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 it's a fair assumption that, as the prime example, undercosted, nigh-unkillable, spammable artillery that takes a long time to resolve and almost anyone can access through allies makes the problem of "overly competitive" 40k, if you want to call it that, worse.

That's why I'm saying you can only argue for FW as a positive for theme, or as a competitive "real men play with FW" viewpoint. To argue for both a the same time is a complete contradiction!

I fall on the "more theme is great for tournies" side of the fence, which is why I'm open to limited FW, but completely closed to the "If it's broken / not balanced / written by monkeys already, why not allow everything in?" viewpoint. I don't think it's possible to genuinely be in favor of both, unless you just want FW at all costs... which perhaps some people do.

But most of us want the best possible and most fun events, and that means we're going to view the advantages of FW from one viewpoint or the other... not both at the same time, imo.

As to your last point... Emphasizing sportsmanship and painting is a completely different area than emphasizing themed armies, and is not related to FW-inclusion at all.

 RiTides wrote:
I agree with premise 1. I completely disagree with premise 2 (unless you add restrictions, ie premise 1!).

Saying things should be more themed, but if not, just make them more broken is a contradictory argument. You can argue genuinely from one perspective or the other, not both, imo. Unless you don't really mean it when you argue for premise 1 (more themeed events being good for the tourney scene).

Ie- Don't say limited FW encourages theme, and full FW is the only real/hardcore/macho way to play 40k at the same time. I agree with the first (in line with premise 1) but the second is utter bollocks.

I disagree. I can easily argue both sides of this. I think tournaments would be better served if there was more emphasis on theme and less on competitiveness. I really believe that.

However, I'm aware that there is a quite vocal group of people out there who don't believe that, who believe that 40k is best played no-holds-barred. As such, I do not believe that we'll see themed tournaments gain widespread appeal. To these people, I believe that true no-holds-barred 40k includes all rules published by GW (which I take to include FW), including fighter aces from Death From the Skies and so on.

I never claimed that limiting FW encouraged theme. I said that we had a themed tournament, which happened to allow limited FW. We could have done the same thing with full FW, or with no FW, and the result would have been the same. The tournament was a success because it emphasized more than just raw power builds.

Well, if you're arguing both sides, then you're talking out of "both sides of your mouth", as they say... and I'm not really interested in participating in that.

I genuinely love making themed armies. I always do. Therefore, I'm extremely interested in limited FW for the possibilities it gives me.

The other argument about "no-holds-barred 40k" is a caricature of competitive tourney players, imo. Most want a fun, balanced game and don't find a need for comp. But allowing full FW access makes even some of them call for restrictions.

Anyway, I've made my point... if you're interested in arguing both sides of this, I'm not really interested in discussing it further because you can flip to either side of the argument at any time!

I genuinely, am hugely in favor of more theme. I have no interest in figuring out what the line of "most competitive 40k" is, and whether that includes FW. Or staying up all night before a tourney. Or drinking 5 shots before playing and still winning. Or whatever.

To me, there's a big distinction if I'm participating in this discussion genuinely. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to talk about the kind of events I want to see more of. To make both points at once, as you are doing, strikes me as just trying to "win the argument" about allowing FW, rather than finding a middle ground / compromise that will be the best for the most people / events... which is what I would like this discussion to be about, instead.

 Redbeard wrote:


I disagree. I can easily argue both sides of this. I think tournaments would be better served if there was more emphasis on theme and less on competitiveness. I really believe that.

However, I'm aware that there is a quite vocal group of people out there who don't believe that, who believe that 40k is best played no-holds-barred. As such, I do not believe that we'll see themed tournaments gain widespread appeal. To these people, I believe that true no-holds-barred 40k includes all rules published by GW (which I take to include FW), including fighter aces from Death From the Skies and so on.

I never claimed that limiting FW encouraged theme. I said that we had a themed tournament, which happened to allow limited FW. We could have done the same thing with full FW, or with no FW, and the result would have been the same. The tournament was a success because it emphasized more than just raw power builds.

Black and white worlds are niche ones. There are PLENTY of tournaments that do not emphasize raw power builds, while simultaneously not emphasizing thematic builds either, and where people who do one or the other have parallel but identical and equal opportunities for reward, and playing their peers.

I think if nothing else the reality is that extreme positions tend to be the least universally appealing, and when only extreme positions are fixated upon or advocated, the opposing point of view becomes the loud one in response, but the majority in the middle end up broadly disregarded.

I think, in my case, that I am trying to "win the argument" for Forge World because I think more themed lists would be the natural consequence.

Look at my list for example - Armored Battlegroup isn't amazing in 6th -we can't score! I certainly don't break tournaments over my knee, even in the local scene. Yet for some reason I am not welcome.

Look at the DKoK list - hordes of guardsmen on foot. Yes they have tough artillery, but artillery by itself does not win games. It's those boots on the ground, and frankly, they're just guardsmen.

Look at the Elysian list - lots of fliers (shock, horror) but almost no heavy guns, like tanks or artillery - in fact, this vs necron flyerspam would look more like a naval fleet action than a land battle.


These are all great theme lists, yet are banned out of some fear of them being OP.

 RiTides wrote:
I think it's a fair assumption that, as the prime example, undercosted, nigh-unkillable, spammable artillery that takes a long time to resolve and almost anyone can access through allies makes the problem of "overly competitive" 40k, if you want to call it that, worse.

It's possible, but it's all largely concept, it certainly hasn't overrun the events its been allowed in or proven unbeatable. Terrain, deployment and opponent type make a huge difference with that kind of army.

That's why I'm saying you can only argue for FW as a positive for theme, or as a competitive "real men play with FW" viewpoint. To argue for both a the same time is a complete contradiction!

You can argue for either by poking holes in the theory for restricting it for either. That said, sometimes brutally capable stuff is fluffy as well (e.g. a DKoK Siege Regiment would find it perfectly fluffy to field tons of Thudd Guns, just as spamming daemon engines like Heldrakes is for Iron Warriors or back in 4E spamming invinci skimmers was perfectly fluffy for Eldar)

I fall on the "more theme is great for tournies" side of the fence, which is why I'm open to limited FW, but completely closed to the "If it's broken / not balanced / written by monkeys already, why not allow everything in?" viewpoint.

The issue there is a double-standard that can't stand on its own. You'll restrict certain broken units but not others. If you want to advocate restricting broken units, by all means, but don't just limit the FW stuff while allowing everything from codex books in or the stance is empty and meaningless, arbitrary for its own sake.

I don't think it's possible to genuinely be in favor of both, unless you just want FW at all costs... which perhaps some people do.

But most of us want the best possible and most fun events, and that means we're going to view the advantages of FW from one viewpoint or the other... not both at the same time, imo.

That may be, I prefer to see it as allowing me to include everything the 40k universe has to offer and an opportunity to portray more of what exists than the codex books do.

As to your last point... Emphasizing sportsmanship and painting is a completely different area than emphasizing themed armies, and is not related to FW-inclusion at all.

It will de-emphasize the winning aspect, which means the urge to run certain things is greatly lessened, though again a topic for another thread really

Unit- I am in favor of allowing those lists- it's just harder to do unless you go "no holds barred" as Redbeard says, because now you have to allow some units to be fielded in multiples, but not others. I.e. you need a "ban / restricted" list of units (unless you want to go "no holds barred") and that, seemingly, is harder to implement from the TOs that have posted here.

Also quoting MVBrandt as I really agree with this:

MVBrandt wrote:
Black and white worlds are niche ones. There are PLENTY of tournaments that do not emphasize raw power builds, while simultaneously not emphasizing thematic builds either, and where people who do one or the other have parallel but identical and equal opportunities for reward, and playing their peers.

I think if nothing else the reality is that extreme positions tend to be the least universally appealing, and when only extreme positions are fixated upon or advocated, the opposing point of view becomes the loud one in response, but the majority in the middle end up broadly disregarded.

 RiTides wrote:
Unit- I am in favor of allowing those lists- it's just harder to do unless you go "no holds barred" as Redbeard says, because now you have to allow some units to be fielded in multiples, but not others. I.e. you need a "ban / restricted" list of units (unless you want to go "no holds barred") and that, seemingly, is harder to implement from the TOs that have posted here.

The lists themselves have built in restrictions - Elysians cannot take Leman Russ tanks, ever. Armored Battlegroup has a 0-1 restriction on vendetta squadrons and no access to the foot artillery units. Death Korps of Krieg have no access to transports for basic infantry platoons and no real access to a good Veteran-style unit. IIRC Grenadiers are Elites, like Storm Troopers.

Just to quote myself

 RiTides wrote:
Unit- I am in favor of allowing those lists

Like I said, it just seems harder to do for TOs, but I would love to see more FW army lists allowed in events

RiTides wrote:Well, if you're arguing both sides, then you're talking out of "both sides of your mouth", as they say... and I'm not really interested in participating in that.

You seem to be confusing discussion with debate, or trying to win the internet. I'm talking about what's theoretically ideal, but also about what's realistically possible.

I'm sorry you can't seem to understand the difference. Accepting that my ideal is not going to happen, and talking about other possibilities isn't trying to win, it's about being realistic.

MVBrandt wrote:
Black and white worlds are niche ones. There are PLENTY of tournaments that do not emphasize raw power builds, while simultaneously not emphasizing thematic builds either, and where people who do one or the other have parallel but identical and equal opportunities for reward, and playing their peers.

That's a nice goal, but I don't think you've actually managed it. I can name the "winners" of the last three Novas. I couldn't tell you who had the best theme. Reward isn't just prize support.

I think if nothing else the reality is that extreme positions tend to be the least universally appealing, and when only extreme positions are fixated upon or advocated, the opposing point of view becomes the loud one in response, but the majority in the middle end up broadly disregarded.

And yet, that's how our world seems to work. You don't see a lot of politicians rationally discussing budgets, abortions, or gun controls. They talk about the edge cases (and, you're right, the middle ground gets lost). Because when one side says "no guns", saying "well, how about one" isn't a good starting point for counter-negotiation.

When Blackmoor comes out and says FW should be banned, well, asking for one unit is pretty lame. I'd rather ask for unlimited, and compromise at 5 units, than start the bargaining at one, you know.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Unit- I am in favor of allowing those lists- it's just harder to do unless you go "no holds barred" as Redbeard says, because now you have to allow some units to be fielded in multiples, but not others. I.e. you need a "ban / restricted" list of units (unless you want to go "no holds barred") and that, seemingly, is harder to implement from the TOs that have posted here.

The lists themselves have built in restrictions - Elysians cannot take Leman Russ tanks, ever. Armored Battlegroup has a 0-1 restriction on vendetta squadrons and no access to the foot artillery units. Death Korps of Krieg have no access to transports for basic infantry platoons and no real access to a good Veteran-style unit. IIRC Grenadiers are Elites, like Storm Troopers.

Except all those restrictions mean little when you include them with allies. So DKOK have artillery and IG Blobs on foot, wait what to most competitive players want to run...Artillery and IG blobs on foot with Allied space marines (or as allies to space marines.).

So I want tanks and Vendettas I know IG with Armored battle group allies vendettas are now 0-4, and instead of taking regular troops I take Leman Russes(or whatever troops I have available)

I'm not suggesting that eithe rof these is inherently broken. But the idea that it will mean more themed lists at COMPETITIVE tournaments is really not true. The guys already bringing themed lists, will bring different ones perhaps, and the top table guys will use whatever units give them the best chance to win, be that FW or other. It seems like many of those guys seem to feel that it would be FW IG.

I'm also not saying working toward those lists being included is bad. I do think though that initially slower inclusion will be more accepted.

Being realistic is why you should accept limitations on FW, rather than all-or-nothing, Red . Greater acceptance is a good thing, it doesn't have to be one or the other! I don't fully agree with Blackmoor either, you know and even he said he was open to limited FW... his OP was a reaction to the "all or nothing" stance we saw at the start of 6th ed regarding FW.

 Redbeard wrote:

RiTides wrote:Well, if you're arguing both sides, then you're talking out of "both sides of your mouth", as they say... and I'm not really interested in participating in that.

You seem to be confusing discussion with debate, or trying to win the internet. I'm talking about what's theoretically ideal, but also about what's realistically possible.

I'm sorry you can't seem to understand the difference. Accepting that my ideal is not going to happen, and talking about other possibilities isn't trying to win, it's about being realistic.

MVBrandt wrote:
Black and white worlds are niche ones. There are PLENTY of tournaments that do not emphasize raw power builds, while simultaneously not emphasizing thematic builds either, and where people who do one or the other have parallel but identical and equal opportunities for reward, and playing their peers.

That's a nice goal, but I don't think you've actually managed it. I can name the "winners" of the last three Novas. I couldn't tell you who had the best theme. Reward isn't just prize support.

I think if nothing else the reality is that extreme positions tend to be the least universally appealing, and when only extreme positions are fixated upon or advocated, the opposing point of view becomes the loud one in response, but the majority in the middle end up broadly disregarded.

And yet, that's how our world seems to work. You don't see a lot of politicians rationally discussing budgets, abortions, or gun controls. They talk about the edge cases (and, you're right, the middle ground gets lost). Because when one side says "no guns", saying "well, how about one" isn't a good starting point for counter-negotiation.

When Blackmoor comes out and says FW should be banned, well, asking for one unit is pretty lame. I'd rather ask for unlimited, and compromise at 5 units, than start the bargaining at one, you know.

I don't think it is really fair to say that a TO can control what people hear about events. That indicates that the internet will care about everything equally. If NOVA (or any other tournament) pumped up a best theme. most people on here would still look for the best general, or most competitive list.

Breng77 wrote:
Except all those restrictions mean little when you include them with allies. So DKOK have artillery and IG Blobs on foot, wait what to most competitive players want to run...Artillery and IG blobs on foot with Allied space marines (or as allies to space marines.).

So I want tanks and Vendettas I know IG with Armored battle group allies vendettas are now 0-4, and instead of taking regular troops I take Leman Russes(or whatever troops I have available)

I'm not suggesting that eithe rof these is inherently broken. But the idea that it will mean more themed lists at COMPETITIVE tournaments is really not true. The guys already bringing themed lists, will bring different ones perhaps, and the top table guys will use whatever units give them the best chance to win, be that FW or other. It seems like many of those guys seem to feel that it would be FW IG.

I'm also not saying working toward those lists being included is bad. I do think though that initially slower inclusion will be more accepted.

No, ABG + Allied Guard get 0-2 Vendetta Squadrons - you could have up to six vendettas, but in two squadrons of three, which is a decidedly nonoptimal setup. Most people don't want Leman Russes as troops if they aren't running a theme list - LRBTs aren't that good, and can't ever score.

And blobguard + arty + SM seems like a pretty badass fluff and theme list, so I see no problem with it existing at all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Except all those restrictions mean little when you include them with allies. So DKOK have artillery and IG Blobs on foot, wait what to most competitive players want to run...Artillery and IG blobs on foot with Allied space marines (or as allies to space marines.).

So I want tanks and Vendettas I know IG with Armored battle group allies vendettas are now 0-4, and instead of taking regular troops I take Leman Russes(or whatever troops I have available)

I'm not suggesting that eithe rof these is inherently broken. But the idea that it will mean more themed lists at COMPETITIVE tournaments is really not true. The guys already bringing themed lists, will bring different ones perhaps, and the top table guys will use whatever units give them the best chance to win, be that FW or other. It seems like many of those guys seem to feel that it would be FW IG.

I'm also not saying working toward those lists being included is bad. I do think though that initially slower inclusion will be more accepted.

No, ABG + Allied Guard get 0-2 Vendetta Squadrons - you could have up to six vendettas, but in two squadrons of three, which is a decidedly nonoptimal setup. Most people don't want Leman Russes as troops if they aren't running a theme list - LRBTs aren't that good, and can't ever score.

And blobguard + arty + SM seems like a pretty badass fluff and theme list, so I see no problem with it existing at all.

So then Cron Air is a Badass fluff and theme list, and FMC spam, and Top Table Tau, Mech Guard. Really?

Also read carefully I said IG with allied ABG. or does that alliance only work one way (something I don't know because there is no ally chart including all the armies lists in FW that is easy to access.) But I assumed that it like any other alliance is reflexive. SO IG take 3 vendettas, and ABG take 1.

 Redbeard wrote:


That's a nice goal, but I don't think you've actually managed it. I can name the "winners" of the last three Novas. I couldn't tell you who had the best theme. Reward isn't just prize support.

RiTides already answered it, but I'm not sure you actually can name them. You're neither attending, nor noting the format, when Tony Kopach has yet to win anything except Best General (if you were thinking of him as the "winner" per your quotes of the last 3). In fact, Tony sits with 15 other Best Generals each year. By design, it's very difficult to run into spammy power lists after Round 4, b/c they are as a general rule intentionally isolated from the rest of the field. The guy who may lose a couple games, but has a gorgeous army and can pull out strong wins against his list peers later on, is the guy who wins Best Overall as a general rule.

At the event itself, the outlook and emphasis is probably far different than the internet punditocracy pays a lot of attention to; for better or worse, power building and competitive lists and who the best general is are things that the internet at large pays more attention to, and as Steve points out ... I can't really control that (especially since I inappropriately over-emphasized competitiveness in year 1). But when I get up there and announce the winner of the event with our final award and largest recognition, you can bet it's not the 8-0 guy who won Bracket 1.

Breng77 wrote:
So then Cron Air is a Badass fluff and theme list, and FMC spam, and Top Table Tau, Mech Guard. Really?

Also read carefully I said IG with allied ABG. or does that alliance only work one way (something I don't know because there is no ally chart including all the armies lists in FW that is easy to access.) But I assumed that it like any other alliance is reflexive. SO IG take 3 vendettas, and ABG take 1.

Cron Air is so-so - I can see it as an invading army, maybe, but it's not usually how the necrons fight, so imo not as themed as SM+blobguard+arty.
FMC Spam is a no - usually it means bringing lots of the same Chaos HQ or Tyranid HQ, which with those two armies it would be rare to find multiple identical characters in the same small battle-area. Top Table Tau I have no idea what this build means. Mech guard is definitely themed and fluffy, and also not that good anymore.

No you're right, it would be 4 vendetta squadrons if you allied that way. But that isn't a flaw with the Armored Battlegroup list, so much as it is a flaw with guard. Did you know that at 2k+ points, a normal guard army can run six to eighteen vendettas? I guess you never play that many points.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So then Cron Air is a Badass fluff and theme list, and FMC spam, and Top Table Tau, Mech Guard. Really?

Also read carefully I said IG with allied ABG. or does that alliance only work one way (something I don't know because there is no ally chart including all the armies lists in FW that is easy to access.) But I assumed that it like any other alliance is reflexive. SO IG take 3 vendettas, and ABG take 1.

Cron Air is so-so - I can see it as an invading army, maybe, but it's not usually how the necrons fight, so imo not as themed as SM+blobguard+arty.
FMC Spam is a no - usually it means bringing lots of the same Chaos HQ or Tyranid HQ, which with those two armies it would be rare to find multiple identical characters in the same small battle-area. Top Table Tau I have no idea what this build means. Mech guard is definitely themed and fluffy, and also not that good anymore.

No you're right, it would be 4 vendetta squadrons if you allied that way. But that isn't a flaw with the Armored Battlegroup list, so much as it is a flaw with guard. Did you know that at 2k+ points, a normal guard army can run six vendettas? I guess you never play that much.

40k is a company level game. Any time I hear someone suggesting that much beyond spam and one or two wrinkles is "thematic" is the time I start to tune it out. Theme is far more about modeling, paint jobs, customization, conversion, and the character you've literally built into your list IMO, than the models you've taken. If a guy brings one of everything and a variety of troops, but has 0 explanation and crappy paint, I don't consider him thematic at all. If a guy brings a super spam hyper competitive list, but every model is lovingly converted and they're all hyper tuned to a gorgeous and clear theme, with accompanying documents telling the story of his list and how it comes about ... THAT's quite thematic. Trying to claim an objective, black and white metric for what constitutes "thematic" seems the first step on the road to damnation within a fictional 41st millennium space aliens and super soldiers game environment. Peoples' armies generally are as thematic as they put the energy into making them appear, coupled with the raw and totally subjective opinion of the person who witnesses / plays against it (i.e., ref above in this paragraph where my opinion of what constitues thematic at the game's 2k scope is fairly different from yours).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So then Cron Air is a Badass fluff and theme list, and FMC spam, and Top Table Tau, Mech Guard. Really?

Also read carefully I said IG with allied ABG. or does that alliance only work one way (something I don't know because there is no ally chart including all the armies lists in FW that is easy to access.) But I assumed that it like any other alliance is reflexive. SO IG take 3 vendettas, and ABG take 1.

Cron Air is so-so - I can see it as an invading army, maybe, but it's not usually how the necrons fight, so imo not as themed as SM+blobguard+arty.
FMC Spam is a no - usually it means bringing lots of the same Chaos HQ or Tyranid HQ, which with those two armies it would be rare to find multiple identical characters in the same small battle-area. Top Table Tau I have no idea what this build means. Mech guard is definitely themed and fluffy, and also not that good anymore.

No you're right, it would be 4 vendetta squadrons if you allied that way. But that isn't a flaw with the Armored Battlegroup list, so much as it is a flaw with guard. Did you know that at 2k+ points, a normal guard army can run six to eighteen vendettas? I guess you never play that many points.

Because in another house rule almost no events run double FOC...

I see a double standard here. Anything Imperial is fluffy (so A Rune Priest leading a Blob guard is fluffy) but a cron army flying in to drop out and kill guys is not, a Daemon army of say All Tzeentch is not if it is FMC heavy. An example of a good Tau Army Etherial 120 Kroot, 3 Sky rays, 3 Riptides...fluffy themed?

And right here we see the problem with theme as a rule, who decides what a good theme is?

MVBrandt wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So then Cron Air is a Badass fluff and theme list, and FMC spam, and Top Table Tau, Mech Guard. Really?

Also read carefully I said IG with allied ABG. or does that alliance only work one way (something I don't know because there is no ally chart including all the armies lists in FW that is easy to access.) But I assumed that it like any other alliance is reflexive. SO IG take 3 vendettas, and ABG take 1.

Cron Air is so-so - I can see it as an invading army, maybe, but it's not usually how the necrons fight, so imo not as themed as SM+blobguard+arty.
FMC Spam is a no - usually it means bringing lots of the same Chaos HQ or Tyranid HQ, which with those two armies it would be rare to find multiple identical characters in the same small battle-area. Top Table Tau I have no idea what this build means. Mech guard is definitely themed and fluffy, and also not that good anymore.

No you're right, it would be 4 vendetta squadrons if you allied that way. But that isn't a flaw with the Armored Battlegroup list, so much as it is a flaw with guard. Did you know that at 2k+ points, a normal guard army can run six vendettas? I guess you never play that much.

40k is a company level game. Any time I hear someone suggesting that much beyond spam and one or two wrinkles is "thematic" is the time I start to tune it out. Theme is far more about modeling, paint jobs, customization, conversion, and the character you've literally built into your list IMO, than the models you've taken. If a guy brings one of everything and a variety of troops, but has 0 explanation and crappy paint, I don't consider him thematic at all. If a guy brings a super spam hyper competitive list, but every model is lovingly converted and they're all hyper tuned to a gorgeous and clear theme, with accompanying documents telling the story of his list and how it comes about ... THAT's quite thematic. Trying to claim an objective, black and white metric for what constitutes "thematic" seems the first step on the road to damnation within a fictional 41st millennium space aliens and super soldiers game environment. Peoples' armies generally are as thematic as they put the energy into making them appear, coupled with the raw and totally subjective opinion of the person who witnesses / plays against it (i.e., ref above in this paragraph where my opinion of what constitues thematic at the game's 2k scope is fairly different from yours).

I actually agree with you - what is thematic is largely subjective, to the point that agreeing on what it means to be thematic is largely impossible. This, IIRC, was the primary criticism of "comp" at most tournaments back when that discussion was a big deal. That's why barring anything seems unnecessarily arbitrary to me, as though the TO has imparted his or her own vision of what is "thematic" upon the tournament. There's no problem with this so long as it is recognized as largely arbitrary and subjective.

MVBrandt wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So then Cron Air is a Badass fluff and theme list, and FMC spam, and Top Table Tau, Mech Guard. Really?

Also read carefully I said IG with allied ABG. or does that alliance only work one way (something I don't know because there is no ally chart including all the armies lists in FW that is easy to access.) But I assumed that it like any other alliance is reflexive. SO IG take 3 vendettas, and ABG take 1.

Cron Air is so-so - I can see it as an invading army, maybe, but it's not usually how the necrons fight, so imo not as themed as SM+blobguard+arty.
FMC Spam is a no - usually it means bringing lots of the same Chaos HQ or Tyranid HQ, which with those two armies it would be rare to find multiple identical characters in the same small battle-area. Top Table Tau I have no idea what this build means. Mech guard is definitely themed and fluffy, and also not that good anymore.

No you're right, it would be 4 vendetta squadrons if you allied that way. But that isn't a flaw with the Armored Battlegroup list, so much as it is a flaw with guard. Did you know that at 2k+ points, a normal guard army can run six vendettas? I guess you never play that much.

40k is a company level game. Any time I hear someone suggesting that much beyond spam and one or two wrinkles is "thematic" is the time I start to tune it out. Theme is far more about modeling, paint jobs, customization, conversion, and the character you've literally built into your list IMO, than the models you've taken. If a guy brings one of everything and a variety of troops, but has 0 explanation and crappy paint, I don't consider him thematic at all. If a guy brings a super spam hyper competitive list, but every model is lovingly converted and they're all hyper tuned to a gorgeous and clear theme, with accompanying documents telling the story of his list and how it comes about ... THAT's quite thematic. Trying to claim an objective, black and white metric for what constitutes "thematic" seems the first step on the road to damnation within a fictional 41st millennium space aliens and super soldiers game environment. Peoples' armies generally are as thematic as they put the energy into making them appear, coupled with the raw and totally subjective opinion of the person who witnesses / plays against it (i.e., ref above in this paragraph where my opinion of what constitues thematic at the game's 2k scope is fairly different from yours).

Fully agree with this, theme has little to do with army build really. A Cron Air army converted up to look like Cylon Raiders and Cylons from Battlestar Gallactica is great for Theme.

Breng77 wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So then Cron Air is a Badass fluff and theme list, and FMC spam, and Top Table Tau, Mech Guard. Really?

Also read carefully I said IG with allied ABG. or does that alliance only work one way (something I don't know because there is no ally chart including all the armies lists in FW that is easy to access.) But I assumed that it like any other alliance is reflexive. SO IG take 3 vendettas, and ABG take 1.

Cron Air is so-so - I can see it as an invading army, maybe, but it's not usually how the necrons fight, so imo not as themed as SM+blobguard+arty.
FMC Spam is a no - usually it means bringing lots of the same Chaos HQ or Tyranid HQ, which with those two armies it would be rare to find multiple identical characters in the same small battle-area. Top Table Tau I have no idea what this build means. Mech guard is definitely themed and fluffy, and also not that good anymore.

No you're right, it would be 4 vendetta squadrons if you allied that way. But that isn't a flaw with the Armored Battlegroup list, so much as it is a flaw with guard. Did you know that at 2k+ points, a normal guard army can run six vendettas? I guess you never play that much.

40k is a company level game. Any time I hear someone suggesting that much beyond spam and one or two wrinkles is "thematic" is the time I start to tune it out. Theme is far more about modeling, paint jobs, customization, conversion, and the character you've literally built into your list IMO, than the models you've taken. If a guy brings one of everything and a variety of troops, but has 0 explanation and crappy paint, I don't consider him thematic at all. If a guy brings a super spam hyper competitive list, but every model is lovingly converted and they're all hyper tuned to a gorgeous and clear theme, with accompanying documents telling the story of his list and how it comes about ... THAT's quite thematic. Trying to claim an objective, black and white metric for what constitutes "thematic" seems the first step on the road to damnation within a fictional 41st millennium space aliens and super soldiers game environment. Peoples' armies generally are as thematic as they put the energy into making them appear, coupled with the raw and totally subjective opinion of the person who witnesses / plays against it (i.e., ref above in this paragraph where my opinion of what constitues thematic at the game's 2k scope is fairly different from yours).

Fully agree with this, theme has little to do with army build really. A Cron Air army converted up to look like Cylon Raiders and Cylons from Battlestar Gallactica is great for Theme.

See for me theme incorporates an element of fluff, and while I would get a kick out of a Cron Air = Cylon army, I would ultimately dismiss it as unfluffy (though I would by no means refuse to play it or even dislike the person who built the army) because there are no cylons in 40k! Lol.

And hence we get the "theme=subjective" problem.

MVBrandt wrote:

At the event itself, the outlook and emphasis is probably far different than the internet punditocracy pays a lot of attention to; for better or worse, power building and competitive lists and who the best general is are things that the internet at large pays more attention to, and as Steve points out ... I can't really control that (especially since I inappropriately over-emphasized competitiveness in year 1). But when I get up there and announce the winner of the event with our final award and largest recognition, you can bet it's not the 8-0 guy who won Bracket 1.

That's the point, though. It's not you, or Hank, or any of the other TOs who push the competitiveness schtick, it is the punditry, as you call them. And to them, Tony is THE winner, period. Likewise, at Adepticon, someone won Best Overall on Thursday. I could look it up, but that's not the point. The point is that this person was hardly mentioned on the internet, while Nick "won" the Adepticon championship because he came out of the Friday invitational event undefeated.

So, there's clearly some sort of bias towards the competitive-over-all mindset on the internet. Someone has to wave the banner for the other side. It's not that I view the world as black or white, it's that white currently has a lot more voices, so I'm being loudly black.

 Redbeard wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

At the event itself, the outlook and emphasis is probably far different than the internet punditocracy pays a lot of attention to; for better or worse, power building and competitive lists and who the best general is are things that the internet at large pays more attention to, and as Steve points out ... I can't really control that (especially since I inappropriately over-emphasized competitiveness in year 1). But when I get up there and announce the winner of the event with our final award and largest recognition, you can bet it's not the 8-0 guy who won Bracket 1.

That's the point, though. It's not you, or Hank, or any of the other TOs who push the competitiveness schtick, it is the punditry, as you call them. And to them, Tony is THE winner, period. Likewise, at Adepticon, someone won Best Overall on Thursday. I could look it up, but that's not the point. The point is that this person was hardly mentioned on the internet, while Nick "won" the Adepticon championship because he came out of the Friday invitational event undefeated.

So, there's clearly some sort of bias towards the competitive-over-all mindset on the internet. Someone has to wave the banner for the other side. It's not that I view the world as black or white, it's that white currently has a lot more voices, so I'm being loudly black.

You aren't going to change the internet punditocracy. They just aren't going to talk about your theme events (and they have their own issues, starting with applying a social stigma to people who don't play the game "your" way).

That said, there's a dramatic difference in format and aftermath even between the two events you're quoting. And, YOU'RE part of the very problem you're identifying here - Best Overall was determined over just as many rounds as Best General, and received higher and broader and more prize-supported and more laudatory acclaim at the event itself. Why are you, yourself, fixating on the Best General as if all the other awards don't exist? Moreover, why are you fixating on only one of 16 Best Generals?


There are also better ways to do it than attacking the side you feel is too well represented. I.E., in the Narrative, we created our own background universe, and those who place both low and high in it earn permanent spots in the lore of that background universe. Lo and behold, over triple the sign-up and interest immediately following, to the point that the event is looking to be bigger than many, many GT's out there. IMO we all suit each other better if we take an inclusive, positive approach ... and not one hellbent on (for whatever reason, flag waving or otherwise) sticking the "other" guy's face in the mud.



PS - I hope it's not TOO droll that I talk about NOVA as my bedrock for the points I make and the outlook I take. It's my 40k "primary detachment" if you will ... I translate my moderating/maturing/changing views on the game and the many diverse people who play it through the event, and so it is a useful way for me to help reinforce (to myself, and to the reading audience) the depth to which I believe and pursue the points I'm trying to make. It's not just words to moderate or pull the high ground out of an e-argument.

If the "other side" is some events / elements of events not as focused on competitiveness, a lot of us arguing are on the same side, Redbeard

I disagree with the idea that it's the players that have to "tone things down". It's not our responsibility, it's GW's. We don't need to gimp ourselves and deliberately bring weak lists, they need to fix their fething game.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I disagree with the idea that it's the players that have to "tone things down". It's not our responsibility, it's GW's. We don't need to gimp ourselves and deliberately bring weak lists, they need to fix their fething game.

I think they broke the game in an effort to make the competitive players tone it down, if I understand their "this game isn't meant to be competitive" message correctly.

I think NOVA does a FANTASTIC job including the entire spectrum of players and making them happy for the most part. Even if you don't do well, you can always win your bracket and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, winning something at all makes you feel good. I've played a wide variety of players at that event ranging from GT winners to casual guys who just wanted to drink some beer and play against different opponents and armies. I have not had a single "bad" or unenjoyable game, regardless of the "type" of player I was up against. Between the different events (narrative, invitational, open) and the entertainment, there are plenty of reasons to go that don't just constitute "I have to win it all!" sorts of attitudes.

I don't think the dichotomy between competitive minded folks and more casual or themed players is as big as some folks make it out to be. As long as both players have a good attitude, you can enjoy the game regardless of the outcome. I've gotten my arse handed to me at events and as long as you stay friendly and have it in your head that you are there to enjoy yourself, you'll do exactly that.

It's a game and most of the folks I've played, regardless of their competitive spirit, can usually remember that.

Nice post, LValx! A good reminder for me, too as it's sometimes easy to lose the forest for the trees in these discussions.

 RiTides wrote:
Redbeard, I'm all for more themed-emphasis events. Limited FW allowance (such as saying you can take as many FW units as you want, but they're all 0-1) is a great way of encouraging that. All-out FW allowance, I think, does not cater to making that kind of event as much, for exactly the reasons you point out- the blogosphere telling people what best unit to spam, and all the theme players staying home because of the competitive vibe.

It sounds lie the event you went to is exactly the kind of compromise a lot of us in this thread are seeking / hoping for

Are we still speaking about single models here? What about full blown armies? For example my Siege regiment list is going to have 9 Heavy Artillery carriages (3x Earthshakers, 3x Medusa Siege Guns and 3x Medusa Siege guns with bastion breacher shells), 3-4x Thudd Guns, 3-4x Heavy Mortar and a squad of Engineers with a Hades Breaching Drill.

All of which are rather good, some would say broken, but that fits the fluff of my army to an f.

Add Grenadiers as troops and a platoon or two when the Siege list gets updated a CSS, and you're golden.