent skill level so it washes out, but those first couple rounds will be rough.

-Dis.

Prize support for Warmachine is up! The Grand Prize for each day is pretty awesome!

Also, weekend and 3 day passes have been added for Warmachine to save some money for those of you coming for the entire weekend.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/bay-area-open/warmachine-and-hordes-tournament-info/

I'm really interested in going but not sure i can commit right now, do the tickets for the 40k singles sell out fast?

Hey Guys,

1) The Zero Comp Guys running this event ARE, as a group, 1 of, if not The, TOP ranked group of 40k players in the USA. I will not say World because I have not checked those numbers but I’m sure they are up there in the TOP on that list too. I know these guys both from playing against them across the table and hanging out with them outside of the Tournament scene. THEY KNOW MATHHAMMER GUYS. I know they have studied this book and would not have even considered Apoc2 if they didn’t feel it was a viable option. It might just be me but it seems like they are not getting the respect they have EARNED and DESERVE from some of you here.

2) I understand people want to make their point about my opponents “ROCK” Unit is to powerful versus my “Scissors” Unit, but come on that’s 40k.

3) Now here’s the one really crazy argument. “FW is expensive for me and this gives an unfair advantage to someone with more money! We should be able to Proxy them” I cannot believe this one guys. This game is about expendable cash. How many Power Gamers out there drop $400+, easily, on a whole new Army every time a new Power Codex comes out? This is not any deferent. These Power Gamers are the guys that have been stomping through Tournaments ever since the Tournament scene began but even though they drop that kind of cash they don’t seem to be winning every GT.

4) Like the Zero Comp guys, I could “debate” about each and every one unit that is already in the standard different Codexs that could deal with these new units but I think there is already enough of that debating going on by the Zero Comp and other more respected guys out there than I. I have been working pretty hard to know the game and get some experience in the Tournament scene, so while I might not be a total Noob when it comes to 40k, I KNOW I’m a Noob when it comes to forum “debating”. ;-)

So just as far as the Apoc2 Book goes I believe there are some very strong Units in there but again I trust in Zero Comp and RESPECT the hell out of their judgment. They have put together some great Tournaments and have already, after hearing your responses to the Apoc2 option, put this up for a vote, which is pretty cool that they respect the gamers enough to do this. I will study the Apoc2 book, reading through all the rules thoroughly, Reece and only then put my vote in and I hope everyone else will do the same.

Either way guys I will be there to play. I look forward to gaming and just hanging out with some great guys both on the Zero Comp team and just great folks I have met while playing this game. LET GAME!



p.s. I’m sure about another 20 post have happened in the time it took me to finish this post on my iPhone. Hope it doesn’t derail the debating too much… And please ignore any and all typos.

Reecius wrote:
@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.

Since I said it, let me clarify it.

Also I am not on the US ETC, nor do I speak for it.

But I will tell you that the American ETC team has been looking for a quality event out west to help the selection process for the US ETC team. Right now they have a couple of players in Texas, and the rest are in the North East (and yes, from where I am, Ohio is in the NE).

Here are the rules for the US ETC team selection process:
http://teamamerica40k.com/?page_id=6

If you look at this year’s qualifying rules, they have the best battle point winner of Da Boyz GT, Adepticon, and Wargames Con get an invite to join the team, and an aggregate winner who scored the highest in those events plus (in an effort to add some West Coast diversity to the team) they also added the Slaughter in Space tournament in the Fall (which unfortunately the SCGWL guys dropped when they went to a format of 40K in the Spring, and WHF in the Fall).

The problem we have right now is that all of the West Coast tournaments are miles behind the top events on the East Coast. Even the Nova Open in its second year had over 200+ attendees, and even the biggest tournaments on the West Coast events can get even half that much.

I have been a vocal proponent to try to get a qualifying event on the West Coast, (Having your tournament as a possible ETC qualifier was not even on your radar until I said it), and it was my hope that the Bay Area Open would become the flagship West Coast tournament event, but with the addition of Forge World somewhere along the line it stops being Warhammer 40K. Now it is on the level of events like the Grand Waaagh, and the Broadside Bash. The ETC team might as well choose one of those events since all of them have about the same attendance, and all of them have their flaws. Right now (IMO) the Slaughter in Space is still the best tournament to help pick an ETC member. .

In the end it is Ben “Spacecurves” call on the selection process of the American ETC Team for 2013, so only he knows what the future has for the selection process.

Who knows, maybe I am wrong, and this is the way of the future. I am going to be on a few podcasts coming up and I would like to get some of the host's ideas on the matter of including these Forge World units to tournaments.

ph34r wrote:
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".

But what you're saying is that you'd utilize the Imperial Armor rules if they were allowed...that's my whole point of 'sucking it up'. Right now, Imperial Armor is 'official' as much as any rules that are allowed by a tourney organizer. If for some reason every tourney organizer decided to utilize these rules all of a sudden it wouldn't seem like a 'choice' as it does to many people, you'd just have to deal with it like any other powerful thing in the game and that's my whole point.

Because there is an easy line in the sand to draw with Imperial Armor, people are okay with effectively enforcing 'comp' in this situation by saying 'no, I think those things are too scary and therefore I want to exclude all of it', even though that means the 98% of the other IA units, many of which are useful and cool without being that scary get tossed out with the 'nasty' 2%.

Its basically like everyone has gotten together and decided that because the Grey Knights are too powerful, we're simply going to exclude them from tournaments. Obviously there's big a difference in that a codex is definitely considered more of a 'core' part of the game, but the point I'm trying to make is that the decision to not include these rules seems to be borne ultimately out of a fear of losing to something that is powerful...and I personally think that is a bad reason to continue to make a decision that restricts so many cool things from the game.

Reecius wrote:
@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.

No, I totally get it, and I wouldn't expect anything else, frankly. The only thing I would caution is that often times the people who are most against something are always the most vocal as well (because fear and negativity tends to push people into action).

There are obviously a number of reasons that people don't like seeing IA rules in tournaments, but one of the big ones is that people are unfamiliar playing against those rules because they rarely get a chance to do so. And that's really the self-fulfilling prophecy that I would love to be broken more. Basically the idea is: Players don't like IA rules because they're unfamiliar with them. --> They're unfamiliar with them because they never see them in tournaments --> They never see them in tournaments because so few tournaments allow them. --> Tournaments don't allow them because players don't like IA rules. --> Players don't like IA rules because they're unfamiliar with them.

See the cyclical loop which sits atop fear and a bit of ignorance that continually feeds itself? And of course add into that the fact that many players don't buy FW models because they don't want to drop the cash on models they can't use in tournaments, which also helps to feed into the lack of FW models/IA rules that allows people to be familiar with them.

So I think that even if you do get a few people who very anti-IA and don't show up to the event, if you're able to suck it up and push through and still allow IA rules, then maybe those players that attend will see that the sky doesn't fall and over time the word will spread with more and more people getting increasingly relaxed about IA rules and more comfortable with the idea of playing with and against them.


---


With all that said, I do have a question for you. Obviously as the TO, you guys are totally within your rights to utilize and exclude any set of rules you would like. However, I may have misunderstood, but it seems like your basis for allowing the IAA 2nd edition rules (and no other IA rules) is because somehow you feel as though the units in IAA 2nd edition are somehow 'more official' than other IA rules. Am I correct on this?

Because I don't see any basis for that in IAA 2nd edition. Yes, the unit entries are now 'stamped' with either a '40K' or 'Apoc' in the book, but this is not the same 'official' stamp they use in White Dwarf for things like the Night Spinner (that stamp just says 'official' on it).

The 'stamps' in IAA 2nd edition simply denote at a glance whether the unit is designed for 40K or just Apoc...something you just had to read more closely to find out in the other books.

But the preamble of IAA 2nd edition makes it perfectly clear how 'official' these rules are, as compared to other IA books (emphasis mine):

"This unit is intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000, within the usual limitations of Codex selection and force organization charts. As with all our models these should be considered 'official', but owing to the fact that they may be unknown to your opponent, its best to make sure that are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."


As you can see, the IAA 2nd edition preamble clearly says that the models in IAA 2nd edition are as official as any of their other models...which in the case of a tournament means they are as official as the TO says they are.

Therefore, I personally don't see any basis from that perspective that the rules in IAA 2nd edition are any more 'official' than any other IA unit in another book.

Again, as the TO, you have all the power to allow/not allow whatever you want, but I just wanted to get clarification from you as to exactly why you are considering allowing ONLY the IA units from IAA 2nd edition.

Is it because you feel the book is much more balanced than the other books (so you're excluding the other books because they contain a higher level of imbalance) or is it because you feel somehow that IAA 2nd edition is somehow more 'official' than the previous books, despite my argument above?

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.

I really don't want to get into long-winded arguments about which units are more or less powerful than other units because its one of those never-ending discussions that ultimately falls to personal opinion. However, I will at least put up my viewpoint on a couple of these things and then let that part of the discussion rest because there can be no real winner (so I'll put it into spoiler tags to hopefully avoid derailing the overall conversation):

My concern is not that they are unbeatable (clearly they are not), but rather that it creates situations that put certain armies completely in the dog house against them. I know if I pulled my nids out of retirement and drove eight hours to play and got my hive guard units turn one charged by two dreads or spent a game or two chasing around an immortal thunderfire cannon, I would be pretty pissed. My point to Reece is that the inclusion of these units further aggravate what is already a very heavily Marine Centric event.

I also agree that if you let one book in you should probably let them all in. I mean if a turn one dread charge is fair for marines, then surely a hades drill team is alright for guard. The tons of suit and drone variants for tau are actually balanced and should see play, if anything. Some of the Chaos stuff is actually pretty balanced, too, from prior books. I also think the Badab war alternate space marine chapters are fine and all of those are certainly more balanced (and easier to explain to an opponent) than the Achilles or Cestus. The IA2 only choice seems very odd and arbitrary.

yakface wrote:
When it comes to Grey Knights vs. a Lucius and/or Achillies, all I know is that if you gave Grey Knight players the choice between having Psy-riflemen Dreads in their army or either Lucius Pods or Achillies Land Raiders, I think very few intelligent players would pick either of those over the Dreads.

yakface wrote:
I mean, just think about a Space Wolf army. If you take an Achillies, not only does that mean you're losing out on 5 Long Fangs, but it also costs 2 1/3 times the cost of that Long Fang squad with 5 Missile Launchers! As an opponent, personally I'd much rather see a single Achillies over those 5 extra Missile Launchers.

This is a false argument. Psy-rifleman Dreads and Long Fang squads are just about the most point efficient units in the game. On top of that, they perform necessary roles for their respective armies. Of course good GK and SW players will stick with their inexpensive, highly efficient choices. Especially given the specialized nature of those armies.

Normal Marine players are the ones who will benefit from these units. They have fewer "auto-includes" and can actually build an army around them. I don't know if the Achilles is an 0-1 choice, but two of them with a couple of min-sized scout units could form a pretty powerful core of a Marine army. I think it's a bit harder to build an army around Lucius Pods, but I'm sure it's possible.

I can totally understand why they are only allowing the IA Apoc 2nd ed. Look at it this way, you've gotta start somewhere so they chose the most recent IA book.

Look at the response that has been had from that one choice, now imagine if they said all IA books are legal for the BAO tourneys, it would be much worse.

ph34r wrote:
Because there is an easy line in the sand to draw with Imperial Armor, people are okay with effectively enforcing 'comp' in this situation by saying 'no, I think those things are too scary and therefore I want to exclude all of it', even though that means the 98% of the other IA units, many of which are useful and cool without being that scary get tossed out with the 'nasty' 2%.

To be honest, I don't think allowing this book is going to cause people to bring that specified "other 98%" of the book, because "useful and cool" might as well be a synonym for "bad unit." But if they think it's worth it to completely change the intent and concept of the Vanilla Marine codex design in exchange for the slim glimmer of hope that someone brings that awful Dark Eldar skimmer with the big haywire gun, I guess it's worth it.

On an unrelated note, I think it's hilarious how people constantly cite arguments to the effect of "Hey guys, relax, nothing in here is as overpowered as Grey Knights." Doesn't that set off warning bells to anyone else? It shortens pretty easily to "Hey guys, Grey Knights are overpowered." I guess we've all come to terms with that as a community, and we can move forward, stronger.

theironjef wrote:

ph34r wrote:
Because there is an easy line in the sand to draw with Imperial Armor, people are okay with effectively enforcing 'comp' in this situation by saying 'no, I think those things are too scary and therefore I want to exclude all of it', even though that means the 98% of the other IA units, many of which are useful and cool without being that scary get tossed out with the 'nasty' 2%.

To be honest, I don't think allowing this book is going to cause people to bring that specified "other 98%" of the book, because "useful and cool" might as well be a synonym for "bad unit." But if they think it's worth it to completely change the intent and concept of the Vanilla Marine codex design in exchange for the slim glimmer of hope that someone brings that awful Dark Eldar skimmer with the big haywire gun, I guess it's worth it.

On an unrelated note, I think it's hilarious how people constantly cite arguments to the effect of "Hey guys, relax, nothing in here is as overpowered as Grey Knights." Doesn't that set off warning bells to anyone else? It shortens pretty easily to "Hey guys, Grey Knights are overpowered." I guess we've all come to terms with that as a community, and we can move forward, stronger.

Meh, go back 2 years and you'll see the same statements but substitute Space Wolves for Grey Knights. There is always an OP codex in 40k. 4th ed had Mechdar, early 5th had Orks, Mid 5th had IG/SW late 5th has GK. People don't want to see anymore than 1 OP thing at a time, and out of that fear they don't want IAA2e. I would prefer not having IAA2e because I would rather not have to buy the book or comb the net searching for info and then play a bunch of proxy games to figure out how to beat the units. I certainly am not running out to buy any and if my Contemptor Dread shows up it will be a Venerable GK Dread not a contemptor.

Actually, Reece. Would I be allowed to use my Contemptor as a normal Dread if we do use the IAA2e? I wouldn't want to cause confusion so I understand if the answer is no.

BryanC wrote:

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.

Yeah I Think the causal time limits are in response to the lowered turn limits of SR2012. The Base time of all events will be accerated one level, so a Causal event next year will be the same as one this year.

Warmachine and Hordes are still a growing community and while I'd personally prefer a more hardcore approach to tournaments, personal experience as a TO has shown the Nor Cal Warmachine community is a bit shy of timed events and this really hurts event turn outs. At this point in out community growth, I'd rather have a event that has more people then one that's more competitive.

NinjaRay wrote:

BryanC wrote:

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.

Yeah I Think the causal time limits are in response to the lowered turn limits of SR2012. The Base time of all events will be accerated one level, so a Causal event next year will be the same as one this year.

Warmachine and Hordes are still a growing community and while I'd personally prefer a more hardcore approach to tournaments, personal experience as a TO has shown the Nor Cal Warmachine community is a bit shy of timed events and this really hurts event turn outs. At this point in out community growth, I'd rather have a event that has more people then one that's more competitive.

While I understand and respect that I can't get behind it. I view WM/H as the preeminent competitive miniatures game (and I am hardcore 40k player) and so taking out that aspect rubs me the wrong way.

Gah! I said I wouldn't comment about Warmahordes anymore!

yakface wrote:

ph34r wrote:
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".

But what you're saying is that you'd utilize the Imperial Armor rules if they were allowed...that's my whole point of 'sucking it up'. Right now, Imperial Armor is 'official' as much as any rules that are allowed by a tourney organizer. If for some reason every tourney organizer decided to utilize these rules all of a sudden it wouldn't seem like a 'choice' as it does to many people, you'd just have to deal with it like any other powerful thing in the game and that's my whole point.

Because there is an easy line in the sand to draw with Imperial Armor, people are okay with effectively enforcing 'comp' in this situation by saying 'no, I think those things are too scary and therefore I want to exclude all of it', even though that means the 98% of the other IA units, many of which are useful and cool without being that scary get tossed out with the 'nasty' 2%.

Its basically like everyone has gotten together and decided that because the Grey Knights are too powerful, we're simply going to exclude them from tournaments. Obviously there's big a difference in that a codex is definitely considered more of a 'core' part of the game, but the point I'm trying to make is that the decision to not include these rules seems to be borne ultimately out of a fear of losing to something that is powerful...and I personally think that is a bad reason to continue to make a decision that restricts so many cool things from the game.

The easy solution is to ban those 2% units.

However you, and the people advocating for FW units, would not do this because they don't care about the 98% of fluffy/fun/weak units. They just want their 2%.
It's really easy to break down your argument, as far as you have communicated it to me where I stand. You say there's no point throwing out IA because only a few of the units are broken. I say cool, allow IA but ban those broken units.
If you are unwilling to ban the broken units, how transparent does that make your excuse seem?

Would I be okay with IA:A2e if it provided units to all armies equally? Yes, 100%.

But it doesn't. It mega buffs marines, gives orks and eldar some decent stuff, and then doesn't do jack for Nids, Necrons, DE, Guard, SoB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dugg wrote:3) Now here’s the one really crazy argument. “FW is expensive for me and this gives an unfair advantage to someone with more money! We should be able to Proxy them” I cannot believe this one guys. This game is about expendable cash. How many Power Gamers out there drop $400+, easily, on a whole new Army every time a new Power Codex comes out? This is not any deferent. These Power Gamers are the guys that have been stomping through Tournaments ever since the Tournament scene began but even though they drop that kind of cash they don’t seem to be winning every GT.

So logically you are in 100% opposition to scratch builds, alternate builds, and other such conversions that do not use stock GW models?

If you are opposed to banning scratch builds and conversions, you must ban all such things from the standard codexes.

This means all the HKM long fangs, guns glued on top razorbacks, aegis defense line hydras, orks count as IG, and XYZ counts as grey knights must be banned.

Or maybe you realize how mad people would get if that happened, and arbitrarily would impose a "no conversion" policy on FW?

Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.

NinjaRay wrote:Warmachine and Hordes are still a growing community and while I'd personally prefer a more hardcore approach to tournaments, personal experience as a TO has shown the Nor Cal Warmachine community is a bit shy of timed events and this really hurts event turn outs. At this point in out community growth, I'd rather have a event that has more people then one that's more competitive.

That's a legitimate concern. It takes a while to get a group used to timed turns. However, that seems more like a concern for the local store/community level, as opposed to an event like BAO that is (theoretically) going to have a broader draw of players from the Western US, and is positioning itself to be the west-coast tournament event.

All this aside, I'll go regardless if I can make it.

-Dis.

Hope to see you there!

@Ray: Thanks, you always explain things much more concise in writing than I can

I agree GKs are really really strong, but until they start winning instead of SW and Guard, I am not convinced they are the best. Stong? Yes. Annoying? Probably. Broken? Against the armies not in the holy trinity, most likely. But Wolves are king until they get dethroned.

Bought my ticket. IAA2 looks like it'll be fun to play against.

Hurry up and get here, March, I want to kill me an LR Achilles!!!

Warhammer 40K Narrative Event tickets and information now up! This is going to be a really cool event for those of you who don't really care much for competitive play 40K!

Ticket Purchased for 40k Singles. See you in March!

Very much looking forward to having you guys!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The votes are in and the results have been tallied!

Warmachine and Hordes voted to keep the casual time limits as they are essentially the same as they were last year.

Fantasy voted for a light Comp system.

40K votes came in just about 50/50 for and against IA Apoc 2 units in the Singles. Of those, the yays were all of the opinion: sure, sounds cool. The nays were split in half between preferring not to, but not caring that much, and half being strongly opposed.

So, considering essentially 75% of the crowd didn't care that much, and 25% cared a lot, we decided to go with that.

In closing, IA2 Apoc units will NOT be allowed in the singles Championships.

However, we only had a single vote against IA units in the Team Tournament.

Therefore, we will allow IA units (from all books) in the Team Tournament with the following restrictions: No super Heavies or Gargantuan Creatures. Only the most current version of the rules can be used, the players must have the actual Forgeworld Model (no proxies or counts as this year), and the actual Book (no photocopies, etc.). The following units are banned: Hades Breaching Drill, Land Raider Achilles, and the Lucius Pattern Drop Pod. Each teammate on a team may have one such unit (totaling 2 per team).

Thanks for the feedback, guys! We appreciate it and really look forward to the biggest, and best BAO yet!

40k: Boo!

Fantasy: What's the light comp you guys are using?

EDIT: Nevermind, comp's up on the website. Given it's W/L/D it's all good.

@Ozzy
You can still use them in the Team Tournament, though, so it's all good.

Either way, this will still be a great event! Looking forward to having you, buddy.

@Leenus
Yeah, it is a really mild Comp system.