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.

 Nyghoma wrote:
This is a tournament, not a coombiyaa circle. This talk about " not fun to play against" is a pathetic anodyne hyperberbaly. Get off of it. Play your friends if a tournament is not fun to lose in.

You can't make concessions for certain armies and not other. A TO needs to be objective on guidelines. Only non-super hvy/GCs? Why so only Gks, SWs, and Orks have a glaring advantage? .

Did you say GKs and Orks have an advantage? Lmao! This guy makes me cringe!

Back on topic, Id hope to see some logical discussion as to certain bans such as ad-lance. Some people are stating "it has advantages and disadvantages" and I tell you now, it has barely any disadvantages. Extensive playtesting has still put it right at the top in a good players hand, and theres little you can accomplish when you can't take into account the stomp!

KillswitchUK wrote:
Did you say GKs and Orks have an advantage? Lmao! This guy makes me cringe!

He is referencing the fact that currently the only non Super-Heavy/Gargantuan Lord of War units belong to those armies.

as far as the questions go:

1) I like the one unit limit idea for Forgeworld models, seems like it would be a nice easy way to test those waters and see what the inclusion of these models provide.

2) As far as detachments go, I have built lists based on the 2014 Nova Rules and they have done really well...

3) Lords of War are fine in my eyes, as long as they have legal 40k rules, they take a huge risk in taking some of the high cost ones.. yeah they can do alot of damage to un-preped list but this is a tournament and they should come prepared for it and on top of that since they cost so much they won't have much else on the board, using AdLance as an example thats 1110pts minimum... I could live with or without AdLance... they wanna pay the points go for it, you just bring something that can shoot it down, expanding on what I said before it is a tournament and should be expected since it was allowed in 2014.

MVBrandt wrote:
Questions for the 40K prospective attendee:

1) Should we allow Forgeworld in some capacity, given the variety of things now in the game anyway via all the datasheets/formations/white dwarves/etc.?

2) Would you like to see the detachment rules change from "max of one CAD" to simply "2 detachments" as the limit, in light of the fact many of the factions can now 'effectively' get 2 Combined Arms Detachments via their Codex-specific detachments anyway?

3) How do people feel right now about lords of war? They were widely reviled by casual players in our post-event survey. Should we allow a limited LOW list? Should we ban adlance or ban superheavies altogether while allowing Lords of War that are not superheavies/gargantuans?

Feedback is always welcome at NOVA, and we typically perform post-event and sometimes pre-registration surveys. We're contemplating a survey in January prior to registration opening.

Happy Holidays,
- Mike

1) Typically, I'd advocate that if it's "40k legal", then treat 'em no differently than codex units. However, I've ran into my share of massed sabre platforms and such... that a "0-1" Forgeworld unit is a fine compromise. For a SM army, maybe that's Sevrin Loth?

2) Just make each CAD unique and allow any formation/dataslate/white dwarf... it's an 1850 list, you can't cram that much sources to be effective in a large tournament setting imo.

3) Adlance is fine... I'd expect to see these in your tourny if allowed and will adjust my army accordingly. As for the rest of LoW... I'd allow any of them with the fewest restriction as possible. (ie, no Revenant + skyshield, Heirophant, and... ??)

3) Lords of War... yeah they can do alot of damage to un-preped list but this is a tournament and they should come prepared for it.

Couldn't have said it better. Exalt+1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Did you say GKs and Orks have an advantage? Lmao! This guy makes me cringe!

Wasn't really my point, but I'll bite.

Under some of these suggested conditions, what's stopping someone from fulfilling the minimum compulsory requirements in a Nemesis strike force and brandishing a Draigo? A whopping 220 pts to start a Draigostar. Gks dont need to be your primary detachment/investment. Not that it's a prime cut but nevertheless.

 Nyghoma wrote:

3) Lords of War... yeah they can do alot of damage to un-preped list but this is a tournament and they should come prepared for it.

Couldn't have said it better. Exalt+1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Did you say GKs and Orks have an advantage? Lmao! This guy makes me cringe!

Wasn't really my point, but I'll bite.

Under some of these suggested conditions, what's stopping someone from fulfilling the minimum compulsory requirements in a Nemesis strike force and brandishing a Draigo? A whopping 220 pts to start a Draigostar. Gks dont need to be your primary detachment/investment. Not that it's a prime cut but nevertheless.

And how many DraigoStars have won a major GTs in the US since the start of 7th Ed?

All the tournaments Mr. Remedy4389!

Not that it's a prime cut

QFE.

Wanna take anymore quotes out of context? We can play this game all day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The bottom line is this. I can't stand seeing tournaments being dumbed down for the lowest common denominator. What happen? You're 6th edition army didn't translate well into 7th edition? Oh well, go back to the drawing board. Awww your army can't handle WS spam? Suck it up buttercup. Rock, paper, scissors got you in a bind? Welcome to life.

I don't care what the format is, no forge world-forge world. No LoWs-LoWs. No dbl CAD-dbl CAD. Just be consistent and non-partial. Carving out a blatantly tailored restriction list to suit or benefit your personal needs to get a leg up in a tournament is pathetic and shameless. Stop asking God (ie the TO ), to carry your weight or be your crutch. I've seen this done for ages in every competitive game format and media imaginable.

A super heavy is a friggin super heavy. I don't give a crap if it's attack can't ignore cover or if it doesn't have a ranged d attack. I don't care if it has 3 less hull points. You paid 370 pts for it. You got what you paid for. Stop railroading certain metas, l2p.

 Remedy4389 wrote:

 Nyghoma wrote:

3) Lords of War... yeah they can do alot of damage to un-preped list but this is a tournament and they should come prepared for it.

Couldn't have said it better. Exalt+1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Did you say GKs and Orks have an advantage? Lmao! This guy makes me cringe!

Wasn't really my point, but I'll bite.

Under some of these suggested conditions, what's stopping someone from fulfilling the minimum compulsory requirements in a Nemesis strike force and brandishing a Draigo? A whopping 220 pts to start a Draigostar. Gks dont need to be your primary detachment/investment. Not that it's a prime cut but nevertheless.

And how many DraigoStars have won a major GTs in the US since the start of 7th Ed?

It isn't so much a Draigowing build that is winning GT's so much as it is the centurionstar builds being abused.

Let's rephrase. How many GT's has centurion star won?

MechaniCon recently, right? Wasn't a huge event, but it is a GT.

My thoughts would be...

1. Allow forgeworld , go,with whatever is there. Look at updated rules and try not to let people go too far back in case they don't make sense. Don't do this 0-1 limitation. Also consider list that are ready for 7th edition.

2. Put a point limit on lord of war % wise. You don't want Reavers at the table. I would limit right below the ctan and war hound. Those big models for majority of players lop side games too much and makes it un fun.

3. Go with three detachments. This allows other books such as assassins and inquisitors to get play. Really after two detachments and you allow double cad, there is really no reason not too.

Will be there this year

Darkwynn wrote:
My thoughts would be...



2. Put a point limit on lord of war % wise. You don't want Reavers at the table. I would limit right below the ctan and war hound. Those big models for majority of players lop side games too much and makes it un fun.

Ok, I really need to know this. Explain to me which dominant tournament lists are fun to play against? I'm not talking about the rare, oddball list that surfaces when the planets are in alignment. I'm talking about the spam lists.

How are they more fun to play against then a Warhound? Is it psychological because the warhound is extremely visible? Is it because that player decided to entrust all of their firepower in a single model?

Are imperium armies (excluding IK), that much of a threat in the tournament scene because they are curbstomping their way to the #1 position? For that matter, are the Necrons sweeping all the competition?

What if those 2 LoWs are the only hope and chance for those armies to prevail or be top tier competitive? Yeah i know the lip service, "if you need a 900 pt LoW to win a game, you're a baddie"... That's not the point I'm trying to make. Was there some scandal I missed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps if you are entering a tournament with the intention of winning, why in God's name are you bringing a list that can't handle a LoW more expensive than Chapter Master?

 RiTides wrote:
MechaniCon recently, right? Wasn't a huge event, but it is a GT.

*grumble* didn't get to play that thing this year. Lost overall to that player by 1 point, well played him and his crew! Had one of the closest matches I've ever played against his buddy in game 3 after one too many beers/headaches and a really fantastic combo he had setup.

But yeah Cent-star it is currently one of those rather strong combos. Again, it's a tournament - plan ahead. Once the rules are locked down, build towards the possible other builds out there. A Cent star can be shot down if you plan for it, same as a penta-flyrant, adlance, flying circus, or bike army. These (generally) one-trick ponies tend to not make it all the way simply because their counters exist and once they get that powerful people react. in the tournament pool.

Serpent spam for instance. It's fun, it's horrible, etc. But tau eat that crap for breakfast. And while not the #1 race statistically on Torrent of Fire, there's a not insignificant chance each WS spamming player will run into a competent Tau (or Tau/Enclave) List over the course of a GT. And then they die if the dice don't go very much their way or they don't have some serious skills (looking at you Klaus)

Really, it's an odds game. But most of these problem-child lists have very hard counters. In the end, you can't run something that has a hard counter.. Ad Lance dies super fast to gating/dropping melta with a strong anchor out front from turn 1, WS has a tough time with volume of fire at S7+ and ignores cover, Psychics just got the mother of all counters out of the newly buffed assassin, Anti-Air solutions now abound for Flying beasties.. and in the end Lords of War are nasty but a S8+ weapon still carves a pretty big hole through them and you potentially give up alpha strike and 3 victory points which is huge in a tournament. So most every take-all comers top-tier list has some answer for WS, Ad-Lance, Flying Circus/Flyrants, etc. Even if it's just to ignore their big hitters and win big on 4 or 5 out of 7 mission types.

Newest question ..


So, this is something we're NOT seriously considering yet, but I'd love to hear feedback as always, as it popped into my head.

What if, instead of banning or allowing lords of war through the creation of an exhaustive and potentially difficult-to-maintain or confusing-for-players list, we instead took a page from the Narrative in 2014 and tweaked certain D results and (optionally) stomps?

These would be two separate questions:

1) Adding a rule that simply prevents D weapons and weapons with a hellstorm template or blast larger than 5" from reducing a cover [1b - or invulnerable save] to worse than 5+

2) Adding a rule that allows models affected by a "6" on the Stomp Table to make an invulnerable save if they have one, at no better than 5+

I don't know that #2 is really necessary ... though Stomp certainly has its opponents (especially the large blast stomps of the Tranny C'Tan). The tweak to the Hellstorm Template and D-track of the C'Tan would still make him fairly preeminent at dissolving magic-powered deathstars, but might substantially reduce his ability to willy nilly remove entire squads of regular joes and other things.

Food for thought.

This is in contrast to a ban-list of certain Lords of War and/or Lords of War weaponry, should they be permitted in the Open.

Keep in mind these things are still being discussed and finalized, and you should offer your input freely, but without fretting that you need to bombastically prevent (or force) adoption of a rule that is not a rule yet (or really more than a pondering).

Edit - note, this would not be crafted, if ever done, in a fashion that would allow people to combo shrouding and/or stealth on top of the reduced save to kick it back up.


Short-hand pros:
More elegant, applies to all future releases without requiring constant list updates and amendments and the like, plus does not require attendees to "know" a ban list, instead just to know 1-2 single sentence rules.
Allows people to play with all of their toys, and frees up those who just want to use their shinies to use their shinies without allowing more powerful abilities to enter the game quite fully.

Short-hand cons:
People are for some reason more OK with utterly eliminating all units/weapons that ignore cover and are hellstorm/apocalyptic instead of allowing them but at a slightly less powerful version
A relatively small % of people will still not like this idea due to wanting full-bore Lords of War / D in the game at all levels / capacities

Both can work Mike the problem is you are going to have people on either side unhappy.

Darkwynn wrote:
Both can work Mike the problem is you are going to have people on either side unhappy.

Since that's generally true either way, my curiosity is whether it would still be better then to go with an elegant rule that applies in perpetuity, rather than a list that needs constant management and editorializing.

 Nyghoma wrote:

Darkwynn wrote:
My thoughts would be...



2. Put a point limit on lord of war % wise. You don't want Reavers at the table. I would limit right below the ctan and war hound. Those big models for majority of players lop side games too much and makes it un fun.

Ok, I really need to know this. Explain to me which dominant tournament lists are fun to play against? I'm not talking about the rare, oddball list that surfaces when the planets are in alignment. I'm talking about the spam lists.

How are they more fun to play against then a Warhound? Is it psychological because the warhound is extremely visible? Is it because that player decided to entrust all of their firepower in a single model?

Are imperium armies (excluding IK), that much of a threat in the tournament scene because they are curbstomping their way to the #1 position? For that matter, are the Necrons sweeping all the competition?

What if those 2 LoWs are the only hope and chance for those armies to prevail or be top tier competitive? Yeah i know the lip service, "if you need a 900 pt LoW to win a game, you're a baddie"... That's not the point I'm trying to make. Was there some scandal I missed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps if you are entering a tournament with the intention of winning, why in God's name are you bringing a list that can't handle a LoW more expensive than Chapter Master?

Sure, I can handle the question because I think you are kind of missing a bigger point. Tournaments are suppose to be competitive but there is supposed to be an atmosphere of fun there also. Your top tier and normal players will be able to handle those lords of war... Your majority of players wil not though. The game hasn't matured fast enough for it to happen and the books are coming to fast.

What happens is you have a singular model that goes and decimated three or four units on the other side that can hurt it. Then the opposing player can do nothing. Turns out to be no fun and you have a person who just wants to quit and leave. What good does that too for anyone? Less players and more people leave the game. Now from your tournament list that most players have they can at least interact with that army do some damage and feel like they are playing a game or tactics are being used. There isn't much tactics or thought when you put one model down, turn it to shoot and roll dice and that is your whole army.

Necrons and elder will get a new book and changes will happen by then but if you don't understand why everyone has a huge knee jerk reaction to them ... Then I don't know what to tell you. GT's need to cater to their whole population and make the game fun for everyone.

Agree with Darkwyn, The attitude of "It's a tournament, so suck it up or don't play." Is not one that leads to the long term sustainabilty of the 40k community. A majority of players are not willing to spend hundreds of dollars in the pursuit of winning, and wholesale change their armies to win events. They just are not. They want to be able to play close games, using the army they have invested in with perhaps small modifications over time. Events need to cater to this crowd as it is the largest one. Most don't expect to win a GT (especially a large one), but want to play multiple enjoyable games, against a variety of players and armies. If that is not possible most will save their money and not attend....which leads to events shutting down. We have seen this increasingly since the middle of 6e, where top lists are just not something average lists compete well with, and often turn the game into 2 guys rolling dice, while one removes models, and loses the game accomplishing little. Superheavies increase the chance of this....either the superheavy nullifies threats to it, and dominates, or the opponent can handle it and losing it renders the SH player non-competitive (losing 800 points on say turn 1, will very much take a player out of a game fast.)



As to D weapon changes, those look decent, I still hate the randomness they introduce into the game, but at least this is a bit better.

Ps if you are entering a tournament with the intention of winning, why in God's name are you bringing a list that can't handle a LoW more expensive than Chapter Master?

I think this quote really sums up everything. A vast majority of tournament attendees enter tournaments with no real intention of winning.

What Brendan said is accurate. The 40K tournament community is not the Magic: the Gathering community. Also, 40K is not Malifaux - competitive and casual distinctions exist heavily, because the game is nowhere near balanced. Games like Malifaux can be played no holds barred at all times b/c there is no such thing as a power unit or a weak unit (or, perhaps better said, everything is turned up to 11).

Because of this, if peoples' owned armies cannot be built into something that can deal with popular meta builds, they tend to either not attend or "accept their fate" and attend without regard for the outcome.

This is why the NOVA Open invented its bracketing system - so players who don't have top tier armies don't have to chase the meta dragon, and actually get locked into the right spots for them once the early round bludgeoning occurs. This makes it very hard for the "meta" to cause all your losses at the NOVA's GT.

MVBrandt wrote:


1) Adding a rule that simply prevents D weapons and weapons with a hellstorm template or blast larger than 5" from reducing a cover [1b - or invulnerable save] to worse than 5+

2) Adding a rule that allows models affected by a "6" on the Stomp Table to make an invulnerable save if they have one, at no better than 5+

You know - I dig this idea, however, didn't the S Weapons end up changing in 7th to allow Cover/Invulnerable Saves versus them, depending on the D roll result? Isn't the whole idea of nerfing the Hellstorm and 5"+ Blasts simply the same as saying, "Everything S is just S10 AP1"? Wouldn't a few Supers/Gargs suffer a lot worse than others, Hierodules Vs Tranny C'tans?

The 6 on a Stomp table seems awfully rare to need attention. I could see C'tans being a problem, as they're really powerful in their current state, but knowing a 7th Necron book is in the pipes and that may change drastically in a few weeks (as I recall from 2014, 6th/7th Necrons would be legal for the 2015 NOVA if it remains the same), wouldn't this just be a little premature to be thinking about?

I think perhaps there needs to be some attention paid to it, barring what's been suggested above, I think a points cap on Supers/Gargs might be the most effective way to deal with the inclusion of more Supers/Gargs.

Either way - consider the idea of that a nerf *for* a Tranny C'tan would do to a Scythed Hierodule in this instance. That would provide the best litmus for the decision, no?

This is why the NOVA Open invented its bracketing system - so players who don't have top tier armies don't have to chase the meta dragon, and actually get locked into the right spots for them once the early round bludgeoning occurs. This makes it very hard for the "meta" to cause all your losses at the NOVA's GT.

Which is true, though every event eventually has you find your level in the meta, the great thing about bracketing is that it means you have something to play for once you do.

The 6 on a Stomp table seems awfully rare to need attention. I could see C'tans being a problem, as they're really powerful in their current state, but knowing a 7th Necron book is in the pipes and that may change drastically in a few weeks (as I recall from 2014, 6th/7th Necrons would be legal for the 2015 NOVA if it remains the same), wouldn't this just be a little premature to be thinking about?

To me it being "rare" (though 1/6 is not that rare), is what is wrong with it, it makes it stupidly random. I run into your deathstar and 1/6 times I delete large chunks, the rest of the time we have a relative slap fight....

 Hulksmash wrote:
Let's rephrase. How many GT's has centurion star won?

I don't recall off the top of my head, but that isn't the point.

The point is that the centstar is an abusive army that isn't fun to play against at all (at least for the majority of armies). Just like Adlance knights. Just like the seer council and O'vesa-stars of yesteryear. For example, my centstar (which comes in at about a grand) has Gate, Invisibility and 6 chances for Perfect Timing/Forewarning/Scrier's Gaze (2 GK Lvl 3 librarians). It is near invincible, cannot be locked in combat and just deletes units at a time. The rest of my army is either in reserves or hiding in a denial strategy (troops in stormravens and outflanking land speeders). There just is not much of an interaction in these types of games, besides you removing models. Granted, it's not like that all of the time, but for the less competitive players, it just isn't fun. That is what I mean by abusive. It makes for potentially very bad experiences for the average gamer because it just abuses a lot of the core rules.

 jy2 wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Let's rephrase. How many GT's has centurion star won?

I don't recall off the top of my head, but that isn't the point.

The point is that the centstar is an abusive army that isn't fun to play against at all (at least for the majority of armies). Just like Adlance knights. Just like the seer council and O'vesa-stars of yesteryear. For example, my centstar (which comes in at about a grand) has Gate, Invisibility and 6 chances for Perfect Timing/Forewarning/Scrier's Gaze (2 GK Lvl 3 librarians). It is near invincible, cannot be locked in combat and just deletes units at a time. The rest of my army is either in reserves or hiding in a denial strategy (troops in stormravens and outflanking land speeders). There just is not much of an interaction in these types of games, besides you removing models. Granted, it's not like that all of the time, but for the less competitive players, it just isn't fun. That is what I mean by abusive. It makes for potentially very bad experiences for the average gamer because it just abuses a lot of the core rules.

An honest question for you. Do you feel your 5 Hive Tyrant list makes for an enjoyable and interactive game for your opponents? I get what you are saying about the CentStar but I feel like the complete randomness of psychic powers now will lead to a slip up at a crucial time which usually hampers a list like that over the course of a 5-7 game GT.

@Jy2

I disagree. There have always been armies unfun to play against. Sometimes more than others but there are always some that either abuse rules or point values of certain units that cause games to be boring.

Selective nerfing of core rules hurts some armies while boosting others. There is no guarantee of more fun had by the majority of players by down grading invis. There is no guarantee of of more fun had by the majority of players by banning Adlance.

I'm in favor of mostly leaving things alone. I think the vast majority of players would be in favor of not allowing super heavies/gargantuan creatures but I could be wrong. My only reason for being fine with them initially was as a counter to deathstars that are slowly disappearing and will continue to do so the more maelstrom is embraced (not BAO maelstrom).

Meh, I mostly showup to hang out with friends and have beers. I'm not to worried about what people change. As long as it's done in a timely manner with plenty of lead time.

 Remedy4389 wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Let's rephrase. How many GT's has centurion star won?

I don't recall off the top of my head, but that isn't the point.

The point is that the centstar is an abusive army that isn't fun to play against at all (at least for the majority of armies). Just like Adlance knights. Just like the seer council and O'vesa-stars of yesteryear. For example, my centstar (which comes in at about a grand) has Gate, Invisibility and 6 chances for Perfect Timing/Forewarning/Scrier's Gaze (2 GK Lvl 3 librarians). It is near invincible, cannot be locked in combat and just deletes units at a time. The rest of my army is either in reserves or hiding in a denial strategy (troops in stormravens and outflanking land speeders). There just is not much of an interaction in these types of games, besides you removing models. Granted, it's not like that all of the time, but for the less competitive players, it just isn't fun. That is what I mean by abusive. It makes for potentially very bad experiences for the average gamer because it just abuses a lot of the core rules.

An honest question for you. Do you feel your 5 Hive Tyrant list makes for an enjoyable and interactive game for your opponents? I get what you are saying about the CentStar but I feel like the complete randomness of psychic powers now will lead to a slip up at a crucial time which usually hampers a list like that over the course of a 5-7 game GT.

No, I don't think it does make for an enjoyable/interactive game, which is why I don't plan to run my Pentyrant list in tournament play (at least for now, but for my next major tournament, I just may put up a poll to see what people think).

One of my philosophies of list-building is that you should never rely on just 1 aspect or "trick" in your army. If you do, then your army isn't very good because over the course of a 6-7 game GT, the "trick" that your army will rely on will fail. It's a given. Armies need to be balanced enough that they can still survive even when the mechanism that the army works off of isn't working. In the case of my 2 armies, that mechanism is psychic powers. DON'T make it your crutch. Your army NEEDS to be able to work without it, because that time will happen.

My armies are less reliant on psychic powers than you would think. While they may not be spectacular without psychic powers, they can still function without it. My Pentyrant list can actually still do well without the psychic buffs, because the core of the army is still outstanding maneuverability and excellent shooting.

The centstar is still a very dangerous deathstar even when some of their powers aren't going off. No Invisibility? The unit is still durable as hell with a tanking Draigo, majority Toughness 5, lots of 2+ save wounds, potential Forewarning and the ability to Gate out of trouble/assault. Stuck in combat without Gate working? I've still got 4 force weapons, 2 daemonhammers, Draigo's S7 attacks, 1 force axe and Hammerhand to make the attacks S9-10. This unit is actually a close combat beast that can kill Imperial and wraithknights in combat. No Gate? The star should always be advancing 6" each turn for a potential 30" threat radius. It's usually got something to shoot at even if it doesn't teleport around. Didn't get Perfect Timing (or it didn't go off)? It's still got weight-of-fire to take most things down. Playing against daemons or hordes with poor saves? Hurricane bolters work well against these armies. Yeah, psychic powers make this unit abusively broken, but even without them, it is still a very good and dangerous unit to deal with.

Rely too much on any one mechanism and it will fail. Use that mechanism as an enhancement to your army rather than as a crutch and your army will fare much better.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Jy2

I disagree. There have always been armies unfun to play against. Sometimes more than others but there are always some that either abuse rules or point values of certain units that cause games to be boring.

Selective nerfing of core rules hurts some armies while boosting others. There is no guarantee of more fun had by the majority of players by down grading invis. There is no guarantee of of more fun had by the majority of players by banning Adlance.

I'm in favor of mostly leaving things alone. I think the vast majority of players would be in favor of not allowing super heavies/gargantuan creatures but I could be wrong. My only reason for being fine with them initially was as a counter to deathstars that are slowly disappearing and will continue to do so the more maelstrom is embraced (not BAO maelstrom).

Meh, I mostly showup to hang out with friends and have beers. I'm not to worried about what people change. As long as it's done in a timely manner with plenty of lead time.

I agree with your disagreement.

Fun and abuse is highly subjective. Tournament experienced/savvy generals like us usually don't care. That is because we know how to deal with those types of armies and build our lists accordingly.

However, IMO, we are but the minority, probably the 25-33% of tournament goers. The majority of tournament gamers just aren't savvy enough to know how to deal with these types of armies. Now some may like the beating, but most players won't enjoy playing against armies they really can't do anything about.

As for selective banning/nerfing, I don't care one way or another. I will adjust. Most competitive players will. I am not advocating it nor am I against it. I do feel, however, that TO's need to make the decision that they think will best cater to their customers. I don't think they can just run the game as it is currently, it's just too broken. GW isn't doing anything about it, so it's up to the TO's to shape their events into what they feel would cater to the MAJORTIY of their customers. And I re-emphasize the word majority because they will never be able to please everyone.

What happens is you have a singular model that goes and decimated three or four units on the other side that can hurt it. Then the opposing player can do nothing. Turns out to be no fun and you have a person who just wants to quit and leave.

Darkwynn, thank you for the response. Now this is where I'm still confused. I'm not dragging this out just to be obstinate, combatitive or just contrary. If a player spent 900 pts on that model that removes 3 or 4 units on its own, how is that different than 2 cent-stars(w/split fire) eliminating 3 to 4 units too? Or to a lesser extent 3-4 WK/RC'S or a couple of IKs from doing the same cleaning on turn one? Personally I don't see the difference if the same amount of points spent produces the same result.

Let's compare it to the C'tan on turn one, since it's a hot topic. A tricked out c'tan costs 860. That's with WoW, SA, and TS. Turn one, if your opponent doesn't play smart ( or if the c'tan infiltrates), can potentially lose 3 units, one from WoW and one SA. As mentioned, TS only kills something if infiltrate is a factor on both sides, since 18" doesn't cross the breach.

I get the part that templates ignore cover. But so does a few other weapons, legacies, and psychic powers (in addition to regular templates), on their own or with simple combinations. Tigurius and Sevrin almost guarantee these devistating effects. D weapons do stand out, but losing units to a 5" melta blast, a hail of Str 9/10 attacks, or force bullets is still as disenfranchising as a LoW doing a dance on me.

Hell, I rather face a LoW in many cases, since it's a single target I can focus fire and stack effects on, instead of multiple, hard targets spread across the table, dividing my army. You can't ignore the benefit of stacking effects on one target.

At the end of the day, losing 3 units to 1 model or 3 squads on turn one is the same.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps regarding the "can't hurt it" part. Who doesn't bring big guns to a tournament? There should be no such thing as " can't hurt". If a player doesn't have equipment to deal with MCs or vehicles, I really don't know what to do but shake my head in pity. It's the players own fault. If a player didn't want to invest in heavy weapons, in exchange for a lot of mid Str shooty units, then that's the conscious trade off they made. 20 bolter shots or that one lascannon shot. It's their tactical decision.

In regards to FW units I think the BAO/LVO list is a good place to start. I don't think a 0-1 limit is necessary

Ad Lance is fine in my opinion. I have played both with and against it.

D weapons and stomp are fine since a 6 is needed.

I go to tournaments for the guaranteed games, friends and the stories that come from the weekend. Winning is a bonus.

Mike, Any Bolt Action events? This game has taken off in our area and I didn't see anything listed.

Not presently. Is taking off here with some. We'd need a motivated event lead to step up Pronto.

MVBrandt wrote:

1) Adding a rule that simply prevents D weapons and weapons with a hellstorm template or blast larger than 5" from reducing a cover

This right here... I think that's the "sweet spot" Mike.