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'd love to see a nerf to Eldar and Tau - let them have a challenge too .

 jy2 wrote:

slaede wrote:
Would you please stop giving other players the ability to take away options from me? Last year I lost access to Be'lakor because you lumped everything in and banned dataslates because everybody hated the Tau formation. A year later, you're going to let players vote to nerf him.

If you want to change the rules, change the rules, and do it before I buy the sodding ticket to your event so I know what I'm getting into. I just took the poll and was expecting more than one question. Why are we only voting on one thing? Where was the Adamantine Lance question? How about the Serpent Shield question? How about the Warp Spider question? The Thunderwolf Cavalry question? If you let barrage weapons hit invis units, my Flesh Hounds will be mostly wiped out in a single turn of shooting from Wyverns. Can I vote to nerf Wyverns?

Didn't you win Best Daemon last year despite playing without Be'lakor? Well, if you can do that...and if Alex Fennell can win the tournament despite the 2+/4+ re-rollable nerf....then consider this a true challenge to your generalship. Even with the nerf to Invisibility, it's still a very good power.

BTW, if it's any consolation, I voted No to the nerf even though I won't be running Invisibility.

I was third best Daemons behind Adrien Jeanniard and Goatboy and I finished 15th. If Be'lakor had been legal, I would have played flying circus, which would have been stronger than what I brought because invisible Tzeentch DP grimoire bearer and 2+ rerollable Fateweaver was on par with Seer Council in those days. Doesn't guarantee I would have done better.

I am annoyed because the Ad Lance player can vote to be able to drop two battle cannons on my invisible Flesh Hounds, then charge in and stomp on them. If I want to send in invisible Be'lakor to kill one, he gets hit on 5's instead of 6's which is huge. The Daemon army already struggles to kill even a single Knight since it has to get in close and get stomped on, then take an explosion to the face. This is swinging the needle even farther in their favor, and for no reason because invis is not tearing up the tournament scene.

It's really unfair and to be honest I don't care what some people in UK do - especially since I don't play there . It really shows prejudice.

I believe Slaede was top demon player at the BAO where he came in 26th, and defending champ Lizz did even worse.

That shows you how gimped demons are in the current meta.

It is Reecus's event and he thinks invisibility is over powered while Ad Lance is fine.

For the vote since it was closed were any other things voted on? Like Ad Lance? Just curious

Nope just Insta Gizz. My prediction is Eldar will win it again this year .

 Hulksmash wrote:
For the vote since it was closed were any other things voted on? Like Ad Lance? Just curious

The only question was choose one option:

Do you want to nerf invisibility
Invisibility is fine
I don't care

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Nope just Insta Gizz. My prediction is Eldar will win it again this year .

Well, your prediction is wrong because I won't be running Eldar.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

slaede wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

slaede wrote:
Would you please stop giving other players the ability to take away options from me? Last year I lost access to Be'lakor because you lumped everything in and banned dataslates because everybody hated the Tau formation. A year later, you're going to let players vote to nerf him.

If you want to change the rules, change the rules, and do it before I buy the sodding ticket to your event so I know what I'm getting into. I just took the poll and was expecting more than one question. Why are we only voting on one thing? Where was the Adamantine Lance question? How about the Serpent Shield question? How about the Warp Spider question? The Thunderwolf Cavalry question? If you let barrage weapons hit invis units, my Flesh Hounds will be mostly wiped out in a single turn of shooting from Wyverns. Can I vote to nerf Wyverns?

Didn't you win Best Daemon last year despite playing without Be'lakor? Well, if you can do that...and if Alex Fennell can win the tournament despite the 2+/4+ re-rollable nerf....then consider this a true challenge to your generalship. Even with the nerf to Invisibility, it's still a very good power.

BTW, if it's any consolation, I voted No to the nerf even though I won't be running Invisibility.

I was third best Daemons behind Adrien Jeanniard and Goatboy and I finished 15th. If Be'lakor had been legal, I would have played flying circus, which would have been stronger than what I brought because invisible Tzeentch DP grimoire bearer and 2+ rerollable Fateweaver was on par with Seer Council in those days. Doesn't guarantee I would have done better.

I am annoyed because the Ad Lance player can vote to be able to drop two battle cannons on my invisible Flesh Hounds, then charge in and stomp on them. If I want to send in invisible Be'lakor to kill one, he gets hit on 5's instead of 6's which is huge. The Daemon army already struggles to kill even a single Knight since it has to get in close and get stomped on, then take an explosion to the face. This is swinging the needle even farther in their favor, and for no reason because invis is not tearing up the tournament scene.

Oh, that's right. You won Best Daemon at the BAO.

Regardless, Invisibility is secondary. Daemon summoning is what truly makes Daemons strong. That and FMC's.

BTW, you've got something that can offset the nerf to Invisibility (that is, IF it gets nerfed)....Shroud. That's a power you need to make use of.

Oh, I know what to do and it doesn't change my list or how I play much. It's a chump nerf, just like the 2+/4+ was, but it's exasperating that this is getting singled out when there are equally unfun things out there that don't make Reece's list of stuff to absolve himself of having to take responsibility for monkeying with.

 jy2 wrote:

slaede wrote:
Would you please stop giving other players the ability to take away options from me? Last year I lost access to Be'lakor because you lumped everything in and banned dataslates because everybody hated the Tau formation. A year later, you're going to let players vote to nerf him.

If you want to change the rules, change the rules, and do it before I buy the sodding ticket to your event so I know what I'm getting into. I just took the poll and was expecting more than one question. Why are we only voting on one thing? Where was the Adamantine Lance question? How about the Serpent Shield question? How about the Warp Spider question? The Thunderwolf Cavalry question? If you let barrage weapons hit invis units, my Flesh Hounds will be mostly wiped out in a single turn of shooting from Wyverns. Can I vote to nerf Wyverns?

Didn't you win Best Daemon last year despite playing without Be'lakor? Well, if you can do that...and if Alex Fennell can win the tournament despite the 2+/4+ re-rollable nerf....then consider this a true challenge to your generalship. Even with the nerf to Invisibility, it's still a very good power.

BTW, if it's any consolation, I voted No to the nerf even though I won't be running Invisibility.

I agree with you 100% and I am not sure if you were being serious since a 2+/4+ rerollable is what ~90% success rate? Yea that was SUCH a nerf to the poor guys army

I can see why some people would be upset with changes after tickets have been sold to things like this that have existed well before they went on sale but to be fair to Reece, it's much easier polling attendees then the whole internet.

@slaede-I am sure he'll refund your ticket if your that upset.

I think they should exit poll players this year and see how they would feel to playing 5th ed style ie. no allies, detachments or formations... I bet there is a big market for that.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

slaede wrote:
Would you please stop giving other players the ability to take away options from me? Last year I lost access to Be'lakor because you lumped everything in and banned dataslates because everybody hated the Tau formation. A year later, you're going to let players vote to nerf him.

If you want to change the rules, change the rules, and do it before I buy the sodding ticket to your event so I know what I'm getting into. I just took the poll and was expecting more than one question. Why are we only voting on one thing? Where was the Adamantine Lance question? How about the Serpent Shield question? How about the Warp Spider question? The Thunderwolf Cavalry question? If you let barrage weapons hit invis units, my Flesh Hounds will be mostly wiped out in a single turn of shooting from Wyverns. Can I vote to nerf Wyverns?

Didn't you win Best Daemon last year despite playing without Be'lakor? Well, if you can do that...and if Alex Fennell can win the tournament despite the 2+/4+ re-rollable nerf....then consider this a true challenge to your generalship. Even with the nerf to Invisibility, it's still a very good power.

BTW, if it's any consolation, I voted No to the nerf even though I won't be running Invisibility.

I agree with you 100% and I am not sure if you were being serious since a 2+/4+ rerollable is what ~90% success rate? Yea that was SUCH a nerf to the poor guys army

I can see why some people would be upset with changes after tickets have been sold to things like this that have existed well before they went on sale but to be fair to Reece, it's much easier polling attendees then the whole internet.

@slaede-I am sure he'll refund your ticket if your that upset.

I think they should exit poll players this year and see how they would feel to playing 5th ed style ie. no allies, detachments or formations... I bet there is a big market for that.

PSSSSSH! Refund! I ain't no busta. No, what will hinder my performance at LVO is lack of practice since almost nobody in Phoenix plays 40k anymore, not this.

I'll say that, if we are going to be voting on perceived issues (which I'd prefer we don't do) like invisibility, we should also be voting on a wider range to include other ones (ad lance, etc.).

But, the vote was just invisibility, i don't use it and don't really like playing against it, but voted not to change it. I'm sure there are things in my army people don't like, and they don't have a chance to vote against them.

I appreciate the discussion guys, and I understand why certain people are aiming their dissatisfaction against me personally as I am the spokesperson for the event but, the fact of the matter is that I ABSOLUTELY do not just pick issues that I personally don't like, or do like, or what have you.

Behind the scenes I get dozens of emails daily form folks and I keep track of things. When an issue comes up that we as a group feel needs to be addressed, we address it. What all fo you reading this feel are big issues in the game will largely reflect your local meta or what you read online. We have a relatively unique position of getting tons of data from all over the place and from a wide variety of gamers.

There have been things that I have wanted to change that we didn't because the community wasn't ready for it. If it were 100% my call, we wouldn't be using CtA allies. I hate CtA allies, I think it flys in the face of the fluff of the game. But, the majority of people wanted it, so we went with it.

If this were a pure dictatorship, we would have let FW in a year earlier than we did. But again, the community wasn't ready for it, so we waited a year to make sure it was a smooth transition. There are a ton of examples like that where we didn't make changes we wanted to because our attendees weren't ready for it.

So again, if anyone is upset that Invis may be changing a bit, fair enough. If you are upset because we are doing this after tickets have sold, I also understand that, but we have learned it's better to ask paying attendees what they want as it is their event. We're still 2 months out from the event, so I would hardly classify this as a last minute change. And expecting to have a 100% finished format before you sell tickets is unreasonable as the game changes so rapidly. Also, the tickets are fully refundable up until 30 days out form the event, so if anyone is truly unhappy, we will give their money back, no questions asked. However, I would say that that is really overreacting to a relatively small thing meant to make the game more enjoyable for more people.

Fact of the matter is that our events, and events using our format, have been selling out with waiting lists for a long time now while many other events that may be perceived to be more "hardcore" or whatever, have been seeing declining attendance. The game needs modification to be playable in an organized setting. It is just a question of to what degree do we change things? There is no right answer to that question as everyone has a different barometer for that. To some people we go too far, to others, not far enough. We accepted a long time ago we would never please everyone. However, we continue to grow, so apparently we do please more folks than we piss off

I am not saying we are better or worse, I am not saying format is the only reason for this, it isn't. What I am saying is that while a vocal minority may not like certain aspects of what we do, a silent majority are coming out in force to the events and having fun. Our data proves factually that the vast majority of attendees that come to our events have a great time and like the way we do things. We also have a ton of first time attendees come to our events that were intimidated by tournaments. That is amazing! If we have to make small sacrifices in order to make the game and events more appealing to a broader audience, then we will. If players don't like a change we make, we will reverse course. It's a relatively simple formula, really.

If there are any other issues you all feel truly need addressing, feel free to talk to me about it, I make myself available. Invisibility came up because of the volume of people asking me to alter it, or expressing their distaste for it. That is why it was the only issue on the table this go around. I also personally don't like it, sure, but then I am always really forthright about my opinions on issues to try and show where my bias lays. If you just want to vent on a forum, feel free to do so and yell at me if that helps, haha, I have Rhino Hide for skin, and don't take it personally.

Ultimately, I hope folks come out, have a great time in Vegas with their friends. Being hyper focused on one or two relatively small things is probably not conducive to that, you know? Cutting off your nose to spite your face and all that. And, again, as with the 2+/4+ change we instituted last year, the overall event winner was playing a list with it. All it did was nerf his Seerstar enough so that some of them actually died instead of remaining invincible. Slaede, you may see that as a "chump" nerf, but the vast majority of our players appreciated it as it made them feel like the game was more enjoyable. If you really don't want any changes at all to the game, then let's all bust out our Unbound armies and Tranny C'Tans and watch the tournament scene die. We have to make some changes in order to create fun, fair competition. YMMV. And, as always, if anyone thinks they can build a better event, by all means, go for it. That is how the first BAO was born. We put our money where our mouth was.

 Reecius wrote:
I appreciate the discussion guys, and I understand why certain people are aiming their dissatisfaction against me personally as I am the spokesperson for the event but, the fact of the matter is that I ABSOLUTELY do not just pick issues that I personally don't like, or do like, or what have you.

Behind the scenes I get dozens of emails daily form folks and I keep track of things. When an issue comes up that we as a group feel needs to be addressed, we address it. What all fo you reading this feel are big issues in the game will largely reflect your local meta or what you read online. We have a relatively unique position of getting tons of data from all over the place and from a wide variety of gamers.

There have been things that I have wanted to change that we didn't because the community wasn't ready for it. If it were 100% my call, we wouldn't be using CtA allies. I hate CtA allies, I think it flys in the face of the fluff of the game. But, the majority of people wanted it, so we went with it.

If this were a pure dictatorship, we would have let FW in a year earlier than we did. But again, the community wasn't ready for it, so we waited a year to make sure it was a smooth transition. There are a ton of examples like that where we didn't make changes we wanted to because our attendees weren't ready for it.

So again, if anyone is upset that Invis may be changing a bit, fair enough. If you are upset because we are doing this after tickets have sold, I also understand that, but we have learned it's better to ask paying attendees what they want as it is their event. We're still 2 months out from the event, so I would hardly classify this as a last minute change. And expecting to have a 100% finished format before you sell tickets is unreasonable as the game changes so rapidly. Also, the tickets are fully refundable up until 30 days out form the event, so if anyone is truly unhappy, we will give their money back, no questions asked. However, I would say that that is really overreacting to a relatively small thing meant to make the game more enjoyable for more people.

Fact of the matter is that our events, and events using our format, have been selling out with waiting lists for a long time now while many other events that may be perceived to be more "hardcore" or whatever, have been seeing declining attendance. The game needs modification to be playable in an organized setting. It is just a question of to what degree do we change things? There is no right answer to that question as everyone has a different barometer for that. To some people we go too far, to others, not far enough. We accepted a long time ago we would never please everyone. However, we continue to grow, so apparently we do please more folks than we piss off

I am not saying we are better or worse, I am not saying format is the only reason for this, it isn't. What I am saying is that while a vocal minority may not like certain aspects of what we do, a silent majority are coming out in force to the events and having fun. Our data proves factually that the vast majority of attendees that come to our events have a great time and like the way we do things. We also have a ton of first time attendees come to our events that were intimidated by tournaments. That is amazing! If we have to make small sacrifices in order to make the game and events more appealing to a broader audience, then we will. If players don't like a change we make, we will reverse course. It's a relatively simple formula, really.

If there are any other issues you all feel truly need addressing, feel free to talk to me about it, I make myself available. Invisibility came up because of the volume of people asking me to alter it, or expressing their distaste for it. That is why it was the only issue on the table this go around. I also personally don't like it, sure, but then I am always really forthright about my opinions on issues to try and show where my bias lays. If you just want to vent on a forum, feel free to do so and yell at me if that helps, haha, I have Rhino Hide for skin, and don't take it personally.

Ultimately, I hope folks come out, have a great time in Vegas with their friends. Being hyper focused on one or two relatively small things is probably not conducive to that, you know? Cutting off your nose to spite your face and all that. And, again, as with the 2+/4+ change we instituted last year, the overall event winner was playing a list with it. All it did was nerf his Seerstar enough so that some of them actually died instead of remaining invincible. Slaede, you may see that as a "chump" nerf, but the vast majority of our players appreciated it as it made them feel like the game was more enjoyable. If you really don't want any changes at all to the game, then let's all bust out our Unbound armies and Tranny C'Tans and watch the tournament scene die. We have to make some changes in order to create fun, fair competition. YMMV. And, as always, if anyone thinks they can build a better event, by all means, go for it. That is how the first BAO was born. We put our money where our mouth was.

I can't argue with this, I appreciate the explanation and understand where your coming from. I cant wait for lvo....not sure what I am looking forward to more, playing in the event, or unleashing a freshly 21 brown on vegas.

Did frankie get me a pair of frontline glasses yet?!

Reecius that was a total load - what you are doing is plain wrong. I know you have a strong sense of how you think 40k should be and it can be really annoying and costly.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Reecius that was a total load - what you are doing is plain wrong. I know you have a strong sense of how you think 40k should be and it can be really annoying and costly.

It looks like it might cost him your 75 bucks. If you could do us all a solid though, and quit the personal attacks and send in your request for a refund so someone off the wait list can make it into the event, That would be awesome!

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Reecius that was a total load - what you are doing is plain wrong. I know you have a strong sense of how you think 40k should be and it can be really annoying and costly.

lolololol The butthurt is strong with this one...

Personally I voted against the invis nerf, but I can understand how others may dislike the idea. Knowing Reecius and those guys, sure they may have opinions one way or the other however they certainly listen to the player base as a whole and weigh their decisions rather than make knee jerk reactions. Just because in some of these circumstances Reecius or others have vocally sided with how a nerf is implemented, doesn't make his explanation a 'load'. He is taking the time to inform the attendees and to take into consideration how the majority of the players want THEIR event to run.

 Reecius wrote:
I appreciate the discussion guys, and I understand why certain people are aiming their dissatisfaction against me personally as I am the spokesperson for the event but, the fact of the matter is that I ABSOLUTELY do not just pick issues that I personally don't like, or do like, or what have you.

Behind the scenes I get dozens of emails daily form folks and I keep track of things. When an issue comes up that we as a group feel needs to be addressed, we address it. What all fo you reading this feel are big issues in the game will largely reflect your local meta or what you read online. We have a relatively unique position of getting tons of data from all over the place and from a wide variety of gamers.

There have been things that I have wanted to change that we didn't because the community wasn't ready for it. If it were 100% my call, we wouldn't be using CtA allies. I hate CtA allies, I think it flys in the face of the fluff of the game. But, the majority of people wanted it, so we went with it.

If this were a pure dictatorship, we would have let FW in a year earlier than we did. But again, the community wasn't ready for it, so we waited a year to make sure it was a smooth transition. There are a ton of examples like that where we didn't make changes we wanted to because our attendees weren't ready for it.

So again, if anyone is upset that Invis may be changing a bit, fair enough. If you are upset because we are doing this after tickets have sold, I also understand that, but we have learned it's better to ask paying attendees what they want as it is their event. We're still 2 months out from the event, so I would hardly classify this as a last minute change. And expecting to have a 100% finished format before you sell tickets is unreasonable as the game changes so rapidly. Also, the tickets are fully refundable up until 30 days out form the event, so if anyone is truly unhappy, we will give their money back, no questions asked. However, I would say that that is really overreacting to a relatively small thing meant to make the game more enjoyable for more people.

Fact of the matter is that our events, and events using our format, have been selling out with waiting lists for a long time now while many other events that may be perceived to be more "hardcore" or whatever, have been seeing declining attendance. The game needs modification to be playable in an organized setting. It is just a question of to what degree do we change things? There is no right answer to that question as everyone has a different barometer for that. To some people we go too far, to others, not far enough. We accepted a long time ago we would never please everyone. However, we continue to grow, so apparently we do please more folks than we piss off

I am not saying we are better or worse, I am not saying format is the only reason for this, it isn't. What I am saying is that while a vocal minority may not like certain aspects of what we do, a silent majority are coming out in force to the events and having fun. Our data proves factually that the vast majority of attendees that come to our events have a great time and like the way we do things. We also have a ton of first time attendees come to our events that were intimidated by tournaments. That is amazing! If we have to make small sacrifices in order to make the game and events more appealing to a broader audience, then we will. If players don't like a change we make, we will reverse course. It's a relatively simple formula, really.

If there are any other issues you all feel truly need addressing, feel free to talk to me about it, I make myself available. Invisibility came up because of the volume of people asking me to alter it, or expressing their distaste for it. That is why it was the only issue on the table this go around. I also personally don't like it, sure, but then I am always really forthright about my opinions on issues to try and show where my bias lays. If you just want to vent on a forum, feel free to do so and yell at me if that helps, haha, I have Rhino Hide for skin, and don't take it personally.

Ultimately, I hope folks come out, have a great time in Vegas with their friends. Being hyper focused on one or two relatively small things is probably not conducive to that, you know? Cutting off your nose to spite your face and all that. And, again, as with the 2+/4+ change we instituted last year, the overall event winner was playing a list with it. All it did was nerf his Seerstar enough so that some of them actually died instead of remaining invincible. Slaede, you may see that as a "chump" nerf, but the vast majority of our players appreciated it as it made them feel like the game was more enjoyable. If you really don't want any changes at all to the game, then let's all bust out our Unbound armies and Tranny C'Tans and watch the tournament scene die. We have to make some changes in order to create fun, fair competition. YMMV. And, as always, if anyone thinks they can build a better event, by all means, go for it. That is how the first BAO was born. We put our money where our mouth was.

I am not ragging on you for altering the rules. Warhammer 40k is incredibly stupid and unplayable without some serious self-imposed restrictions on what is allowed. I think the democratic process you use to arrive at those restrictions is crummy. Before you put the tickets on sale, announce what the restrictions are going to be, explain why you made them that way. You have enough street cred that folks will accept it at this point. I object to selling everyone tickets and then letting everyone selectively vote on what their opponents are allowed to do to them. The event sold out before this, so why not table it until next year with an exit poll?

slaede wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
I appreciate the discussion guys, and I understand why certain people are aiming their dissatisfaction against me personally as I am the spokesperson for the event but, the fact of the matter is that I ABSOLUTELY do not just pick issues that I personally don't like, or do like, or what have you.

Behind the scenes I get dozens of emails daily form folks and I keep track of things. When an issue comes up that we as a group feel needs to be addressed, we address it. What all fo you reading this feel are big issues in the game will largely reflect your local meta or what you read online. We have a relatively unique position of getting tons of data from all over the place and from a wide variety of gamers.

There have been things that I have wanted to change that we didn't because the community wasn't ready for it. If it were 100% my call, we wouldn't be using CtA allies. I hate CtA allies, I think it flys in the face of the fluff of the game. But, the majority of people wanted it, so we went with it.

If this were a pure dictatorship, we would have let FW in a year earlier than we did. But again, the community wasn't ready for it, so we waited a year to make sure it was a smooth transition. There are a ton of examples like that where we didn't make changes we wanted to because our attendees weren't ready for it.

So again, if anyone is upset that Invis may be changing a bit, fair enough. If you are upset because we are doing this after tickets have sold, I also understand that, but we have learned it's better to ask paying attendees what they want as it is their event. We're still 2 months out from the event, so I would hardly classify this as a last minute change. And expecting to have a 100% finished format before you sell tickets is unreasonable as the game changes so rapidly. Also, the tickets are fully refundable up until 30 days out form the event, so if anyone is truly unhappy, we will give their money back, no questions asked. However, I would say that that is really overreacting to a relatively small thing meant to make the game more enjoyable for more people.

Fact of the matter is that our events, and events using our format, have been selling out with waiting lists for a long time now while many other events that may be perceived to be more "hardcore" or whatever, have been seeing declining attendance. The game needs modification to be playable in an organized setting. It is just a question of to what degree do we change things? There is no right answer to that question as everyone has a different barometer for that. To some people we go too far, to others, not far enough. We accepted a long time ago we would never please everyone. However, we continue to grow, so apparently we do please more folks than we piss off

I am not saying we are better or worse, I am not saying format is the only reason for this, it isn't. What I am saying is that while a vocal minority may not like certain aspects of what we do, a silent majority are coming out in force to the events and having fun. Our data proves factually that the vast majority of attendees that come to our events have a great time and like the way we do things. We also have a ton of first time attendees come to our events that were intimidated by tournaments. That is amazing! If we have to make small sacrifices in order to make the game and events more appealing to a broader audience, then we will. If players don't like a change we make, we will reverse course. It's a relatively simple formula, really.

If there are any other issues you all feel truly need addressing, feel free to talk to me about it, I make myself available. Invisibility came up because of the volume of people asking me to alter it, or expressing their distaste for it. That is why it was the only issue on the table this go around. I also personally don't like it, sure, but then I am always really forthright about my opinions on issues to try and show where my bias lays. If you just want to vent on a forum, feel free to do so and yell at me if that helps, haha, I have Rhino Hide for skin, and don't take it personally.

Ultimately, I hope folks come out, have a great time in Vegas with their friends. Being hyper focused on one or two relatively small things is probably not conducive to that, you know? Cutting off your nose to spite your face and all that. And, again, as with the 2+/4+ change we instituted last year, the overall event winner was playing a list with it. All it did was nerf his Seerstar enough so that some of them actually died instead of remaining invincible. Slaede, you may see that as a "chump" nerf, but the vast majority of our players appreciated it as it made them feel like the game was more enjoyable. If you really don't want any changes at all to the game, then let's all bust out our Unbound armies and Tranny C'Tans and watch the tournament scene die. We have to make some changes in order to create fun, fair competition. YMMV. And, as always, if anyone thinks they can build a better event, by all means, go for it. That is how the first BAO was born. We put our money where our mouth was.

I am not ragging on you for altering the rules. Warhammer 40k is incredibly stupid and unplayable without some serious self-imposed restrictions on what is allowed. I think the democratic process you use to arrive at those restrictions is crummy. Before you put the tickets on sale, announce what the restrictions are going to be, explain why you made them that way. You have enough street cred that folks will accept it at this point. I object to selling everyone tickets and then letting everyone selectively vote on what their opponents are allowed to do to them. The event sold out before this, so why not table it until next year with an exit poll?

Would this potential change honestly stop you from going? This is not ment as a personal attack of any kind, im just saying this won't make a majority of the people going suddenly not want to attend the event.

 Reecius wrote:

Behind the scenes I get dozens of emails daily form folks and I keep track of things. When an issue comes up that we as a group feel needs to be addressed, we address it. What all fo you reading this feel are big issues in the game will largely reflect your local meta or what you read online. We have a relatively unique position of getting tons of data from all over the place and from a wide variety of gamers.

I am also in a position to get a ton of data from all over the place and from a wide variety of gamers. That is why I was kind of shocked that Invisibility was still an issue. Yes, everyone was up in arms about it just after 7th edition came out just like everyone wanted to limit demon summoning and warp charges. Now in hindsight we have learned that these are really non-issues and have proven to be less than effective in tournament play.

In my experience everyone feels that Adamanitum Lance needs to be addressed. You can see by the reactions to the poll about invisibility that a lot it would be in there would be a question about AL as well since it meets your criteria of #1. Not being any fun to play against, and #2. A large potion of the players feel that is needs to be addressed.

So how big of a petition do we need to get from registered players of the LVO to get Adamantium Lance to be addressed in a poll?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

slaede wrote:


I am not ragging on you for altering the rules. Warhammer 40k is incredibly stupid and unplayable without some serious self-imposed restrictions on what is allowed. I think the democratic process you use to arrive at those restrictions is crummy.

This is my biggest beef with the process. It is not that I am against Reecius coming in and changing the rules, it is the notion of voting for the changes.

Here are the problems:
You have fear mongering about anything that is put up for a vote.
You have a very small percentage of players impacted negatively by any rule change, and a large portion impacted positively by it. So you will always get people voting for banning anything since it does not hurt them, and only helps them.
I question a lot of players knowledge, and experience with anything that is voted for.

This is my biggest beef with the process. It is not that I am against Reecius coming in and changing the rules, it is the notion of voting for the changes.

Here are the problems:
You have fear mongering about anything that is put up for a vote.
You have a very small percentage of players impacted negatively by any rule change, and a large portion impacted positively by it. So you will always get people voting for banning anything since it does not hurt them, and only helps them.
I question a lot of players knowledge, and experience with anything that is voted for.

Exactly. We are allowing anyone who does not play GK Centstar, Seer Council or Be'lakor Daemons to get a leg up on their competition, while I get no say in what happens to an Ad Lance player's army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 krootman. wrote:
Would this potential change honestly stop you from going? This is not ment as a personal attack of any kind, im just saying this won't make a majority of the people going suddenly not want to attend the event.

I already said I'm not asking for a refund. However, I am annoyed (not angry), and as a paying customer, I have the right to complain.

slaede wrote:

This is my biggest beef with the process. It is not that I am against Reecius coming in and changing the rules, it is the notion of voting for the changes.

Here are the problems:
You have fear mongering about anything that is put up for a vote.
You have a very small percentage of players impacted negatively by any rule change, and a large portion impacted positively by it. So you will always get people voting for banning anything since it does not hurt them, and only helps them.
I question a lot of players knowledge, and experience with anything that is voted for.

Exactly. We are allowing anyone who does not play GK Centstar, Seer Council or Be'lakor Daemons to get a leg up on their competition, while I get no say in what happens to an Ad Lance player's army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 krootman. wrote:
Would this potential change honestly stop you from going? This is not ment as a personal attack of any kind, im just saying this won't make a majority of the people going suddenly not want to attend the event.

I already said I'm not asking for a refund. However, I am annoyed (not angry), and as a paying customer, I have the right to complain.

You signed away your rights when you put your first 40k model together #plasticcrack

I voted against changing invis. My army doesn't use it and I want my opponents that do use it to feel that they're playing their 'A' game when they play me. I voted against changing the 2+ re-roll last year and we all know how that turned out, so my prediction is that Invis will get nerfed a little and those of us playing against it just got a little help.

I voted against it as well, because if it is going to go back to 6th ed invis without shroud/stealth, might as well make it warp charge 1 again. Yeah, you shoot at BS1, sure, that can negate some, but the hitting on 6s is the reason it is WC2.

The no templates is dumb, I can see that being removed, because in reality, you USE blasts/flamethrowers to hit stuff you can't see. The other half of the change is really kinda not justifying it stay a WC2 power.

@Reecius: Soooo.... I didn't get a notification to "vote" nor did my team? I hope that doesn't mean we've been un-invited or our payment(s) didn't go through?

@all of y'all: I don't much care about what is allowed or what isn't I'm going to play with toys in Vegas... as an adult... That's awesome! Invisibility is something I just don't encounter so it may be pretty bad. I may whine pretty hard when I see it played by an expert, but I whine about all kinds of stuff.

To any of you who wan't to sell your tickets, I bet you could if Reece allows it. I know several of my buds are pretty bummed they didn't get in before it sold out.

I am one of the silent masses who takes Orks to majors, so that means I'm a fool. Nevertheless, I was play-testing LVO Tourks last night vs my buddy's super double-plus secret list. He's gonna beat all you knuckle heads... without invis, re-rollable cheese or whatever.... he's a GD 40k savant. See you fools there.... My grot horde is gonna make you cry!

I dont mind changes to the game to make it better. I actually asked Reece to get stricter on army comp and get rid of the silly double cad nonsense that these codex detachments create. I asked him to ban 5 flyrants... and Im playing Nids.

So I voted I dont care for invisibility. If they change it cool, if they dont thats ok too. There are a lot of things that I would change before invisibility.

 Reecius wrote:

There have been things that I have wanted to change that we didn't because the community wasn't ready for it. If it were 100% my call, we wouldn't be using CtA allies. I hate CtA allies, I think it flys in the face of the fluff of the game. But, the majority of people wanted it, so we went with it.

CtA Allies are allowed now? Interesting.... Knights with EVERYTHING. lol

@Doktor G

Shoot me your email, I will send it to you. I sent it to everyone in the 40k events that I have their email for.

@Budzerker

Yeah, i lost that fight! I will die a little inside when I see Nids with knight =(

@Ordo Sean

Yeah, a lot of folks ask me to change stuff or make more restrictions. I think the only realistic solution is to offer more events, like Highlander and the Friendly. I think that will give the most people the type of game they want.

 Reecius wrote:


@Ordo Sean

Yeah, a lot of folks ask me to change stuff or make more restrictions. I think the only realistic solution is to offer more events, like Highlander and the Friendly. I think that will give the most people the type of game they want.

Oh I'm not complaining Reece. We had a good dialogue and I continue to be satisfied with your line of thinking and process.

I have to admit to being perhaps a minority. Because I would totally support blocking double cad. But have no problem with people playing adlance, I think it's a crutchy list that is very beatable. I also don't mind the 6+ serpent lists. The trouble with any and all proposed nerfs or changes is we all have our own bias and experience and play styles which can affect how we perceive the game.

Focused change with good reason and intention is better then broad stroke bans or doing nothing at all. Which is what you are trying to do and that's to be encouraged.

I mean look at how adepticon didn't sell out this year. The last few years the champs sold out in an hour. Now with their wide open format and I think there are still tickets available. So it's pretty clear large amount of people want at least some changes or restrictions.