Switch Theme:

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar




USA

 bossfearless wrote:
Well, I think the problem lies in the fact that only the people who have paid for the dex (or pirated it, which I am not suggesting), can have access to it. This creates a restricted knowledge base, not unlike the Ad Mech's tech monopoly. With a physical book, it often sits up on the store shelves, allowing newer players to peruse it a bit, or the store will often have their own spare copy for player reference.

An electronic-only book causes a lot of problems when it comes to fact-checking and rules-lawyering, which become a big deal in tournament play. There was a CAD comic way back in the day about this, and it was hilarious, FYI. You can basically make whatever absurd claim you want about your "online-only expansion relic that must not be in your edition of the book because you don't get the auto-updates, so you don't get to second-guess me and no I just happen to have left my ipad at home so you can't directly check it until after the tournament." There are very few tournaments outside of GTs or other big events that will force a player to bring his codex or face disqualification. A good TO will have printouts of the latest FAQs and the wargear pages and such for the expansions, but at the rate GW is going, that is going to be an absurdly large stack of papers very soon.

TL;DR the electronic format isn't the devil, but it provides an opportunity for jerks to exploit the restricted nature of the information, and just plain cheat.

How is any of that different from a physical copy of a given codex? Only people that have paid for it or pirated a pdf have access to it. If someone has a copy that is exactly like a person having their tablet or e-reader available to look at the codex in the event of a rules dispute. If someone makes an absurd claim about a piece of wargear and doesn't have a copy (physical or electronic) available to fact check, the situation is the same.

Check out my list building app for 40K and Fantasy:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/576793.page 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

@Hulk

Well said, dude. That pretty much sums it up for me, too. I would honestly want to go one step further and limit the dumb as Tau Commander a bit but then, that is a perfect example of the slippery slope that this line of thinking can lead down.

Caution and careful consideration are required.

I just want a fun game. A challenging, intense, competitive game. Armies that revolve around units that can't be hurt and units that can't miss, ignore cover, reroll wounds/armor pens are neither challenging nor are they fun. They are the opposite of both.

They reduce variability to the point of approaching certainty in doing something which takes any sense of skill out of the game and thus, fun.

@Rebeard

You said it. Beware unintended consequences.

I was thinking about this last night, about Darth's suggestion for objective farming. I thought, hey, this might work but then, it can screw 'normal' armies, too.

And, armies like Seerstar have Jetbikes as troops and it is conceivable that they (or an army with like units) could just zip onto every objective turn 1, rack up the points and be so far ahead they can't lose. The penalty mission turns into a book to them. Oops.

   
Made in us
Poxed Plague Monk




 Reecius wrote:
@Hulk

Well said, dude. That pretty much sums it up for me, too. I would honestly want to go one step further and limit the dumb as Tau Commander a bit but then, that is a perfect example of the slippery slope that this line of thinking can lead down.

Caution and careful consideration are required.

I just want a fun game. A challenging, intense, competitive game. Armies that revolve around units that can't be hurt and units that can't miss, ignore cover, reroll wounds/armor pens are neither challenging nor are they fun. They are the opposite of both.

They reduce variability to the point of approaching certainty in doing something which takes any sense of skill out of the game and thus, fun.

.


That is why I never understand why 40k guys are so opposed to comp. In fantasy we figured out pretty fast some of the rules/spells were total bs and made the game not fun. So we changed them. As time went on, we saw the affects of this change and made some other smaller changes to balance it properly. As long as you stay on top of it and keep moving in the right direction the game gets better and better.

Most game makers these days patch their gak. GW basically does not. So the community can take that job upon itself. Or get stuck with a silly game that gets sillier and sillier.
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

@KeithB

Because we just came off an edition that up until the end (Damn you Grey Knights!), was really balanced and during that 5-6 year span, the popular opinion shifted away from comp. Comp can and does bring an entire set of different problems with it.

It may have to come back, as much as I really dislike it, personally. There's just no objective way to implement it which is what galls a lot of us.

We'll see.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 21:44:14


   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

It's certainly going to be an interesting 2014. With many of the very wild supplements looking to be treated by GW as no different than the sub-codex books apparently (as opposed to the "forgotten as soon as its released" Expansions of yesteryear), I'm curious to see how much get's universally banned by tournaments (and thus usually pickup play as well since they unfortunately often go hand in hand), and how much enters general use. A lot of this doesn't seem managable for many events, I wouldn't want to TO something where a player could show up with 4 different FoC's, stuff from 3 different armies and superheavies and e-books that get regular updates (at least for their initial release period), but it should be interesting indeed to see where it all ends up

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/04 21:51:48


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



south florida

Hey heres an idea, why dont we go back to battle points like at wargamescon.

1. If you lose a game you can climb back up and hope someone else slowed down that deathstar(whatever flaver).

2. Usually deathstars dont always get all the points or objectives so they will be getting small wins, which controls them without changing the rules or tweeking things.

3. Yes i know all you Win/Lose fanatics are going to start screeming how the best player dosnt win or there was a submarine.

4. Who has been to a big W/L event , tell me how much fun it was to lose a game due to horrible match up/ dice/ some rule you had no idea about. wow lost first or secound game might as well go play in the casino. Awesome flew across country for a single elimination event, so much fun.

5. That is why on day two you are lucky to have only a third of the people drop out, (awesome i won TIN FOIL BRACKET).

6. look at the the top 15 for wargamescon the last three years, about 7 or 8 names are there every year. so the average guy has zero chance. at least with battle points he could make top 10 or 20 or believe he could sneak in if the 5 tables in front of him tie.

But what do i know.

New Official WC forums http://www.40kwreckingcrew.aceboard.com

 
   
Made in us
Wicked Canoptek Wraith





Agree totally with previous post. I prefer going to a tournament where a whole bunch of people have a decent chance of winning going into the final round, rather than suffer an unfortunate loss in a W/L event and know that you can't win the whole thing. The best general prize still exists for the guy with the most wins.

There has been a shift recently to events that focus on W/L which exacerbates the problem of deathstar builds. If we start running these again I think we'll see a range of armies doing well and winning.

Personally, best overall should be the main prize and best general, best sporting and best painting should all be slightly lower tier awards.

Three time holder of Thermofax

Really the tallest guy in a Cold Steel Mercs T-Shirt 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 The Everliving wrote:
Agree totally with previous post. I prefer going to a tournament where a whole bunch of people have a decent chance of winning going into the final round, rather than suffer an unfortunate loss in a W/L event and know that you can't win the whole thing. The best general prize still exists for the guy with the most wins.

There has been a shift recently to events that focus on W/L which exacerbates the problem of deathstar builds. If we start running these again I think we'll see a range of armies doing well and winning.

Personally, best overall should be the main prize and best general, best sporting and best painting should all be slightly lower tier awards.


Some of it is community oriented, unfortunately. Best Overall (only fifty percent competitive) is, for instance, the largest and most important award in the NOVA format. You wouldn't know it by the non NOVA coverage, however. We announce it last, call it our overall winner, give it the best prizes, sort our final standings by that metric, etc, but that only gets you so far. I *think* that's the way it is for most of the other W/L or W/L/D events and formats out there. They sort by and award highest cred and prize by Overall (which is bracket independent), while the internets thereafter glorifies by W/L // Generalship only.

I can't speak for every event, but events in general are responsible for accomplishing these emphases, regardless of wl, wld, bp, etc. Work in Progress, natch.

As an aside, I don't know that you're going to see people less eager to bring beat-face lists by awarding them higher value based upon how badly they beat people, and/or by still retaining a substantial % of their win based upon that. I DO think emphasizing Overall far more than Generalship (no matter the metric by which you determine the latter) is critical for the continued development of the hobby in the face of a very rapidly-changing game ... and also for the sake of helping improve the quality of the armies people bring (when people think generalship is all that matters, it disincentivizes the artistic quantity of energy they put into army preparation).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/05 01:56:31


 
   
Made in us
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator





There is a reason why I or some others on occasion get bent out of shape over banning units or armies.

Don’t do it to some other army just because at this point in time that army or combination can be used to advantage.

It is not worth it in the end…

Change your prize distribution or index a score modifier based on an index derived from the top scoring armies in tournaments reporting to that website that tracks army scoring. Use a two week distribution or even monthly.

Golf scores are handicapped, why not winning army combinations? Again, only for prize distribution, not placement.

Or think of something else…

Be creative in this but try to not touch actual army abilities or anything else allowed under the current rules…

Call it the CI index or something else more appropriate...

Just my 2 cents...

If I was vain I would list stuff to make me sound good here. I decline. It's just a game after all.

House Rule -A common use of the term is to signify a deviation of game play from the official rules.

Do you allow Forgeworld 40k approved models and armies? 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

 The Everliving wrote:
Agree totally with previous post. I prefer going to a tournament where a whole bunch of people have a decent chance of winning going into the final round, rather than suffer an unfortunate loss in a W/L event and know that you can't win the whole thing. The best general prize still exists for the guy with the most wins.

There has been a shift recently to events that focus on W/L which exacerbates the problem of deathstar builds. If we start running these again I think we'll see a range of armies doing well and winning.

Personally, best overall should be the main prize and best general, best sporting and best painting should all be slightly lower tier awards.


I find this to largely be untrue. In battle points people "feel" like they can fight there way back into a tournament in theory (which is maybe one of the biggest benefits) but if you play a good player and neither of you gets that many points, you often are out. It incentivizes you to bring power lists to max out points and you can have situations where you have someone pull so far ahead, playing any more games becomes irrelevant. Pajama Pants at WargamesCon two years ago, was so far ahead he lost the last game to Ben, but still won. I was undefeated but dropped out as I mathematically couldn't catch Alan even if I maxed out every game.

Not saying it is terrible at all, and W/L/D has it's short comings too, but I strongly oppose BP tournaments in general. Others are, obviously, free to run their events how they choose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to be fair, I also had a raging hang over at WargamesCon day two, which is a big part of the reason i dropped out! hahaha

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 02:14:47


   
Made in us
Wicked Canoptek Wraith





I find this to largely be untrue. In battle points people "feel" like they can fight there way back into a tournament in theory (which is maybe one of the biggest benefits) but if you play a good player and neither of you gets that many points, you often are out. It incentivizes you to bring power lists to max out points and you can have situations where you have someone pull so far ahead, playing any more games becomes irrelevant. Pajama Pants at WargamesCon two years ago, was so far ahead he lost the last game to Ben, but still won. I was undefeated but dropped out as I mathematically couldn't catch Alan even if I maxed out every game.


We'll agree to disagree then. The objective statement in my post (more tournaments going W/L) certainly is true. The subjective stuff is my opinion is just that, an opinion.

You've used an example (Alan winning because he was so far ahead) that certainly can happen in events but doesn't happen all_the_time, which is exactly what happens in a W/L environment. Don't believe me? Look at dropout rates during the second day of W/L events and compare them to dropout rates of battle point tournaments. Of the three large W / L events I've been to recently (Nova, BFS and 11th Co) the hall on day 2 had decidedly fewer people than day 1 as people lost their early bracket games, realized they had ZERO chance of winning that bracket and so dropped out.

I get that you don't like battle point events. I also get that those of us who come to play at your events play by your rules and that we'll be playing in a W/L environment. This thread isn't about what type of tournament is better than another, its about what (if anything) can be done to try and level the playing field when it comes to armies being played at tournaments and whether this is a good idea or not.

Three time holder of Thermofax

Really the tallest guy in a Cold Steel Mercs T-Shirt 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

@Alex

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. And I still have fun at BP events, it's just not my preference.

ANd our events actually have a super low dropout rate day two (I think because of our 'best of' awards but is is probably due to a lot of reasons, not just the W/L/D format).

But you are right, that is not what this thread is about.

I am going to poll the LVO attendees in the very near future and ask them how they want to handle some of these issues and I will share the results here.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 02:44:59


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Maryland

 Reecius wrote:
I am going to poll the LVO attendees in the very near future and ask them how they want to handle some of these issues and I will share the results here.


This should definitely give us some interesting data, please share it when you get some numbers.

It may be worth discussing with the other main TO's to get one streamlined poll put together and then everyone can send it to their newsletter groups etc, just to get even more input from the tournament community at large.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 02:58:14


5000 points (Blue rods are better than green!)
5000 points (Black Legion & Pre-heresy Sons of Horus) 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Longtime Dakkanaut







I gotta agree with Marc. Straight W/L events pretty much encourage dropping as soon as you're no longer in contention. At NOVA, I was in the 2nd bracket, after 4, lost my first game, and pretty much had nothing to do for the rest of the weekend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On another note, this thread does seem to be old timers reunion week or something...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 02:59:43


"I was not making fun of you personally - I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers

Don't settle for the pewter horde! Visit http://www.bkarmypainting.com and find out how you can have a well-painted army quickly at a reasonable price. 
   
Made in us
Wicked Canoptek Wraith





On another note, this thread does seem to be old timers reunion week or something...


True, I've not posted this much in ages!

@Reece, looking forward to taking part in that poll. I'm curious, will you use a straight majority to influence any change to the rules or will you require a 2/3rds vote and will there be a quorum of responses you need in order to implement anything (such as at leas 128 people must reply for the vote to mean anything...)?

Three time holder of Thermofax

Really the tallest guy in a Cold Steel Mercs T-Shirt 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

@Reece

While the buff commander is brutal he doesn't make your army irrelevant. The 2++ rerollable does. It's why it's the only change I'd be in favor of. And this is a guy who raged along beside you against comp in 5th. You said it well here, 5th was extremely balanced. 6th is as well if you just remove the 2++ rerollable (some might not agree with me and that's fine, it's the way I see it).

Also the talk of shifting BB's to AoC's is a way, way harsher penalty and doesn't affect things like Screamerstar. I'd argue it makes it stronger. And it doesn't hurt Eldar as much either if you really think about it. And it does negatively affect a lot of builds that are out there. And none that I'm currently aware of that make it unfun to play against.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 04:17:54


Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

@Morgendoner

Yeah, hopefully it helps! Assuming everyone is up to date on what's going on, haha.

And all the TOs are talking "behind the scenes" if you will. Everyone agrees we need to do something, but what that is (even if just to say we do nothing) is up in the air at this point.

@Bill

Haha, yes, this is a bit of a throwback! Nice to see the old hands speaking up.

@Alex

We usually go with majority as in the end, the attendees are who play in the event. We want to give everyone what they want (within reason).

If it is super close and we feel strongly on it, we may make an executive decision on it.

I will just post the results straight up for everyone to see and we can discuss it.

@Brad

Yeah, perhaps the Tau Commander is my personal bias. It annoys the living hell out of me that a unit can eliminate to many variables.

But, kill their troops, that is the trick with Taudar, typically.

A game wide, modification to the one stupid thing that hurts everyone may be a good idea. It is equally applied, changes things the least and (hopefully) is all that we need to make things more enjoyable again?

We'll see!

I just don't want to play in an edition of needing 2+ rerolls to compete. That is a fin killer, IMO.

   
Made in us
Pauper with Promise




PA

As a thought,

1) Would un-nerfing psychic hoods (back to table wide or even 24" range) to allow a chance to negate the powers that allow screamer/jetseer make sense? Or better yet, allow an army wide deny the witch roll against all powers (so that those without access to hoods could even do it)? Why wouldn't the raw power of a good Waaagghhh disrupt a delicate eldar casting? Make it a 6 unless you have a higher level or leadership psyker then the caster on the table in which case its a 5 -6, never better?

2) Give every player at a tourney a once a game token that can be used to force their opponent to auto fail one die roll. Would hit everyone equally, require good tactics to use well, but if used to stop a fortune or divination 4+ power going off, would allow someone a chance to hammer the star one time. Would it impact other armies worse or the same?

3) Still allow allies, but as some suggested, make everyone allies of convienance, so no joining eldar into tua units, or dark eldar to eldar to stop some bad combinations. No casting powers on units outside your own codex. It impacts other lists as well but nothing game breaking and is equal across most of the board. Heck it would allow more creativity with guard and nids fnally being a "cult" force.

Most will still find something else to use thats OP, but hey that is what top generals do, but deal with it when and only if it seems truly OP to the point of taking enjoyment out of the game.

A combination of any two of these three would not require massive rules changes, special scenarios, would not invalidate the lists that cause grief, but could make it a winnable fight. My preferences would lean towards 1 and 3. Thoughts?

 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





I almost have to laugh at the Battle Points as a fix. That fix IMO gives into the worst attitude in all of Gaming. "If I can't win I might as well go home" This I think is a major problem in today's environment in general. This thought that battlepoints fixes it is also a huge farce for most people. If I get blanked game one the idea that I am going to be able to come back and win the whole event is frequently laughable at best (not that it never happens but it almost never does because many other people max out each game.). Furthermore it essentially extends the "I cannot win" one game further...if I lose 2 games I might as well quit because I'm out of it....so how would this really help drop outs?

My point is while I'm not opposed to battlepoints (I use them for most events I run because having enough rounds for win loss is typically not practical.) But I almost always say that you cannot jump someone with a better record (you can still place highly but usually not win) because the scenario, where I beat you, play a harder schedule because of it and you jump me for first place when I never lose is a silly one. (That is at smaller RTTs)

At my GT it is Undefeated for Best General
Battle Points for Best Overall - who is announced last and gets the largest prize.

This year since it is likely my attendance (at least I hope) will be large enough that my rounds won't have a single undefeated- General will go to Undefeated with Highest Battlepoints.

Like Mike Said if the Community decides not to acknowledge the Best Overall Prize that is something else entirely.

Battle points just moves the bar for what the best armies are (Daemons drop down, Tau and Eldar become more powerful because they table people more easily).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daytona wrote:
As a thought,

1) Would un-nerfing psychic hoods (back to table wide or even 24" range) to allow a chance to negate the powers that allow screamer/jetseer make sense? Or better yet, allow an army wide deny the witch roll against all powers (so that those without access to hoods could even do it)? Why wouldn't the raw power of a good Waaagghhh disrupt a delicate eldar casting? Make it a 6 unless you have a higher level or leadership psyker then the caster on the table in which case its a 5 -6, never better?

2) Give every player at a tourney a once a game token that can be used to force their opponent to auto fail one die roll. Would hit everyone equally, require good tactics to use well, but if used to stop a fortune or divination 4+ power going off, would allow someone a chance to hammer the star one time. Would it impact other armies worse or the same?

3) Still allow allies, but as some suggested, make everyone allies of convienance, so no joining eldar into tua units, or dark eldar to eldar to stop some bad combinations. No casting powers on units outside your own codex. It impacts other lists as well but nothing game breaking and is equal across most of the board. Heck it would allow more creativity with guard and nids fnally being a "cult" force.

Most will still find something else to use thats OP, but hey that is what top generals do, but deal with it when and only if it seems truly OP to the point of taking enjoyment out of the game.

A combination of any two of these three would not require massive rules changes, special scenarios, would not invalidate the lists that cause grief, but could make it a winnable fight. My preferences would lean towards 1 and 3. Thoughts?



1.) is a massive change that hurts any build with psykers not just the deathstars...and effects those armies a ton, whereas non-psychic armies get nothing but buffed (Tau and Necrons are hardly weak so this does nothing but buff them)

2.) All players are not effected equally. Screamer star flat out becomes useless, I move out with my 2++ get into the open you force the grim to fail and I die...Seer Council is fine if I roll 2 fortunes, or just tank a turn with my regular 2+ save, especially if I can get into combat before you force me to fail.

3.)Stops lots of "harmless" combos as well...not horrible, but not great either.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 10:52:34


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Parma, OH

Doing something to limit Psyker Powers is really the issue at hand. Your 2+ Rerollable units are only possible because of Psykers. What other combination of allies/units is out there that is wrecking everything? The Buffmander is clearly powerful but he isn't having anywhere near the same effect as your Seer and Seeker stars.

The game needs the ability to more reliably Deny the Witch on Blessings.
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





I'm ok with that on a certain level , but at the same time The Buffmander is very powerful and has IMO near the same effect in many scenarios as 2+ re-rollables do on the fun level of a game, unless terrain is sufficient (which it is often not).

Would having a 6+ deny really do much to these units other than throw in a bit more random chance that they would lose?

That is how it works now largely. Did he fail a key roll yup...the unit dies...nope...it lives....that is what makes it dumb and unfun. I think fixing Deny the witch is a worse fix than just fixing the 2+ re-roll issue.
   
Made in us
Wicked Canoptek Wraith





Yeah, perhaps the Tau Commander is my personal bias. It annoys the living hell out of me that a unit can eliminate to many variables.


Bill mentioned it as well, I find the Swiss Army Commander the most aggravating model in the game.

Three time holder of Thermofax

Really the tallest guy in a Cold Steel Mercs T-Shirt 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Longtime Dakkanaut







 The Everliving wrote:
Yeah, perhaps the Tau Commander is my personal bias. It annoys the living hell out of me that a unit can eliminate to many variables.


Bill mentioned it as well, I find the Swiss Army Commander the most aggravating model in the game.


To be specific, I find the proliferation and ease of acquiring the ability to reliably ignore cover to be the annoying as heck, more so than the jetseer council. The Swiss Army Commander is just the most glaring example of this. But my army has access to easily nerfing their hit and run and 2++ rerollable, so that affects my thinking.

"I was not making fun of you personally - I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers

Don't settle for the pewter horde! Visit http://www.bkarmypainting.com and find out how you can have a well-painted army quickly at a reasonable price. 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





NO I agree with you. I feel fairly strongly that the mass amount of Ignores Cover torrent of fire, is part what brings people to playing the 2+ re-roll saves armies.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Thimn wrote:
Doing something to limit Psyker Powers is really the issue at hand. Your 2+ Rerollable units are only possible because of Psykers. What other combination of allies/units is out there that is wrecking everything? The Buffmander is clearly powerful but he isn't having anywhere near the same effect as your Seer and Seeker stars.

The game needs the ability to more reliably Deny the Witch on Blessings.



Something that has been delibratly taken out by GW. No more runes of warding 3d6 tests, rumours point to no 3d6 for SITW and no psyhic hood denies.

40kGlobal AOA member, regular of Overlords podcast club and 4tk gaming store. Blogger @ http://sanguinesons.blogspot.co.uk/
06/2013: 1st at War of the Roses ETC warm up.
08/213: 3rd place double teams at 4tk
09/2013: 7th place, best daemon and non eldar/tau army at Northern Warlords GT
10/2013: 3rd/4th at Battlefield Birmingham
11/2013: 5th at GT heat 3
11/2013: 5th COG 2k at 4tk
01/2014: 34th at Caledonian
03/2014: 3rd GT Final 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

Well, I am not alone on the Buffmander, then.

As for the 2+ reroll, there are a lot of ways to get it without psychic powers.

Fateweaver and the Grimoire
Mantle of the Laughing God
2+ and Wolf Standard
MoT and any 2+ save
etc.

It is dumb, plain and simple (well, plain and simple to me).

I am going to send out the LVO questionnaire this Friday, and let it run through Monday, posting results Tuesday.

With the formations coming out, it will be possible (theoretically, not via points) to have like, 6 different books in the same list! haha, that can be fun but holy crap that gets to be insane at some point.

I would love to use my Super Heavies more often, but in a tournament? The Khornemower can get 10 strength D attacks and he moves 12"!

My Revenant can fire 4 Str D pie plates a turn and moves 36" haha, that is cool but again, in a tournament?

These are questions we need to think about. We need to take responsibility for shaping the game we want to play.

   
Made in us
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

 Reecius wrote:
We need to take responsibility for shaping the game we want to play.

I agree with this a lot. Despite language that there was no other way to go, in 5th edition the primary push to "no comp" was because that's the game most people wanted to play at the time (since there was a rather balanced ruleset in place), not because there was no other alternative.

But things are very different now. Honestly, if this keeps up I'll just go to comped events and let folks have all their formations, escalation, and whatever other bizarro world GW wants to put out as a cash grab. Formations that exactly match the GW Christmas bundles? Heh.

To hear even people like Reecius and MVBrandt (TOs who in my mind champion the idea of competitive play) talking of resurrecting some form of comp shows just how bad things are about to get. I think folks have to recognize that events play a very large role in "shaping the game we want to play" as Reecius aptly puts it. I like the idea of "least amount of disturbance possible", but the fact is that GW is forcing TO's hands on this. GW doesn't run events, and are putting out rules that make the running of said events a nightmare. At some point people are going to have to counteract that... and it seems that point may be soon.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/12/05 17:57:45


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 RiTides wrote:
 Reecius wrote:
We need to take responsibility for shaping the game we want to play.

I agree with this a lot. Despite language that there was no other way to go, in 5th edition the primary push to "no comp" was because that's the game most people wanted to play at the time (since there was a rather balanced ruleset in place), not because there was no other alternative.

But things are very different now. Honestly, if this keeps up I'll just go to comped events and let folks have all their formations, escalation, and whatever other bizarro world GW wants to put out as a cash grab. Formations that exactly match the GW Christmas bundles? Heh.

To hear even people like Reecius and MVBrandt (TOs who in my mind champion the idea of competitive play) talking of resurrecting some form of comp shows just how bad things are about to get. I think folks have to recognize that events play a very large role in "shaping the game we want to play" as Reecius aptly puts it. I like the idea of "least amount of disturbance possible", but the fact is that GW is forcing TO's hands on this. GW doesn't run events, and are putting out rules that make the running of said events a nightmare. At some point people are going to have to counteract that... and it seems that point may be soon.



This is a reasonable and accurate post. We aren't necessarily there, I don't think we are yet, but we may get there. It's possible to get there. Most can agree it's feasible that there would be a point where the unfettered game would be unplayable at a tournament level. If mission design and terrain and other factors can't help manage the situation, there are other courses you can take. I'm not personally there yet, but at least we're being responsible in paying attention, listening to what our constituents are telling us, and being prepared in advance if we MUST make adjustments.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

I think it's encouraging that people are aware of the problems, and how those problems are both similar to prior editions yet different, either in kind or in degree.

Ultimately, tournaments thrive on the silent majority of gamers that aren't building new top tier armies, aren't expecting to win, and are looking to have good, challenging games. What they want will shape the tournament scene, one way or the other.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Polonius wrote:
I think it's encouraging that people are aware of the problems, and how those problems are both similar to prior editions yet different, either in kind or in degree.

Ultimately, tournaments thrive on the silent majority of gamers that aren't building new top tier armies, aren't expecting to win, and are looking to have good, challenging games. What they want will shape the tournament scene, one way or the other.


This!

It's when I hear these average gamers going "Mike are you going to do anything about those jetbike council thingies with the 2+ re-rollables???" that I start to perk up more, and that noise has been filtering up. I don't really care if some internet tough guy thinks he can take it down and it's no different from anything in the past. That opinion is almost entirely meaningless, unless it's reflected in the feelings of the majority of those who'll pay their good money to keep us from losing thousands and failing to be able to continue to run events.
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament and Local Gaming Discussion
Go to: