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.

Tyfus wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Exactly

I do feel bad for anyone that bought their ticket, reserved their rooms (in Vegas where you generally pay upfront), and their plane ticket to have their armies legs sliced out from under them. Not saying it did happen to anyone or anything but if it did I feel bad for them. Just not a fan of changing rules months after they stop being an issue.

The GT is more than 2 months away. I think it's totallly unreasonable to expect that all rules, missions, faq and tweeks are locked so far up front. The invis change is IMO small.

Except that wasn't what people were asking for. This isn't a mission or FAQ which you expect to maybe shift up to the week before the event. This is an actual rule change. It is reasonable to expect that any actual rule changes (and this isn't a grey area clarification or a universally incorrectly played rule like characters and infiltrating) to be announced when tickets go on sale. Not be voted on and decided after the event is sold out and after people have committed time and money.

And that doesn't affect the army changes that will likely need to be made and models to now be purchased/painted that weren't on the list because you don't expect a full rule change 2 months out. Again, this isn't people who build lists on a gimmick of how a rule could be interpretted. It's based on people building armies within the black and white rules of the game.

Like I said. I don't know if anyone did actually put all the money in yet that has an army that was affected. I just said it would suck if they did.

As a sidenote I don't play with invis in any of my armies and I'm not attending due to eating to much of my vacation time this year for non-40k stuff and my new year doesn't start till around Adepticon. So it's not that I want invis for myself. I just sympathize with those that it hammered and don't think it was good decision. He'd already sold out with Invis the way it was. Why do something that could have annoy or upset 25-30% of your attendees?

It's going to be an awesome event that Reece and his guys put on. And if I had the vaca I'd be there. Just don't think it's fair to all the attendees the way it was handled.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Some of my friends said they are dropping out now .

The type of people who drop out because they cannot use a power that takes away the ability of units to interact with them on the table are people I really wouldn't want to play against.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Exactly

I do feel bad for anyone that bought their ticket, reserved their rooms (in Vegas where you generally pay upfront), and their plane ticket to have their armies legs sliced out from under them. Not saying it did happen to anyone or anything but if it did I feel bad for them. Just not a fan of changing rules months after they stop being an issue.

If a slight change to the rules of invisibility chops the legs out from an army it is safe to assume someone built their entire army to revolve around invisibility, which means they built their list around a power that basically makes the unit invincible to opponent attacks. That type of player (perhaps you?) really should reevaluate their view of how the game is meant to be played, i.e enjoyable for both players.

They told they dropped out on principle - not because it would nerf their armies.

kimchi gamer what if tomorrow the voted against including wave serpents? or changing their rules? Maybe army revovled around using them. Well too bad I guess you shouldnt have built an army that revolves around that unit. What if you brought knights and there is nothing I can do about it? Maybe you should re evaluate the way you play? I bought and painted a Belakor model just to be able to deal with knights and serpents. I agonized over bringing him because I generally dont like to bring special characters. Now I have to completely reconfigure my army but too bad for me. I expected missions to change and maybe some comp things but not who sale rule changes. First the 2+ rerollable save which really never won anything and then the invisibility power. Why don't we put everything up for vote?

swanson4969 wrote:
kimchi gamer what if tomorrow the voted against including wave serpents? or changing their rules? Maybe army revovled around using them. Well too bad I guess you shouldnt have built an army that revolves around that unit. I bought and painted a Belakor model just to be able to deal with knights and serpents. I agonized over bringing him because I generally dont like to bring special characters. Now I have to completely reconfigure my army but too bad for me. I expected missions to change and maybe some comp things but not who sale rule changes. First the 2+ rerollable save which really never won anything and then the invisibility power. Why don't we put everything up for vote?

Exactly! What if they ban pre-measuring too? And what if they force you to play Fantasy instead? Or, absurdly, what if people could have a discussion about their hobby without a golden shower of logical fallacies?

Anarchy! Chaos!

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Some of my friends said they are dropping out now .

The type of people who drop out because they cannot use a power that takes away the ability of units to interact with them on the table are people I really wouldn't want to play against.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Exactly

I do feel bad for anyone that bought their ticket, reserved their rooms (in Vegas where you generally pay upfront), and their plane ticket to have their armies legs sliced out from under them. Not saying it did happen to anyone or anything but if it did I feel bad for them. Just not a fan of changing rules months after they stop being an issue.

If a slight change to the rules of invisibility chops the legs out from an army it is safe to assume someone built their entire army to revolve around invisibility, which means they built their list around a power that basically makes the unit invincible to opponent attacks. That type of player (perhaps you?) really should reevaluate their view of how the game is meant to be played, i.e enjoyable for both players.

Oh man, someone didn't read everything I typed. Probably got to hard to see from that pedestal

People should be able to build their army around the rules. They should be able to build their army around a rule as long as it's black and white (i.e. set psychic powers). Saying people need to make sure the game is enjoyable for both players shouldn't then have a problem with adlance going away or even wave serpents or FMC's. There are a lot of things that make the game unfun to play against.

Flyers are just as hard to hit and can't be hit in combat but we aren't banning them. Why? And flyers get their abilities automatically and not after rolling 2 4's on however many dice you throw that cost an average of 30pts per dice and flyers don't lose their hard to hit status simply by someone rolling enough 6's to stop them before shooting at them. Flyers can be hit by snap shots and skyfire. Invisible units can be hit by: Stomps, Vectors, snap shots, impact hits, nova powers, and I'm sure some more that I'm missing. Flyers are broken and unfun! FMC's more so!!!!!!!

See how that works. Invisibility is annoying. But it's one unit and maelstrom forces you to play the game now. This isn't 6th where we didn't have maelstrom and it was deathstar hammer. The game has already shifted back out of deathstar's. What event had a deathstar win it recently? Or more, a deathstar with invisibility? I bet you more games were made unfun at the last 3 GT's I went to from Adlance than from invisibility.

Invisibility, as it is, is how many CC armies still function. There is 1 unit in the game that's a ranged unit that benefits greatly from invisibility and that's centurions. Everything else is CC based. People say this is a shooty game and then are in favor of instituting rules that make it more of a shooty game.

I dislike that being against a rulebook change makes me in favor of an unfun game.

Meh, no dog in this fight. Reece will run a great event, people will have a blast, and some people will or won't attend based on the poll.

The fact is that 7th edition is horrible for tournament play and any rules changes are just polishing the brass on the Titanic.

The LVO would have hardly have any players if it were not in Las Vegas, just like how the attendance is down for every other tournament so far this year. So any minor rules change that is implemented will have almost no impact on attendance since most people are there for Vegas, and socializing with there friends.

I still find it odd though that tournaments are allowing more and more FOC crazyness (Formations, multiple sources, forge world, etc), but it seems like when you give players a choice between a tournament with everything goes, and another that is very restrictive that most people choose the restricted tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:


"Democracy is where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49" -Thomas Jefferson

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Winston Churchill

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -Winston Churchill

"Democracy is a great thing and the fairest way of deciding issues--except when it disagrees with what I know to be right, then it is clearly the tyranny of the uneducated majority." - Me.

You think a poll for one item is democracy? One person (Reecius) gets to choose the questions, sets the agenda, and sends out the polls. Hong Kong is rioting over such "democracy"

 Dozer Blades wrote:
They told they dropped out on principle - not because it would nerf their armies.

No one has dropped out as a result of this decision so far, but I do appreciate you continuously posting this around the net, lol. If you, or anyone is really that upset, all they have to do is reach out and we will refund their ticket, no questions asked and for any reason up until 30 days out form the event. We do have plenty of folks on the wait list, still, so I am sure others would appreciate the chance to attend.

However, I do have to say that if anyone is truly going to drop "on principal" because of a rule alteration, I have to ask why this rule and not any of the other rule changes that most every tournament implements such as: no unbound, limits on detachments, limiting some units (yes or no to Formations or Forgeworld, etc.)? Why not as a result of the Indy FAQ which alters lots of rules for the sake of ease of organized play? It seems arbitrary. However, to each their own. We strive to make fun, fair events. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on the definition of what is fun and fair.

@thread

Thanks for all the constructive criticism, everyone. We appreciate it. To address a few of the topics brought up:

Is this a big change? For the game in general: no. For an individual that built their list around it: yes, and for anyone in that position I do empathize. However, as with anytime we do something like this, it appears that more good will be done than ill. And when you have passionate stances on either side of a debate like this, that is the best you can hope for. Also, please remember everyone, that we are not just talking about Invis Centstars or Be'Lakor or what have you. We use LoW in our events, we are talking about those units going Invis, too. The impact here is more than a lot of folks may realize. An Invis Lynx or Khorne Mower, or Knight Acheron for example, is something most folks that don't play in a LoW environment may not have even considered.

Is voting fair? The vote was asking for an opinion and that is what we got. There really isn't an objective way to make a choice like this. The intent of the poll was for folks to vote on what they felt would make the game more or less enjoyable for them. While I am sure some folks did vote for their own interest (ie: I use Invis, I vote to keep it vs. I don't use invis therefore I vote to change it) but not everyone does so. We had 16 votes for "I don't care," which shows factually that not everyone voted to boost their army or hurt others. Also, I know some folks that use Invis that voted to change it and vice versa. Frankie voted not to change it, and he does not use Invis.

Voter bias is of course a real thing, but asking those coming to the event if they want a change or not is logical. I know of no better way to do it. For example, if we covered this on an exit poll from the BAO, those coming to the LVO but not the BAO wouldn't have had a say in their own fate, which feels unfair to me. If we only do it on exit polls, we also obviously miss the opportunity to rule on anything that comes up between that point and the next event. Now, I certainly could have gotten this done earlier and I do apologize for dragging my feet a bit but I kept putting it off as we have been super busy with the business. That said, we are still over 60 days out, this is plenty of time to adjust. Going forward, we will certainly make any adjustments like this (if we do it again) before putting tickets up for sale assuming that is possible (a new rule that has come out between that point and the event, for example).

And as for voting resulting in one group's opinion overriding the minority group...well...yes. That is what voting is. Is the proposed alternate path to only ask folks that use Invis? That is less fair. As always though, if people have methods for gathering data that would improve our decision making process, I am all ears. We use the tools we have available to us, and voting is as fair of a method as I have encountered to date.

As for the argument of "if we change Invis, why don't we change X,Y,Z..." Well, for one that is a slippery slope fallacy, and not a solid counterargument, but I understand the sentiment. Our logic is this: we don't want to target specific armies if we can help it. As with the 2+ reroll save, we want to only target those things that A.) a majority of players we interact with don't like, and that B.) are as fairly applied to as many armies as possible. This way, it is as fair as possible. As any army can get Invis to greater or lesser degrees through allies, this is a relatively more of an even change than say, altering AdLance, or Wave Serpents or what have you. Again, perspectives will vary, but that is the logic behind it.

As for this being a personal crusade, yes and no. I don't like Invis, I have been very open about that. I think it makes the game a lot less fun. However, that is not the final justification for anything we do. I also hate CtA allies, but I got overruled on that one because most players wanted it. Invis is something that comes up consistently and so we put it to a vote not knowing what the outcome would be, and we see that the overwhelming majority of those going to the LVO wanted it to be toned down.

Hopefully that clears things up, some.

As Krootman said, this is going to be a super fun tournament with friends in Vegas! Try not to get tunnel vision on one aspect of the format as the intent of this is to make the event more enjoyable for more people, not to make it less enjoyable for a few people.

@TasteyTaste

I appreciate your honest feedback, buddy, and no offense taken. However, this was not an "FLG Thing" or what have you. We try to change as few of the rules as possible and only when there is a lot of support for it. Our biases do come into play of course, we're human, but this was not a personal crusade. And, it's funny that you bring up the tow in cover thing as Frankie and I were laughing about wishing that was changed today, but that we have no one else talking to us about that rule issue. We feel it more than most because of who we play against. So, you are free to interpret this as you choose, but I can assure you I didn't just sit up one day and say, F Invisibility or something like that.

@Hulk

Wish you could make it! Thanks for the feedback though, much appreciated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Blackmoor

Oooooh, buddy. You do so love to take shots at us, haha. And then you still come to every event! Your hypocrisy much like Doc Holiday's, apparently knows no bounds.

I don't arbitrarily choose topics. I can see that that may be the appearance, but it is not accurate. We talk about these things with the team, we listen to attendees, and we gather data. It is not me shooting from the hip.

Vegas would have no attendance if it weren't Vegas? So, the fact that we run a tight ship, on schedule, with beautiful terrain, and every other aspect of the event that we bust our asses over to make it fun don't count for anything at all? Thanks for that.

If that is the case, then it is Odd that the BAO, just 4 months ago, was a sell out event with a wait list. That was in San Jose, so odd that that was the case.

Or how about Brawl in the Fall which was just a few months ago that was also sold out with a 30 deep wait list in Clovis, CA? Weird.

I am being a bit sarcastic here, obviously, but you're being ridiculous, man. There is no need to be so negative. If you disagree with aspects of our format, that is fine, but please refrain from these silly and illogical arguments you're making.

I am not dropping out - but I am appalled how you have handled this changing the rule .

Reece,

I'm very upset about how the change was handled.

I bought my ticket with my team, bought the hotel for them and am contributing to gas and all th other stuff that goes with traveling to an event, time off work and hundreds of dollars. I worked on an army, getting it painted for the event. That army's hammer unit (seekers of slaanesh) buffed by Be'Lakor is now approx. 50% less durable. I was already planning for mid-table mediocrity, as evidenced by my showing at BAO with a counts-as Be'Lakor and fully painted screamers. I won't bail on my mates, however, had I known when tickets went on sale that this was part of the event's rules I would not have invested the time and effort on painting those models. I would have instead done what most other players do, build the best army I can within the rule set provided.

Now I have the choice of fairing even worse than usual with my in-progress army, or scrapping all that effort and constructing a different army in the remaining time, including holidays and other such commitments.

While I like the events that you run (BAO was great, even with the small issues)I believe that you have handled this matter poorly, at best. It leaves a terrible taste in my mouth, far worse than the taste of having to play against an unfun army. You have succeeded at making the majority marginally more happy at the expense of disenfranchising a small group of players.

Lots of people have weighed in thus far so I might as well add my .5 cents

I dislike the nerf to invisibility (as a player that 'may' use it, although honestly I hadn't thought much of it until all of this hoopla around it), but I understand that the game is meant to be fun between all of those individuals involved. That being said a vote was made and a change is inbound. Will it affect what/how I play? meh, perhaps, but I suspect others will feel the sting of it more (or less depending on if they even cared).

I think the biggest issue towards 'balance' at this stage of the game is how detachments are classified. I think the initial premise many had going into 7th edition was that battleforged was the way to go, but formations/dataslates/knights/etc kinda wrenched that a bit. Some wanted to go 'full monty' others wanted to wade in the shallow end because it was familiar and had a perceived balance to it.

The new detachments (lets call them pseudo-CAD, because they aren't CAD or allies or formations), is where the concept of balanced play starts to creep towards unbound rather than the perceived battleforged that most accept.

P-CAD isn't battleforged, and really is like taking another CAD to be honest (which everyone else is prohibited from doing under the current format unless they too have the magic detachment mojo). Now I am not talking about formations, as that is called out separately in the rules and consist of specific models rather than # of options from a modified FOC.

Much of the crazy that we see (not all of course AdLance wouldn't fall into this category) can be mitigated somewhat by limiting that to CAD OR Codex Detachment as 0-1, with much of the same left as is. It would help level things a little I feel.

But what about Ad-Lance? Count them as a CAD/Codex Detachment (using the above format of only one or the other) instead of a Formation (doesn't change them fundamentally but does limit some of the extra crazy then can field with allies).

Oh and can we have our 2+ re-roll saves back now, 6th edition is officially passed...

 Reecius wrote:

Oooooh, buddy. You do so love to take shots at us, haha. And then you still come to every event! Your hypocrisy much like Doc Holiday's, apparently knows no bounds.

No hypocrisy. I like your events and will support them, and that does not mean that I will not try to voice my opinions on some matters. I don't use invisibility, but I do not think it is right to nerf it.

 Reecius wrote:
I don't arbitrarily choose topics. I can see that that may be the appearance, but it is not accurate. We talk about these things with the team, we listen to attendees, and we gather data. It is not me shooting from the hip.

It was not a shot at you to say that you are the one who is issuing the polls and get to decide on what we are voting on. I am just pointing out to those who think it is true democracy in action that it is not. As I have said in the past, I trust your judgement more than the average attendee and I would be more comfortable with you making unilateral decisions that putting it up for a vote.

 Reecius wrote:
Vegas would have no attendance if it weren't Vegas? So, the fact that we run a tight ship, on schedule, with beautiful terrain, and every other aspect of the event that we bust our asses over to make it fun don't count for anything at all? Thanks for that.

You do all of that, and I am not arguing that.

What I am saying is that you would not have a large attendance without it being in Las Vegas. Now we have no way to prove our opinions one way or another so it will remain just our opinions. Tournament attendance is way down this year for almost every event, but you have the advantage of being in Las Vegas which gets people fired up to come on out to it.

 Reecius wrote:
If that is the case, then it is Odd that the BAO, just 4 months ago, was a sell out event with a wait list. That was in San Jose, so odd that that was the case.

The BAO had a smaller capacity than in years past, and San Jose is much, much, much better than Antioch.

 Reecius wrote:
Or how about Brawl in the Fall which was just a few months ago that was also sold out with a 30 deep wait list in Clovis, CA? Weird.

The Brawl in the Fall only had 64 slots and it was centrally located in California. For a state that is as large as California it really has very limited tournament choices. Now I am not saying anything bad about the BAO and the BitF, but there are other factors at play here.

 Reecius wrote:
I am being a bit sarcastic here, obviously, but you're being ridiculous, man. There is no need to be so negative. If you disagree with aspects of our format, that is fine, but please refrain from these silly and illogical arguments you're making.

What I was saying was not a personal attack. It was just my opinions that you took as a personal attack.

I would love to be more possitive, but GW is killing the 40K tournament scene. Attendance is way down and a lot of good players have fled to other game systems. If you take Adepticon as an example, last year they sold out their 40k championships in about an hour, and this year tickets are still available. What is more telling though is that they sold out their hotel block in a hurry and they are working on their 2nd and 3rd hotels. This means that other games are getting very popular, and 40k is declining,

Even though you run a tight ship, and have a good format, you are not immune to the outside forces that are killing tournament 40k.

"Can't we all just get along?" - Rodney King

With regards to Invisibility, here is my take. Just so that you know, I do run Invisibility - the Centstar, Be'lakor/seekerstar daemons and Tyranids (oh wait...no, that's flyer-spam).

First of all, for all the players basing their main strategy on Invisibility, I will say this....I feel for you. While I DO agree with the nerf to Invisibility, I myself voted AGAINST it as I know the majority will overwhelm the minority and that isn't quite fair to those players.

I understand your frustration at spending all your time working on an army, only to have it nerfed (it is NOT invalidated, just nerfed).

However, I've got to say this....get over yourselves and stop your self-pitying. Basing your army strategy just on 1 power is pure folly. You need to have a more balanced army than that. Despite the nerf to Invisibility, it is still strong (just not broken strong). With your ability to summon Daemons, Daemons are still a good army. So stop relying on just 1 power. Daemons are much better than that.

As for the centstar, I take no pity on them at all. Despite the nerf to Invisibility, they are still a super-powerful and very frustrating unit to play against.

For all the Daemon players who feel stuck in a rut, I offer this. You can PM me with your list and I will give advice on how to change your tactics (and perhaps even your list) against what you feel may be your bad matchups.

 jy2 wrote:
"Can't we all just get along?" - Rodney King

With regards to Invisibility, here is my take. Just so that you know, I do run Invisibility - the Centstar, Be'lakor/seekerstar daemons and Tyranids (oh wait...no, that's flyer-spam).

First of all, for all the players basing their main strategy on Invisibility, I will say this....I feel for you. While I DO agree with the nerf to Invisibility, I myself voted AGAINST it as I know the majority will overwhelm the minority and that isn't quite fair to those players.

I understand your frustration at spending all your time working on an army, only to have it nerfed (it is NOT invalidated, just nerfed).

However, I've got to say this....get over yourselves and stop your self-pitying. Basing your army strategy just on 1 power is pure folly. You need to have a more balanced army than that. Despite the nerf to Invisibility, it is still strong (just not broken strong). With your ability to summon Daemons, Daemons are still a good army. So stop relying on just 1 power. Daemons are much better than that.

As for the centstar, I take no pity on them at all. Despite the nerf to Invisibility, they are still a super-powerful and very frustrating unit to play against.

For all the Daemon players who feel stuck in a rut, I offer this. You can PM me with your list and I will give advice on how to change your tactics (and perhaps even your list) against what you feel may be your bad matchups.

On the off chance that my recent post contributed to your response. I don't see how your comment about self pity is even remotely helpful. Letting the event organizers know that they way they handled this issue had a big impact on a minority while having a minimal impact on the majority is not self pity. As a long time daemon player, I know what buffing and nerfing is, thank you. I also have had far more opponents complain about summoning spam than ever complained about invisibility. Summoning, while it may be a great tournament strategy (resulting in a mass of psychic dice, and rarely finishing a game naturally) is not fun to play or play against. I chose, what I thought was the lesser of two evils.

I like to run themed lists. Mono god, to the extent possible. I've run Tzeentch for 4 years now. It is now a summoning list, as what little shooting it had has fallen prey to 7E psychic mechanics. I stopped running it.

The point is not that I can't construct a new list. Of course I can, but thank you for offering. Will you build and paint the models to go with my new list? The point is that we had a tacit social contract with the TOs and they invalidated their side. When a new book drops the TO can do little, but actively changing a core rulebook rule after selling the tickets is poor form.

Like I said, I feel for your position of having to make changes to your army against a change that probably affects your army more than others. Yes, you have a right to complain. But currently, you have 3 options - 1) to either change up your army list, 2) to not make any changes and go as is or 3) to not go. I can understand if some people choose option #3, but for those who want to tough it out, there's no use crying over spilled milk. It's already done. I am just trying to offer help to those who are not sure how they can adapt to change. Consider my perspective to be tough love if you want.

@Allan
I believe you're rather wrong about the "What I am saying is that you would not have a large attendance without it being in Las Vegas."

I don't care for Vegas's slot machines or other trappings. I'm going so that I can play in a big, 40k GT. Last year I skipped all 'Vegas' related activities. My roomate did likewise.

Please keep up the quote battle though!


@punchdub
"You have succeeded at making the majority marginally more happy at the expense of disenfranchising a small group of players. "

That, sir, is democracy. Thank the ancient greeks. Although your assessment of 'marginally more happy' missed my feelings. Shooting at and fighting Invis-TWC , well, to paraphrase Bart Simpson, "I didn't think it was possible, but that both sucked and blew." I am more than marginally happy about this.

@thread

Time to grow a vagina kids (referring to Betty White's advice from her SNL monologue). The vote is in, Invis is getting some "massive, massive" nerfing (ah, Hulk, that one let me down, 16% to 33% is not what I'd call a "massive, massive" increase ).

@ Reece
Time for important things, okay? Seriously. No sarcasm. What will the bar be stocking? Will acquiring beer be like last year, that 'ticket' system?

 Brothererekose wrote:
@Allan
I believe you're rather wrong about the "What I am saying is that you would not have a large attendance without it being in Las Vegas."

I don't care for Vegas's slot machines or other trappings. I'm going so that I can play in a big, 40k GT. Last year I skipped all 'Vegas' related activities. My roomate did likewise.

I should say as large of attendance as they are having.

 Brothererekose wrote:


@punchdub
"You have succeeded at making the majority marginally more happy at the expense of disenfranchising a small group of players. "

That, sir, is democracy. Thank the ancient greeks. Although your assessment of 'marginally more happy' missed my feelings. Shooting at and fighting Invis-TWC , well, to paraphrase Bart Simpson, "I didn't think it was possible, but that both sucked and blew." I am more than marginally happy about this.

@thread

Time to grow a vagina kids (referring to Betty White's advice from her SNL monologue). The vote is in, Invis is getting some "massive, massive" nerfing (ah, Hulk, that one let me down, 16% to 33% is not what I'd call a "massive, massive" increase ).

Personally I'd say it's time for people who complain about invisibility to "grow a vagina" as you put it. The rules are being changed based on an imbalance that is lowest on the offensive totem pole right now.

Also when does a 100% increase or a 50% cut not indicate a massive shift? You do realize that's what it is right? A 100% increase in CC hits. We're also looking at the increase in going from no damage from blasts and templates to damage from blasts and templates.

I feel like people telling people to adapt would sing a different tune if something had been done to mess with the army they had planned when they bought the ticket based on black and white rulebook rules.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Personally I'd say it's time for people who complain about invisibility to "grow a vagina" as you put it. The rules are being changed based on an imbalance that is lowest on the offensive totem pole right now.

Okay, you say thatt Invis is lowest on the totem pole, then what is the highest one in your neck-of-the-woods? (not a, "Oh, yeah, what would you say!?!?" , but a "Oh. What do guys complain about most where you play?" nice question. )

 Hulksmash wrote:
Also when does a 100% increase or a 50% cut not indicate a massive shift? You do realize that's what it is right? A 100% increase in CC hits. We're also looking at the increase in going from no damage from blasts and templates to damage from blasts and templates.

For example, going from a 5% to 10% chance of success is a one-hundred percent increase, but still small odds of success. Not a game changer. Apply that to a d100 game, like the RPG Runequest or goodness knows what else.

16% to 33% ... twice as good, yes, but still less than average, less than a 50% of success per throw, thus, in my opinion, not a drastic game changer. To me, 'massive' would entail bumping the odds of success over 50% on the dice. But we quibble on that.

And yes, I like the fluff reason behind templates working, and yup, agree to the nerfage it causes. *That* is a far bigger game changer. Absolutely. Massive (no sarcasm).

 Hulksmash wrote:
I feel like people telling people to adapt would sing a different tune if something had been done to mess with the army they had planned when they bought the ticket based on black and white rulebook rules.

I agree. I'd be a big hypocrite if I were to whine, bitch and complain if Serpent Shields got nerfed.

And they need the nerf. I went 4 and 2 at BAO, and I'm not good. Iif you've seen picks of my eldar that I brought to BAO, and Brawl in the Fall, then you'd know I'd take a serious hit in that 4 WaveS army. But that'd be codex specific, instead of RB. So, maybe not a good comparison.

However, I accept your admonishment; If WaveSerpent got nerfed, I promise you I will take it like a birthing orifice, stretching with the changes, even drastic changes (10 centimeters!), and eventually pull back into functional shape, taking the pounding that Sam Kininson once described as 'getting rammed by a car."


- - - - - - - - - - - - -
After all that, Brad, figure out what game show you need to win, which boss to bully, how much 'Honey-Do' you have to do for your wife, and make out to this event. We have beers to buy each other!

"invisible units really hamper me from forging a narrative" -Mike Fox, via facebook.

#quotewar

I can not wait to see everyone and get my "SOCIAL" on with my like minded buddies.

Last year we had some crazy FUN times, at the table and out on the town.... some gamers even got spanked by their waitress. haha

What will happen this year.....

 Blackmoor wrote:

You think a poll for one item is democracy? One person (Reecius) gets to choose the questions, sets the agenda, and sends out the polls. Hong Kong is rioting over such "democracy"

So you dislike the idea of taking a poll because you don't think democracy works because the common voter is self-serving and stupid*, but then apparently you do think democracy works, but this isn't really democracy because Reasons and hyperbolic comparisons to people who are actually being oppressed. Gotcha.

* As opposed to smart, savvy people like yourself, of course.

@Brothererekose

Well played sir This year is a total no go. The plan is to be there next year though so the beer will have to wait till then unless you're headed to Adepticon

@Hulk

What's your next GT you are going to?

I thought you said last year you were going to LVO this year?

Next one will likely be a local one in March, the Darkstar. Then Adepticon in the middle of March. The plan was to make this one last year when it was being planned last year but 5 out of state weddings this year put pay to my vacation time so next year it is

Little OT- Hulk, Darkstar is in May this year.

Hehe, oh yeah Well then Adepticon is the next event. Then Darkstar here in MN, Bugeater in NE, ATC in TN and then probably a break till the fall when we've got Michigan, Indy, and Renegade. And I only have to fly to one of these

I went to the first LVO... and seriously bummed that I won't be attending next year.

If I could, I would've voted to leave it alone as we had ample time to devise ways to counter it.

@Reecus and @thread...

Have you thought about having a GT in the Highlander format (with obvious caveats, ie Sisters), with no other nerfs?

That might be the best of both worlds as mitigating the strong list/combos in the tournament scenes.

1 Detachment
1 Allies
Formations allowed
FW & LoW
Special characters count as their type (Mephiston is a Librarian, etc)
Everything is 0-1 (including Priests, Heralds, etc...) This means one unit of Carnifexes of 1-3 models allowed, for example.

That kills the spam lists (Waveserpents, Necron Flyer spam, Farseer spam, Riptide spam, etc...).

Essentially the anti-SPAM:


The only thing that it doesn't "fix", is that adamantine lance formation?

 whembly wrote:
I went to the first LVO... and seriously bummed that I won't be attending next year.

1 Detachment
1 Allies
Formations allowed
FW & LoW
Special characters count as their type (Mephiston is a Librarian, etc)
Everything is 0-1 (including Priests, Heralds, etc...) This means one unit of Carnifexes of 1-3 models allowed, for example.

That kills the spam lists (Waveserpents, Necron Flyer spam, Farseer spam, Riptide spam, etc...).?

So an ork army with only one unit of boys and one unit of grots as troops? Only one trukk? Limiting everything else to 0-1 but allowing detachments or formations that include multiples of things is just plain dumb. And only allowing those formations/detachments with 0-1 of units limits what armies even have access to them. That would never work. You want highlander come and play in the highlander tournament on Sunday I'll be there as well.

I come to the LVO GT to try and win the painting award and you have just basically shelved 3/4's of my army. There is more to this very large GT then just balance of a single element in a single event.

Try and think bigger picture here people.

 MikeFox wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I went to the first LVO... and seriously bummed that I won't be attending next year.

1 Detachment
1 Allies
Formations allowed
FW & LoW
Special characters count as their type (Mephiston is a Librarian, etc)
Everything is 0-1 (including Priests, Heralds, etc...) This means one unit of Carnifexes of 1-3 models allowed, for example.

That kills the spam lists (Waveserpents, Necron Flyer spam, Farseer spam, Riptide spam, etc...).?

So an ork army with only one unit of boys and one unit of grots as troops? Only one trukk? Limiting everything else to 0-1 but allowing detachments or formations that include multiples of things is just plain dumb. And only allowing those formations/detachments with 0-1 of units limits what armies even have access to them. That would never work. You want highlander come and play in the highlander tournament on Sunday I'll be there as well.

Eh... I think it'll work. It's not perfect by any stretch. But, because the game is a more Maelstrom variant of capture/hold the objectives... under Highlander rules, you couldn't spam out the cheap and/or effective units. You'd have to take the challenge to construct your list to handle the missions. 'Tis why "deathstars" isn't really worth it anymore and we'd see more interesting armies.

*shrugs*

It's just a thought man.

I come to the LVO GT to try and win the painting award and you have just basically shelved 3/4's of my army. There is more to this very large GT then just balance of a single element in a single event.

I'm in no way, advocating that Reecius does this in two months. Maybe in two years?