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.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
a large part of this is also how ITC rules FMC as the same as Flyers for blasts being fired at them when the rules do not state such a thing, which gives FMC an advantage that they normally would not have. If the ITC rule mirrored the actual rules of the game in this regard FMC would still be good, but not better than the rules intended them to actually be.

relevant quotes:

Flyers

Hard to Hit
Zooming Flyers are incredibly difficult targets for troops without suitably calibrated weapons and scopes. Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule). Template and Blast weapons, and any other attacks that don’t roll To Hit, cannot hit Zooming Flyers.

FMC

Hard to Hit
A Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature is a very difficult target for units without specialised weapons. Shots resolved at such a target can only be resolved as Snap Shots unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule.

ITC Faq v1.5

Template and blast weapons, and any other attacks or special rules that do not roll to hit, or hit automatically, have no effect on zooming flyers and swooping flying monstrous creatures. This is true even if the attacking unit has the skyfire rule.

The ITC ruling is not for ease of play and is a house rule that adds rules to FMC that are not stated in their actual rules to make them more viable for whatever reason unstated by the people who made the ITC 'FAQ' faq in this case is also a misnomer as this is essentially a 'house rule' or 'house erratta' and is not a question as the rules in the rulebook are clear in the wording. If the two unit types were meant to be the same the rules in the rulebook would stat the same thing, they would probably have the same movement speeds, and FMC would not start on table.

I can't believe people aren't talking about this more. The rules are amazingly clear on this subject, and because of this event a lot of tournaments are going to be playing the same way. The addition of the FMC to be immune to blasts/templates, even if they have skyfire is just asinine. This is one of the few times the rulebook was crystal clear =\

They made the choice to nerf invisibility by letting it be hit by blasts, and on the other hand they made it so that FMC could not be hit by blasts. I find it odd that everyone is so upset at invisibility being so powerful, yet they allowed FMC to exactly mirror the effects of the per-nerfed invisibility (only be hit by '6's and immune to blasts). I guess they wanted to have everyone to take the Leviathan Detachment instead of having to try to roll for invisibility, and they fail to cast it 2 out of 6 times. If that was the case, mission accomplished.

I think it was just a coincidence that the Frontline Gaming guys were taking Lynxs and Tyranids.

Take off that tin foil hat, Allen. If I recall correctly these rulings are made by several TO's, only one of whom is a 'Frontline Gaming Guy'. Of the 'Frontline Gaming Guys' I believe it was one that took a Lynx and one that took Hive Tyrant spam, neither of which finished in the top 8. Keep banging that drum though, buddy.

 easysauce wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I watched Panzer Leader p0wn an ork Green Tide army with VSG... Saint Celestine tied them up for three turns, he dropped the VSG first turn then bombed them with his Wyverns.

Sisters do have a good shot at Green Tide...

sisters actually had a really good showing at the event,

always great to see the rainbow brite sisters army again and the hello kitty army again on the table.

Wish I could find a pic of the guy who had a counts as knight all decked out in sequins and high heels too.

Several armies were also fully converted with impeccable taste, the necron mechanicus army would be my personal favorite.

What were the lists if you dont mind me asking? I always love the models over normal Marines and Have a small Force of them.

Steve was my only loss. We had a great game and even though he knew he needed a turn 6 to win he was a good sport to play against. I really needed the game to end on 5 and would've won 8-2. I'm upset to lose on a dice roll but we both played an awesome game.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

They made the choice to nerf invisibility by letting it be hit by blasts, and on the other hand they made it so that FMC could not be hit by blasts. I find it odd that everyone is so upset at invisibility being so powerful, yet they allowed FMC to exactly mirror the effects of the per-nerfed invisibility (only be hit by '6's and immune to blasts). I guess they wanted to have everyone to take the Leviathan Detachment instead of having to try to roll for invisibility, and they fail to cast it 2 out of 6 times. If that was the case, mission accomplished.

I think it was just a coincidence that the Frontline Gaming guys were taking Lynxs and Tyranids.

Take off that tin foil hat, Allen. If I recall correctly these rulings are made by several TO's, only one of whom is a 'Frontline Gaming Guy.

As far as the 2 rulings about FMC or Invisibility I do not think that any other event has ruled them that way. I think Reese is on the Adepticon council and has a say in their FAQ, but they are leaving invis as is, My guess is that his friends at the shop complained about invisibility and so he sent out a poll to see if people wanted it nerfed. Since most people don't use it it was voted down like everything else would be.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:

Of the 'Frontline Gaming Guys' I believe it was one that took a Lynx and one that took Hive Tyrant spam, neither of which finished in the top 8. Keep banging that drum though, buddy.

I am not sure how many Frontline gaming guys took the lynx, but I think Grant Theft Auto and the person who placed 3rd at the event Tyler DeVries took it. I think that qualifies as top 8,

IMO Invis is very strong and I can see why it was nerfed, But I feel blasts should full scatter no matter what. And templates should do Half hits round up. This would make them MUCH more reasonable than now.

FMC shouldnt be hit with Blast or Templates at all from Non Flyers, A Flyer or FMC sure.. but not ground units.

 Blackmoor wrote:
I am not sure how many Frontline gaming guys took the lynx, but I think Grant Theft Auto and the person who placed 3rd at the event Tyler DeVries took it. I think that qualifies as top 8,

I think Tyler plays out of Minnesota; that's a sweet conspiracy theory you're working on!

 Blackmoor wrote:
They made the choice to nerf invisibility by letting it be hit by blasts, and on the other hand they made it so that FMC could not be hit by blasts. I find it odd that everyone is so upset at invisibility being so powerful, yet they allowed FMC to exactly mirror the effects of the per-nerfed invisibility (only be hit by '6's and immune to blasts). I guess they wanted to have everyone to take the Leviathan Detachment instead of having to try to roll for invisibility, and they fail to cast it 2 out of 6 times. If that was the case, mission accomplished.

They have a way they want the game to be played, no doubt about that. A simple look at their missions and objective placement rules will make it clear. They prefer high speed, and long range shooting rather than midfield engagement. In my local meta we go the other way preferring a game that forces wave serpents and Tau off the back board edge, and allows greater interaction between armies. We prefer army comp that limits spam more. For instance CAD + Leviathan isn't allowed unless we are using someone else's format.

So if you come to one of my tourneys in the near future, I'm sure you could say something like "I guess they hate Wave Serpents, because their rules don't favor them as much at that place over there, or They hate Crones, because I'm limited to 4 of them instead of 6." It is OK for us to all have different preferences. I hope that in the future LVO can offer events with different missions, and Army Comp rules that cater to a greater variety of play styles, and there is sign of that in the form of the Highlander Tournament this year.

In the meantime, if their rules are not to your taste, I'm sure you can either find or create events that suite your specific vision of the game better.

tag8833 wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
They made the choice to nerf invisibility by letting it be hit by blasts, and on the other hand they made it so that FMC could not be hit by blasts. I find it odd that everyone is so upset at invisibility being so powerful, yet they allowed FMC to exactly mirror the effects of the per-nerfed invisibility (only be hit by '6's and immune to blasts). I guess they wanted to have everyone to take the Leviathan Detachment instead of having to try to roll for invisibility, and they fail to cast it 2 out of 6 times. If that was the case, mission accomplished.

They have a way they want the game to be played, no doubt about that. A simple look at their missions and objective placement rules will make it clear. They prefer high speed, and long range shooting rather than midfield engagement. In my local meta we go the other way preferring a game that forces wave serpents and Tau off the back board edge, and allows greater interaction between armies. We prefer army comp that limits spam more. For instance CAD + Leviathan isn't allowed unless we are using someone else's format.

So if you come to one of my tourneys in the near future, I'm sure you could say something like "I guess they hate Wave Serpents, because their rules don't favor them as much at that place over there, or They hate Crones, because I'm limited to 4 of them instead of 6." It is OK for us to all have different preferences. I hope that in the future LVO can offer events with different missions, and Army Comp rules that cater to a greater variety of play styles, and there is sign of that in the form of the Highlander Tournament this year.

In the meantime, if their rules are not to your taste, I'm sure you can either find or create events that suite your specific vision of the game better.

Let's be serious. Nobody hates Crones. Crones are awful.

So this was brought up in the Tyranids tactics thread and I wanted to ask about it here:

tag8833 wrote:

OrdoSean wrote:
Round 6: Demons/Tyranids: fateweaver, 2 tzeentch heralds, 2 units of 7 screamers, 11 horrors, 3 nurglings, 3 Flyrants, 3 mucolids

This guy got a gift in round 2 when they ruled that Shadows in the Warp affected every unit, and not just psychers. It never occurred to me to make that argument, and it blew my mind that judges would agree. When I saw that, I asked Reece if I could use that ruling in my future games, and he had a judges pow-wow, and decided that it was a one game only ruling, and that from then on Shadows only affected Psyker again.

Has anyone ever heard of that reading of shadows:

All enemy units and models with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers special rules suffer a -3 penalty to their Leadership whilst they are within 12 of one or more models with the Shadow in the Warp special rule.

The idea behind the interpretation is an implied seperation between "All enemy units" and "models with the Psyker..." making it apply to both all enemy units, and also all Psyker be they friendly or enemy, so a Tyrant is always at -3 leadership because it is a Psyker and in its own shadows bubble, but a Lord Commissar (despite not being a Psyker ) is only Leadership 7.

This is a huge thing for a judge to make a one of call on. Is it common for things like this to happen at large tournaments (largest I've done is Railhead Rumble at like 80 people iirc)?

I'm so flabbergasted by this I'm not sure how to put it into words. The person on the losing end of this call was robbed, even if it didn't end up mattering much as far as the final standings.

That is quite an odd interpretation, to me it reads if you are a unit or a model with the psyker rules, your affected. Not 'All Units OR models with psyker', and reading it you would affect yourself it looks like (does anyone actually play it that way? dominate a Tyrant or Barbie lately?)

How about Horrify/Terrify/Dominate the Tyrant Warlord while he is in shadows of the warp...(you won't make him run of course, but that's a -7 to LD for that dominate test, if he can't move would he land?)


edit: of course you wouldn't affect yourself, it says enemy units/models, DUH! I need my glasses

How did LVO end up ruling the Decurion? Special Detachment? Not Allowed? 2 Sources only? Just curious.

 z3n1st wrote:
That is quite an odd interpretation, to me it reads if you are a unit or a model with the psyker rules, your affected. Not 'All Units OR models with psyker', and reading it you would affect yourself it looks like (does anyone actually play it that way? dominate a Tyrant or Barbie lately?)

How about Horrify/Terrify/Dominate the Tyrant Warlord while he is in shadows of the warp...(you won't make him run of course, but that's a -7 to LD for that dominate test, if he can't move would he land?)


edit: of course you wouldn't affect yourself, it says enemy units/models, DUH! I need my glasses

The interpretation used in the game separated "enemy units" and "models with the Psyker rule". So the Tyrant did indeed Shadows himself.

Hollismason wrote:
How did LVO end up ruling the Decurion? Special Detachment? Not Allowed? 2 Sources only? Just curious.

they didnt do an official ruling, and only top lists get checked by TO's.


I do know I played one guy with the decurion detach, + 2 of the spider/wraith/scarab "not a detachment" detachments within it(what do I call these, sub detachments? i dunno, they were part of the detachment tree under decurion).

the way my opponent explained it, they were all counted as a single detachment.

rigeld2 wrote:
So this was brought up in the Tyranids tactics thread and I wanted to ask about it here:

tag8833 wrote:

OrdoSean wrote:
Round 6: Demons/Tyranids: fateweaver, 2 tzeentch heralds, 2 units of 7 screamers, 11 horrors, 3 nurglings, 3 Flyrants, 3 mucolids

This guy got a gift in round 2 when they ruled that Shadows in the Warp affected every unit, and not just psychers. It never occurred to me to make that argument, and it blew my mind that judges would agree. When I saw that, I asked Reece if I could use that ruling in my future games, and he had a judges pow-wow, and decided that it was a one game only ruling, and that from then on Shadows only affected Psyker again.

Has anyone ever heard of that reading of shadows:

All enemy units and models with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers special rules suffer a -3 penalty to their Leadership whilst they are within 12 of one or more models with the Shadow in the Warp special rule.

The idea behind the interpretation is an implied seperation between "All enemy units" and "models with the Psyker..." making it apply to both all enemy units, and also all Psyker be they friendly or enemy, so a Tyrant is always at -3 leadership because it is a Psyker and in its own shadows bubble, but a Lord Commissar (despite not being a Psyker ) is only Leadership 7.

This is a huge thing for a judge to make a one of call on. Is it common for things like this to happen at large tournaments (largest I've done is Railhead Rumble at like 80 people iirc)?

I'm so flabbergasted by this I'm not sure how to put it into words. The person on the losing end of this call was robbed, even if it didn't end up mattering much as far as the final standings.

I dont understand why it was ruled that way only for one game?

Was a bad ruling imo. Clearly states enemy models so no the HT shouldn't have "shadowed himself." I am friends with PajamaPants and I got his argument (we talked about this actually) but this is a case in my opinion of GW writing something very poorly. The word "and" really messes it up and gives room to argue it means everybody + psychers.. but that is so incredibly redundant it can't possibly mean that. Shadows used to effect everyone.. it didn't stipulate EVERYONE PLUS PSYCHERS because that level of bad english rarely exists.

Moving forward I'd be shocked if anyone else was convinced that shadows actually works like it used to. It really should only work vs psychers.

That's a Hail Mary of a rules interpretation.

it was also ruled that infiltrators *must* use their rule and start in reserves

so be careful if you roll the warlord trait that gives your WL infiltrate, as he has to then start in reserves (of some kind, be it infiltrate, DS, outflank, or walk on the edge)

 easysauce wrote:
it was also ruled that infiltrators *must* use their rule and start in reserves

so be careful if you roll the warlord trait that gives your WL infiltrate, as he has to then start in reserves (of some kind, be it infiltrate, DS, outflank, or walk on the edge)

Because that's what Infiltrate says. And it doesn't make you start in Reserves, it just forces you to deploy later than normal.

 easysauce wrote:
it was also ruled that infiltrators *must* use their rule and start in reserves

so be careful if you roll the warlord trait that gives your WL infiltrate, as he has to then start in reserves (of some kind, be it infiltrate, DS, outflank, or walk on the edge)

This ruling regarding Infiltrate is RaW. There is no 'may' in the Infiltrate special rule (i.e. it is not a special rule a player has the option to invoke/not invoke). If you have 'Infiltrate' you ALWAYS deploy after normal deployment. You are also ALWAYS prevented from making Turn One assaults, whether you deploy in your own DZ or not. You may choose to start a unit/model with the Infiltrate special rule in reserves, with the option to declare that you are Outflanking. You are not forced to start in reserves.

I see that you included 'of some kind', but I think that allows for unnecessary (but understandable) confusion: Deploying Infiltrators after normal deployment is complete, but before the game begins, is not Reserves.

And the 'awesome' Master of Ambush can indeed be a trap, as your Warlord and 3 non-vehicle units (of your choice) HAVE infiltrate.

agreed. The "must start in reserve" part is a horrible reading of the rule. Infiltrators just deploy after "normal deployment" so it's the last step (before scout).

iNcontroL wrote:
agreed. The "must start in reserve" part is a horrible reading of the rule. Infiltrators just deploy after "normal deployment" so it's the last step (before scout).

The "must start in reserve" looks like it was easysauce's incorrect interpretation. Infiltrators don't start in reserve, they just deploy at a different time and have the option of outflanking/normal reserve at that time.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

They made the choice to nerf invisibility by letting it be hit by blasts, and on the other hand they made it so that FMC could not be hit by blasts. I find it odd that everyone is so upset at invisibility being so powerful, yet they allowed FMC to exactly mirror the effects of the per-nerfed invisibility (only be hit by '6's and immune to blasts). I guess they wanted to have everyone to take the Leviathan Detachment instead of having to try to roll for invisibility, and they fail to cast it 2 out of 6 times. If that was the case, mission accomplished.

I think it was just a coincidence that the Frontline Gaming guys were taking Lynxs and Tyranids.

Take off that tin foil hat, Allen. If I recall correctly these rulings are made by several TO's, only one of whom is a 'Frontline Gaming Guy.

As far as the 2 rulings about FMC or Invisibility I do not think that any other event has ruled them that way. I think Reese is on the Adepticon council and has a say in their FAQ, but they are leaving invis as is, My guess is that his friends at the shop complained about invisibility and so he sent out a poll to see if people wanted it nerfed. Since most people don't use it it was voted down like everything else would be.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:

Of the 'Frontline Gaming Guys' I believe it was one that took a Lynx and one that took Hive Tyrant spam, neither of which finished in the top 8. Keep banging that drum though, buddy.

I am not sure how many Frontline gaming guys took the lynx, but I think Grant Theft Auto and the person who placed 3rd at the event Tyler DeVries took it. I think that qualifies as top 8,

Are You sure your not mistaking the major friendliness of the FLG people towards others as Pretournament association? I had a great experience with every interaction with either a player or a TO that was part of the massive workload that went into putting an event like that on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tbh I think the way FLG modified 2++ rerolls and invis was directly responsible for the variety of armies played not detrimental to it.

rigeld2 wrote:

iNcontroL wrote:
agreed. The "must start in reserve" part is a horrible reading of the rule. Infiltrators just deploy after "normal deployment" so it's the last step (before scout).

The "must start in reserve" looks like it was easysauce's incorrect interpretation. Infiltrators don't start in reserve, they just deploy at a different time and have the option of outflanking/normal reserve at that time.

im still half asleep, but you got what I was going for

main thing to take away, is that infiltrate isnt optional as many play it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ninety0ne wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tbh I think the way FLG modified 2++ rerolls and invis was directly responsible for the variety of armies played not detrimental to it.

gonna have to second this....

was very happy with the variety of armies.

 Wilson wrote:
I dont understand why it was ruled that way only for one game?

They did the right thing. The made a judging mistake in 1 game, then the head judge corrected it for the rest of the tourney. They were also prepared to give bonus battle points to the person negatively affected if it was what would keep him out of the finals.

I posted that because I am a TO, and I train judges, and on the 18 hour car ride back, I spent several hours training 3 of my judges, and used this to highlight the sort of situation where someone could make a compelling RAW argument. I posted it to the Tyranid thread because I wanted to see if it was a regional thing, and if anyone had ever encountered such an argument before. As our tournaments grow, we attract a larger diversity or people, and we need to be prepared to handle things like this.

I also imparted on my judges that FLG's solution to it was done appropriately, and as fair as could have been. Usually we can get away with a single judge, or a Judge and a Ringer at our events, but as I said, we will grow, and it is important that judges feel empowered to make decisions, and also empowered to followup on those decisions with the rest of the judging staff. We can make mistakes (Lord knows I've made mistake while judging), and we need to be willing to take the steps to correct them. Those steps were taken here.

btw blackmoor as a person that knows Reece I'm fairly surprised you keep trying to suggest he would allow things into a tourney to help a friend.. never mind the gravity of that accusation but you really really really do know that Reece HATES D/LoW and if you know him as well as I do you know he actually thinks FMC getting "toe in" etc.. is garbage too. He is one of several people on the counsel but he gets all the wrap I think because of his public availability and podcast... not sure. Most people know all these things but still hold him solely responsible.

He is one of several people on the counsel but he gets all the wrap I think because of his public availability and podcast... not sure.

I am pretty sure we have all taken our fair share over the years. It is the one constant, and it is all part of the job of caring and running a quality event.

- Hank

my point wasn't that he is unique in taking crap it was that he is solely named as changing rules etc when he is a part of a counsel of people that do those things

iNcontroL wrote:
btw blackmoor as a person that knows Reece I'm fairly surprised you keep trying to suggest he would allow things into a tourney to help a friend.. never mind the gravity of that accusation but you really really really do know that Reece HATES D/LoW and if you know him as well as I do you know he actually thinks FMC getting "toe in" etc.. is garbage too. He is one of several people on the counsel but he gets all the wrap I think because of his public availability and podcast... not sure. Most people know all these things but still hold him solely responsible.

I will confirm and 2nd this.

iNcontroL wrote:
btw blackmoor as a person that knows Reece I'm fairly surprised you keep trying to suggest he would allow things into a tourney to help a friend.. never mind the gravity of that accusation but you really really really do know that Reece HATES D/LoW and if you know him as well as I do you know he actually thinks FMC getting "toe in" etc.. is garbage too. He is one of several people on the counsel but he gets all the wrap I think because of his public availability and podcast... not sure. Most people know all these things but still hold him solely responsible.

What I think is that he heard a lot of grumbling around the shop in regards to invisibility and so he put a poll out about it. I am not saying that Reece did anything wrong or anything below the board to try to help his friends. He was trying to address a problem that he thought existed. Invisibility is reallynot a problem unless you use a few key units that a lot of the FLG guys took.

Iinvisibility scared a lot of people when 7th edition first came out. Everyone was saying how powerful it was and that it needed to be nerfed. They also said the exact same thing about demon summoning. Then after a few months went by everyone found out how hard it was to even get invisibility (other than a few units like Loth, Belakor and Tigerious) and that psychic powers take a ton of resources to cast, and they are incredibly unreliable. Not only are they hard to cast. but they can be denied, and then they also have a good chance to get Perils of the Warp.

That is why everyone was shocked when Reese stated that he was going to put out a poll about invisibility. It was such a non-factor at every major GT since 7th edition. Do you know what a major factor was at GTs? Adamantine Lance formation. If you look at the thread at the poll everyone outside of FLG did not see it coming, and they were wondering if AL was going to be addressed or included on the poll as well.

Again, FMC=Automatic Invisibility so why allow one, and not the other?

As far at the toe in terrain I hate that as well, so a nice balancing feature is that they can be hit by blasts. It it was just kept RAW it would be much better, and no one could say a thing.

Everyone saw what a huge buff Hive Tyrants received in 7th edition (Reduced grounding checks, the separation of the psychic phase and the shooting phase, ect) and added to this the Levitation Formation where you can take 3 Hive Tyrants with 120 points of troops the ruling should have been the least favorable (and RAW) to mitigate the damage that they can do. Reese says he makes some rulings by the question of "Is this fun to play against", well, I wonder how all of the opponents that were getting tabled by Hive Tyrants that they can't do anything about were having fun?

I would also say that I did not think that Reese made this ruling to help you, but rather plays this way in his shop with you, and it was just a bad rules call.

I would also like to say that whenever a TO makes a rules call 33% will hate it, 33% will love it, and 33% will not care. It was a rules call and not the end of the world. It does not matter in the big picture and I hate to detract from an event that was universally praised, but I think that rules calls should be revisited and the best time is to do it just after an event when it is still fresh in everyone's mind.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ninety0ne wrote:

Tbh I think the way FLG modified 2++ rerolls and invis was directly responsible for the variety of armies played not detrimental to it.

How many Wave Serpents, Hive Tyrants and Imperial Knights were there at the LVO?

All this does is take away viable builds that can compete against the other heavy hitters. So my argument would be that it restricts variety, and just makes other builds dominate, rather than create diversity.

I would also like to point out that a Seer Council army won last years LVO with the modified re-roll.

.

Really liked being able to watch the finals from home here in Sweden. Hope more tournaments will provide that!

Great seeing iNcontroL too, always in need of more channels to stalk that guy.