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.

Casey, it's worse than space barbies. It's SPACE TWILIGHT.


All I wanna say is go Reecius/Frontline. Seriously you guys rocked BAO (my first big event! woot) and I am excited for LVO.

Furthermore I'm glad that you guys are saying that maybe we can tweak the rules a bit and letting us vote on it. I think it takes guts to do and i just wanna say that I support you guys. In the end we have to take control of the rules so we can create a stable environement for people to play competatively in, because GW certainly will not and we have to respect that, so im glad SOMEONE is trying too.


Not everyone is going to agree with these votes and what it changes, but then the whole point of this game is that it changes and we have to modify our armies to match, that's what GW has been doing since time began after all, why is it so bad that we're trying to change things a bit back to fix things?

Some of the nerfs will get a bit extreme, and some wont go far enough, or nerf enough things. We arnt blizzard we can't just iterate constantly and use the input of 1000s of games, our data set will always fundamentally be orders of magnitudes smaller than any other normal board/video game. Furthermore our game has the equivelent of an expansion almost weekly now.

Are there other things that could be nerfed? Sure, here are some examples:

wave serpents
CCB
having a "toe" in area terrain
pentatyrant
tau formation
wyvern
those special vehicle relics for SM/chaos
generally speaking having allied units in your vehicles is probably ultimately a bad idea


the point is are they all broken together in a balanced way? if not or they are taking advantage of some underlying nebulous mechanic (invisability for example) thenmaybe we can take steps to address it over time.

Either way lets play things out and try it out before we complain about the change. We voted on it after all, lets see how much it ACTUALLY changes first?

 tastytaste wrote:
I don't know if it has been mentioned, but why can't a compromise be Invis stays the way it is and changes for next year?

Next year would be 8th edition and invisibility won't exist as a power.

I've said it before and I will say it again, if you have made a list that completely relies on the Invisibility power than you have bigger problems than blast weapons hitting you. Instead of focusing on the slightly less ridiculous power of Invisibility at the LVO why don't you focus on what you are going to do when an Assassin shuts down your linchpin unit and it gets blasted off the table. This isn't to pick on Daemon players it is for anyone who relies on one thing when writing their army lists. You will NEVER win a substantial tournament with a list like that. Take the decision to (slightly) alter the Invisibility power to work on your list building. Be prepared for the Imperial army that has the Assassin that will neuter your power anyways. Remember that this is a game and no matter how much Black Blow Fly (AKA Dozer Blades) yells at the clouds, everything will be alright. This is coming from a guy who is bringing a Centurian Star with Draigo and Tigerius (guess why?)

 Arschbombe wrote:

 tastytaste wrote:
I don't know if it has been mentioned, but why can't a compromise be Invis stays the way it is and changes for next year?

Next year would be 8th edition and invisibility won't exist as a power.

I can't tell if you're serious or not. Next year won't really be 8th edition already will it?

 punchdub wrote:

 Reecius wrote:

@Punchdub

I am genuinely sorry to hear that you are going to be adversely impacted by this ruling. Your list sounds like the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater, unfortunately and for that, I honestly do feel for you.

Your style list is probably what GW intended the power to be used for. Unfortunately, what we get more commonly is invisible deathstars and lords of war which are the types of things that make people not want to come back to tournaments.

You still have over two months, perhaps use some alternate strategies if you think it will be that rough for you? Maybe change a unit out? I know it is easy to direct your frustration at the event or myself, personally (and justifiably so), but if GW had changed invis with an FAQ in December, you'd be in the same boat, you know? The difference here is that it is the community of gamers going to the event that wanted the change, and as such it feels differently.

But I do empathize with you, honestly. You were not the target of the change at all.

Reece, thanks for the condolences and empathy. Perhaps, in the future, you'll consider that you have the power to alienate players by your actions. I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone who had already purchased a ticket that expected Invisibility to have been changed, hoped perhaps, but no expectations. So, had you not made any changes, no one would have had expectations to the contrary and any complaining that took place would have been in the appropriate context of "this game is whack, thanks GW!"

However, by changing the rules (even by vote) you've now upset a number of people who rightfully had expectations about how the game was going to be played. People who are in for hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend your event. People who have built and painted armies, some just for this event. All of this angst and frustration was completely avoidable.

Your argument that GW could have made such a change and we would all have had to live with it is a red herring designed to distract from your conscious action. Yes, GW, can and often does make poor decisions. They have tacitly acknowledged that they don't care to support the competitive gaming scene. There is a difference. One was controllable by the event organizer, and as such you own the impact of the decision, and its timing. You would have been able to wash your hands of the GW FAQ.

I get that majority rules in this case. Again, I say, your handling and timing of the matter was poor, at best. To your comment that I was not the target, I call BS. I do so noting that I know I personally was not the target, but lets be honest -- players that use Invisibility were the target. Maybe I'm not the meanest list around, but I was the target. This was a targeted action by the masses aimed at a select group of players.

I'm moving on. I have started building a new army. We'll see how far I get between now and Vegas. If you see a guy with a half built and painted army, that might be me. If your goal was to sell your painting service, to that I say "touche, good sir!" But I'm not biting, I'm too proud to farm out my painting.

While I continue to have the utmost respect for the effort and investment you put into making these events happen, I really wish I could kick you right now. It wouldn't change anything, but it might distribute some of the anxiety I'm now facing as I try to build and paint 1850 points of another army in 2 months. BTW, something that normally takes my 6-12 months.

Reece doesn't care about you or your problems. He can say he cares, but actions speak louder then words and that statement works both ways. You see he's going to get your money and your attendance with either ruling now. You have said as much, but if you and Swanson and others like you who have been adversely affected by this cancel then he's lost your money. If only 20 people cancel then Reece has lost money from 20 people. He was going to get everyone's money with no nerf to Invisibility and right now if you go he will get everyone's money with a nerf to Invisibility. If 20 people cancel with the nerf, then there is a pain that he feels for this decision. Complaining about it and then still going does nothing because he still gets your money.

You guys can still go to Vegas and have a great time, just don't go to the tourney.

And as for voting against allowing Wave Serpents being to targeted of a ban, then limit ignoes cover weapons to -1 to cover and limit cover saves to a 3+ maximum. That's a fine 'adjustment' to the rules that doesn't target Wave Serpents at all, but limits their shield weapon and also limits units that rely on 2+ cover (usually flyers).

DarthDiggler wrote:

 punchdub wrote:

 Reecius wrote:

@Punchdub

I am genuinely sorry to hear that you are going to be adversely impacted by this ruling. Your list sounds like the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater, unfortunately and for that, I honestly do feel for you.

Your style list is probably what GW intended the power to be used for. Unfortunately, what we get more commonly is invisible deathstars and lords of war which are the types of things that make people not want to come back to tournaments.

You still have over two months, perhaps use some alternate strategies if you think it will be that rough for you? Maybe change a unit out? I know it is easy to direct your frustration at the event or myself, personally (and justifiably so), but if GW had changed invis with an FAQ in December, you'd be in the same boat, you know? The difference here is that it is the community of gamers going to the event that wanted the change, and as such it feels differently.

But I do empathize with you, honestly. You were not the target of the change at all.

Reece, thanks for the condolences and empathy. Perhaps, in the future, you'll consider that you have the power to alienate players by your actions. I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone who had already purchased a ticket that expected Invisibility to have been changed, hoped perhaps, but no expectations. So, had you not made any changes, no one would have had expectations to the contrary and any complaining that took place would have been in the appropriate context of "this game is whack, thanks GW!"

However, by changing the rules (even by vote) you've now upset a number of people who rightfully had expectations about how the game was going to be played. People who are in for hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend your event. People who have built and painted armies, some just for this event. All of this angst and frustration was completely avoidable.

Your argument that GW could have made such a change and we would all have had to live with it is a red herring designed to distract from your conscious action. Yes, GW, can and often does make poor decisions. They have tacitly acknowledged that they don't care to support the competitive gaming scene. There is a difference. One was controllable by the event organizer, and as such you own the impact of the decision, and its timing. You would have been able to wash your hands of the GW FAQ.

I get that majority rules in this case. Again, I say, your handling and timing of the matter was poor, at best. To your comment that I was not the target, I call BS. I do so noting that I know I personally was not the target, but lets be honest -- players that use Invisibility were the target. Maybe I'm not the meanest list around, but I was the target. This was a targeted action by the masses aimed at a select group of players.

I'm moving on. I have started building a new army. We'll see how far I get between now and Vegas. If you see a guy with a half built and painted army, that might be me. If your goal was to sell your painting service, to that I say "touche, good sir!" But I'm not biting, I'm too proud to farm out my painting.

While I continue to have the utmost respect for the effort and investment you put into making these events happen, I really wish I could kick you right now. It wouldn't change anything, but it might distribute some of the anxiety I'm now facing as I try to build and paint 1850 points of another army in 2 months. BTW, something that normally takes my 6-12 months.

Reece doesn't care about you or your problems. He can say he cares, but actions speak louder then words and that statement works both ways. You see he's going to get your money and your attendance with either ruling now. You have said as much, but if you and Swanson and others like you who have been adversely affected by this cancel then he's lost your money. If only 20 people cancel then Reece has lost money from 20 people. He was going to get everyone's money with no nerf to Invisibility and right now if you go he will get everyone's money with a nerf to Invisibility. If 20 people cancel with the nerf, then there is a pain that he feels for this decision. Complaining about it and then still going does nothing because he still gets your money.

You guys can still go to Vegas and have a great time, just don't go to the tourney.

And as for voting against allowing Wave Serpents being to targeted of a ban, then limit ignoes cover weapons to -1 to cover and limit cover saves to a 3+ maximum. That's a fine 'adjustment' to the rules that doesn't target Wave Serpents at all, but limits their shield weapon and also limits units that rely on 2+ cover (usually flyers).

Hey Darth Diggler, I didn't know you knew Reece personally? You must be great friends for him to tell you he didn't care about what his tournament attendees or their feelings. Do you also run tournaments and provide content for fans of Warhammer 40k? Let me know and I'll check out your website. I would also love to go to a tournament you are hosting. Let me know, dude!

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

 punchdub wrote:

 Reecius wrote:

@Punchdub

I am genuinely sorry to hear that you are going to be adversely impacted by this ruling. Your list sounds like the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater, unfortunately and for that, I honestly do feel for you.

Your style list is probably what GW intended the power to be used for. Unfortunately, what we get more commonly is invisible deathstars and lords of war which are the types of things that make people not want to come back to tournaments.

You still have over two months, perhaps use some alternate strategies if you think it will be that rough for you? Maybe change a unit out? I know it is easy to direct your frustration at the event or myself, personally (and justifiably so), but if GW had changed invis with an FAQ in December, you'd be in the same boat, you know? The difference here is that it is the community of gamers going to the event that wanted the change, and as such it feels differently.

But I do empathize with you, honestly. You were not the target of the change at all.

Reece, thanks for the condolences and empathy. Perhaps, in the future, you'll consider that you have the power to alienate players by your actions. I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone who had already purchased a ticket that expected Invisibility to have been changed, hoped perhaps, but no expectations. So, had you not made any changes, no one would have had expectations to the contrary and any complaining that took place would have been in the appropriate context of "this game is whack, thanks GW!"

However, by changing the rules (even by vote) you've now upset a number of people who rightfully had expectations about how the game was going to be played. People who are in for hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend your event. People who have built and painted armies, some just for this event. All of this angst and frustration was completely avoidable.

Your argument that GW could have made such a change and we would all have had to live with it is a red herring designed to distract from your conscious action. Yes, GW, can and often does make poor decisions. They have tacitly acknowledged that they don't care to support the competitive gaming scene. There is a difference. One was controllable by the event organizer, and as such you own the impact of the decision, and its timing. You would have been able to wash your hands of the GW FAQ.

I get that majority rules in this case. Again, I say, your handling and timing of the matter was poor, at best. To your comment that I was not the target, I call BS. I do so noting that I know I personally was not the target, but lets be honest -- players that use Invisibility were the target. Maybe I'm not the meanest list around, but I was the target. This was a targeted action by the masses aimed at a select group of players.

I'm moving on. I have started building a new army. We'll see how far I get between now and Vegas. If you see a guy with a half built and painted army, that might be me. If your goal was to sell your painting service, to that I say "touche, good sir!" But I'm not biting, I'm too proud to farm out my painting.

While I continue to have the utmost respect for the effort and investment you put into making these events happen, I really wish I could kick you right now. It wouldn't change anything, but it might distribute some of the anxiety I'm now facing as I try to build and paint 1850 points of another army in 2 months. BTW, something that normally takes my 6-12 months.

Reece doesn't care about you or your problems. He can say he cares, but actions speak louder then words and that statement works both ways. You see he's going to get your money and your attendance with either ruling now. You have said as much, but if you and Swanson and others like you who have been adversely affected by this cancel then he's lost your money. If only 20 people cancel then Reece has lost money from 20 people. He was going to get everyone's money with no nerf to Invisibility and right now if you go he will get everyone's money with a nerf to Invisibility. If 20 people cancel with the nerf, then there is a pain that he feels for this decision. Complaining about it and then still going does nothing because he still gets your money.

You guys can still go to Vegas and have a great time, just don't go to the tourney.

And as for voting against allowing Wave Serpents being to targeted of a ban, then limit ignoes cover weapons to -1 to cover and limit cover saves to a 3+ maximum. That's a fine 'adjustment' to the rules that doesn't target Wave Serpents at all, but limits their shield weapon and also limits units that rely on 2+ cover (usually flyers).

Hey Darth Diggler, I didn't know you knew Reece personally? You must be great friends for him to tell you he didn't care about what his tournament attendees or their feelings. Do you also run tournaments and provide content for fans of Warhammer 40k? Let me know and I'll check out your website. I would also love to go to a tournament you are hosting. Let me know, dude!

I have to say from an outside observer that your posts are pretty much the definition of flaming. You basically ride the line of rule #1 while blasting people with most obnoxious of illogical fallacies.

Reece is a big boy, don't offend him further by thinking he needs your kind of posts to defend him

I believe that DD used to be a part of the Adepticon crew and at one time ran their Gladiator tournament.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I believe that DD used to be a part of the Adepticon crew and at one time ran their Gladiator tournament.

Regardless of credentials everyone has a right to post their opinion, especially when they have smart ideas like his, with out being lambasted by vitriol.


He (DD) does raise an awesome point about fixing unfun rules. If you are going to avoid targeted nerfs then it's not like it is difficult to amend core rules. It's not like they are apposed to it. Change ignores cover to a minus to their save and limit the benefits of cover. Done.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I believe that DD used to be a part of the Adepticon crew and at one time ran their Gladiator tournament.

That doesn't mean he is entitled to attack Reece's character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I believe that DD used to be a part of the Adepticon crew and at one time ran their Gladiator tournament.

Regardless of credentials everyone has a right to post their opinion, especially when they have smart ideas like his, with out being lambasted by vitriol.


He (DD) does raise an awesome point about fixing unfun rules. If you are going to avoid targeted nerfs then it's not like it is difficult to amend core rules. It's not like they are apposed to it. Change ignores cover to a minus to their save and limit the benefits of cover. Done.

While the points about the nerf may have merit he is still attacking a Dakka members integrity and character in his post.

 punchdub wrote:

 Reecius wrote:

@Punchdub

I am genuinely sorry to hear that you are going to be adversely impacted by this ruling. Your list sounds like the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater, unfortunately and for that, I honestly do feel for you.

Your style list is probably what GW intended the power to be used for. Unfortunately, what we get more commonly is invisible deathstars and lords of war which are the types of things that make people not want to come back to tournaments.

You still have over two months, perhaps use some alternate strategies if you think it will be that rough for you? Maybe change a unit out? I know it is easy to direct your frustration at the event or myself, personally (and justifiably so), but if GW had changed invis with an FAQ in December, you'd be in the same boat, you know? The difference here is that it is the community of gamers going to the event that wanted the change, and as such it feels differently.

But I do empathize with you, honestly. You were not the target of the change at all.

Reece, thanks for the condolences and empathy. Perhaps, in the future, you'll consider that you have the power to alienate players by your actions. I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone who had already purchased a ticket that expected Invisibility to have been changed, hoped perhaps, but no expectations. So, had you not made any changes, no one would have had expectations to the contrary and any complaining that took place would have been in the appropriate context of "this game is whack, thanks GW!"

However, by changing the rules (even by vote) you've now upset a number of people who rightfully had expectations about how the game was going to be played. People who are in for hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend your event. People who have built and painted armies, some just for this event. All of this angst and frustration was completely avoidable.

Your argument that GW could have made such a change and we would all have had to live with it is a red herring designed to distract from your conscious action. Yes, GW, can and often does make poor decisions. They have tacitly acknowledged that they don't care to support the competitive gaming scene. There is a difference. One was controllable by the event organizer, and as such you own the impact of the decision, and its timing. You would have been able to wash your hands of the GW FAQ.

I get that majority rules in this case. Again, I say, your handling and timing of the matter was poor, at best. To your comment that I was not the target, I call BS. I do so noting that I know I personally was not the target, but lets be honest -- players that use Invisibility were the target. Maybe I'm not the meanest list around, but I was the target. This was a targeted action by the masses aimed at a select group of players.

I'm moving on. I have started building a new army. We'll see how far I get between now and Vegas. If you see a guy with a half built and painted army, that might be me. If your goal was to sell your painting service, to that I say "touche, good sir!" But I'm not biting, I'm too proud to farm out my painting.

While I continue to have the utmost respect for the effort and investment you put into making these events happen, I really wish I could kick you right now. It wouldn't change anything, but it might distribute some of the anxiety I'm now facing as I try to build and paint 1850 points of another army in 2 months. BTW, something that normally takes my 6-12 months.

I don't want this to sound rude, and I understand some of your frustrations, but I feel it should be pointed out that if you build an army entirely around a single (in theory randomly rolled for) psychic power, that that should be an indication of several things. First and foremost, that there's something vastly overpowered about said power. Second, that it's likely to get nerfed, either by GW or by organizers at some point, and one should be ready for that. If someone builds an army around a single gimmick, then they should do so with the expectation that said gimmick can be modified or removed, and that the army may not function in that case, and should have a backup plan. Basic evolutionary theory, if you overspecialize, you over-expose yourself to the dangers of change. Like the old Siren-Prince lists, an army built around a single gimmick is not likely to last forever. At the same time, this change in and of itself is not tremendously unreasonable, both from a rules and a fluff perspective.

I get that the change should have been made earlier, that's entirely fair and I'll grant that, but if you built and painted an entire army around exploiting a single psychic power to the degree that this change is going to completely neuter it (which is difficult to see happening, that ability is still very powerful) and now require building an entirely new army as a result, it's difficult to feel tremendously bad about that for the above reasons. People may have gotten too comfortable with GW doing effectively zero on the Errata/FAQ front the last couple years, and they also doubled down on 40k not being a tournament game, and as a result its up to organizers to step up on that front with 40k's square-peg-round-hole issues with tournaments. If it were something like "yeah, we're going to not allow Telepathy at all", I'd be more inclined to see the change as draconian, but this is a relatively reasonable change to a single psychic power available to a number of armies and almost everyone through allies.

I haven't played in an event attended by or run by Reece in two or three years, but I can't see him making such a change just to get at specific players.

If and when GW tones down FNP I will completely agree with you. A GW nerf is a completely different thing than an arbitrary TO nerf.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If and when GW tones down FNP I will completely agree with you. A GW nerf is a completely different thing than an arbitrary TO nerf.

Unfortunately GW has apparently lost interest in doing any sort of Errata/FAQ, or rules support in general for their games. I don't think we'll be seeing anything from them for some time, though maybe the new CEO will fix that.

What about FNP in particular though needs toning down? I thought they'd already done that by reducing it to a 5+ from 5E's 4+, or is there something I'm missing?

FNP is sacred ground.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If and when GW tones down FNP I will completely agree with you. A GW nerf is a completely different thing than an arbitrary TO nerf.

What they've chosen to do is hardly arbitrary.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I believe that DD used to be a part of the Adepticon crew and at one time ran their Gladiator tournament.

That doesn't mean he is entitled to attack Reece's character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I believe that DD used to be a part of the Adepticon crew and at one time ran their Gladiator tournament.

Regardless of credentials everyone has a right to post their opinion, especially when they have smart ideas like his, with out being lambasted by vitriol.


He (DD) does raise an awesome point about fixing unfun rules. If you are going to avoid targeted nerfs then it's not like it is difficult to amend core rules. It's not like they are apposed to it. Change ignores cover to a minus to their save and limit the benefits of cover. Done.

While the points about the nerf may have merit he is still attacking a Dakka members integrity and character in his post.

I hardly would call his post attacking his character or integrity. The decision Reece made and the poor implication and timing of it were way more damaging to his integrity then any post DD made to be honest.

The following post is just my personal observation,

Did anyone actually think invis was going to win this gt? Was my first reaction after reading the poll question. Now im from the other side of the country so I can't claim to know the west coast meta..but is it that much different that invis is breaking the game?

I personally voted I didn't care about the change (in hind site I wish I voted against it, have been testing with the change and its a pretty big nerf, however I have not played against lords of war yet so I reserve the right to change my opinion).

I think for most people its more the fact that the change was made after tickets were sold. For instance, when I bought my ticket I immediately looked over the rules for the 40k championship. I recently looked at them again because i was curious about a Lord of War and saw this :

"A LoW may be chosen from the following list. *Please note, the Battle of Keylek legacy of glory upgrade is not allowed for the LVO 2015"

now several questions come to mind.

1. Does this only apply to LoW?
2. When did this get amended as it was not there when I first read it.
3. Why was this not put to a vote like invisibility?
4. Were we ever going to be informed about the update?

Have to say, as a player and TO, I am not a fan of stealth changes like this.

 Bahkara wrote:
I think for most people its more the fact that the change was made after tickets were sold. For instance, when I bought my ticket I immediately looked over the rules for the 40k championship. I recently looked at them again because i was curious about a Lord of War and saw this :

"A LoW may be chosen from the following list. *Please note, the Battle of Keylek legacy of glory upgrade is not allowed for the LVO 2015"

now several questions come to mind.

1. Does this only apply to LoW?
2. When did this get amended as it was not there when I first read it.
3. Why was this not put to a vote like invisibility?
4. Were we ever going to be informed about the update?

Have to say, as a player and TO, I am not a fan of stealth changes like this.

Reecius thinks that LOW that ignore cover are to powerful and that is why all of them that can do it are on the banned list. The Battle of Keylek legacy of glory is a way around it and so he is closing that loophole.

 Bahkara wrote:
I think for most people its more the fact that the change was made after tickets were sold. For instance, when I bought my ticket I immediately looked over the rules for the 40k championship. I recently looked at them again because i was curious about a Lord of War and saw this :

"A LoW may be chosen from the following list. *Please note, the Battle of Keylek legacy of glory upgrade is not allowed for the LVO 2015"

now several questions come to mind.

1. Does this only apply to LoW?
2. When did this get amended as it was not there when I first read it.
3. Why was this not put to a vote like invisibility?
4. Were we ever going to be informed about the update?

Have to say, as a player and TO, I am not a fan of stealth changes like this.

It appears to be hand in hand with not allowing any Lord of War that ignores cover saves.

Thanks for all of the valuable feedback, everyone! We appreciate it. Obviously, there is room for improvement in the way we approach some of these issues, and we will take all this feedback and handle it better in the future.

@Bahkara

We have a standing policy that any LoW with a larger than 5" blast or Helstrom Template weapon with torrent is not allowed. Once I became aware of that relic, it was added to the list. Sorry if it wasn't there right out the gates, there is so much info in the game now, coming out all the time, it can be hard to keep up at times. We do our best to stay on top of it all, though.

@Thread

Check out these gorgeous Collosal and Gargantuan models we're giving away in the Warmachine and Hordes events! These were painted by the very talented Tyson Koch.





Can't wait to give these bad boys away!

Hi all,

Looking forward to competing in the 40k side of things. I wasn't in on time to be a part of the poll, but I will give my 2 cents since I'm sure Reecius and the rest of the LVO/Frontline crowd are hearing these as they come in.

I would split tournament rules into 3 groups. 1) Interpretations of ambiguous or poorly written rules. 2) Comp rules. 3) Re-making specific rules and unit changes to the game's official rules.

Tourney Rules of type 1 are always understandable and exist in every tournament. The FAQ is a regular fixture in tournaments and I'd say we're all OK with them at this point. Rules of type 2 can be controversial, but at least they're up front and everyone has to deal with them equally. Nearly every tourney has some level of them.

This change to Invisibility falls into the third category, and it's with those changes that I am most cautious. They tend to impact only a single race or group of players, to the benefit of the rest of players. In this case of course the psychic races are the only losers, with CSM/Demon probably being the worst hit. Meanwhile all others can downgrade (slightly) the threat from Invisibility. The problem with this third group of rules is that you really can undermine any list that used the impacted rule/ability/unit and you don't have anything to fall back on such as the age old debate between rules as intended/rules as written. In this case, Invisibility was very clearly understood. While in egregious case third category rules can make sense, they have to be decided well in advance and really have to be defined/decided by the organizer.

I would have been against the invis change in this case. I feel it impacted players very unevenly - and honestly on the east coast I haven't seen/felt invis really break the game or its meta. Although I can see how it is problematic in conjunction with certain lords of war. That said, the LoW question is mostly fixed by the comp restrictions. And specific to this occurrence I feel it never should have been put to any sort of vote. People naturally are going to vote to their benefit, it's a competitive event. This should have been decided well in advance of when tickets went on sale since it's the type of change that nearly invalidates some (admittedly not the most competitive) lists. It's not like Invisibility just happened this past two months, it's been around a while now and if we were going to change it there should have been more warning for everyone's sake.

All that said, it's water under the bridge at this point and I'll be looking forward to the tourney! Hopefully in the future rule changes can be handled in a different manner/earlier in the process.

Grey

The name should at least be changed from Invisibility to Translucentcy lol



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reece are you granting refunds for people who aren't down with a little fiddling with the rules? I can understand trying to balance the game through redesign. I would be willing to give that a shot, assuming I could read the rules before I bought my ticket. However picking Invisibility over so many other issues... well I don't need to reiterate the many problems with that.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If and when GW tones down FNP I will completely agree with you. A GW nerf is a completely different thing than an arbitrary TO nerf.

Because GW put so much care and precision into their errata?

 Red Corsair wrote:

I hardly would call his post attacking his character or integrity.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Reece doesn't care about you or your problems.

Huh.

Non constructive post.

 Elemental wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If and when GW tones down FNP I will completely agree with you. A GW nerf is a completely different thing than an arbitrary TO nerf.

Because GW put so much care and precision into their errata?

 Red Corsair wrote:

I hardly would call his post attacking his character or integrity.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Reece doesn't care about you or your problems.

Huh.

The event was sold out months ago with a waiting list by happy and excited players who were fine with the current packet yet a change was made in conflict with ~27% of registered attendees 3 months out, basically pissing in those players Cheerios. If he is going to lean on cold logic in his defense of a decision then in regard to his behavior; if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'd say it's OK to call it a duck without a SJW hoping in.

The caring decision was and still is to give people what they paid for initially and make changes to future events. An event refund won't pay people back for their vacation time and travel arrangements.

It's not like they can't change it back. I honestly am surprised they haven't.

C'mon kids, the "FLG guys are despotic douches because they arbitrarily, and (cue with Sam Jackson's Julius) with extreme prejudice!, butt-hurt my Sue-Storm-Deathstar themed army ... timing, refunds ... democracy, polls ... voting ... rage quit/pause .... "

That dead horse has been beaten, rotted, decayed and recycled into grass, re-eaten by other herbivores, killed and eaten by Mufasa, and fatherly-advice commented on.

Time to move on.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anybody already Flamingo familiar for a non-obnoxious restaurant? Yeah, I could check their website, but word-of-mouth is far better. I'm not looking for great eats, just solid diner fare (especially after a day of beer). And not a hike through the streets and crowds. - Thanks to Frankie for that memorable stroll last year.

 Red Corsair wrote:

The event was sold out months ago with a waiting list by happy and excited players who were fine with the current packet yet a change was made in conflict with ~27% of registered attendees 3 months out, basically pissing in those players Cheerios. If he is going to lean on cold logic in his defense of a decision then in regard to his behavior; if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'd say it's OK to call it a duck without a SJW hoping in.

Ah, so it actually was an attack on his character, but it's okay because it's justified to you.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If and when GW tones down FNP I will completely agree with you. A GW nerf is a completely different thing than an arbitrary TO nerf.

Because GW put so much care and precision into their errata?

 Red Corsair wrote:

I hardly would call his post attacking his character or integrity.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Reece doesn't care about you or your problems.

Huh.

The event was sold out months ago with a waiting list by happy and excited players who were fine with the current packet yet a change was made in conflict with ~27% of registered attendees 3 months out, basically pissing in those players Cheerios. If he is going to lean on cold logic in his defense of a decision then in regard to his behavior; if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'd say it's OK to call it a duck without a SJW hoping in.

The caring decision was and still is to give people what they paid for initially and make changes to future events. An event refund won't pay people back for their vacation time and travel arrangements.

It's not like they can't change it back. I honestly am surprised they haven't.

I know , right? It is tearing me up that this is causing you and BBF so much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Are you even attending this tournament?

I don't have any teefus anymore now .