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.

Rolling cooler box. Check.
Bottle opener. Check.
Broken OP army. Check.
Still going to win maybe 50% Check.
Likely to be too ... 'happy' to care. Check.

Now officially signed up to go to my first tournament! I should be easy money, but it will be fun!

We'll work out Knights guys, hang tight on that, please.

Already 30% sold out in hours, wow!

@Mike

Yes, Draconic Awards again, this year! See you there.

@Ozy

Sorry buddy, no room. Square footage is at a premium.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@brothererkose

See you there, buddy!

@Woozl

Hey, hey, that's rad! We had a bunch of first timers last year and they all got the tournament bug and were hooked. It's good fun.

I understand, but BOO!

Oh yeah I'll need to get a new bottle of Pomegranate Margarita for this year. To the liquor store!

 MikeFox wrote:
Oh yeah I'll need to get a new bottle of Pomegranate Margarita for this year. To the liquor store!

Good news. Your squiggoth is on the Good-to-play LoW list.

So, The Architect said he will buy all my alchohol for the event if I come dressed as the kingpin the first day.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 MikeFox wrote:
Oh yeah I'll need to get a new bottle of Pomegranate Margarita for this year. To the liquor store!

Good news. Your squiggoth is on the Good-to-play LoW list.

GTFO! It's almost like I checked if he was before I purchased him.....

Just got my tickets! See you guys there.

Looking at the new ITC rules.

3 sources and it says no detachments of the same type...

Does that mean I cannot bring 2 CADs? Or just not two CADs of the same faction?

Each detachment is 0-1. So basically no detachment can be duplicated and no dual CAD, even if they are of different factions.

how does that work for the decurion/umbrella type detachments? for example, with daemonkin bloodhost, after the base slaughtercult has been taken, we have 1-8 choices from a number of formations. can you not take multiples of these (for example, taking multiple war engine or gorepack formations)?

edit: on the ITC page, it says they can't take multiple formations in decurion, but can take duplicate dataslate units. would this mean in my example of the bloodhost, i could only take one gorepack, but multiple war engines? am i over complicating this?

 gigasnail wrote:
how does that work for the decurion/umbrella type detachments? for example, with daemonkin bloodhost, after the base slaughtercult has been taken, we have 1-8 choices from a number of formations. can you not take multiples of these (for example, taking multiple war engine or gorepack formations)?

edit: on the ITC page, it says they can't take multiple formations in decurion, but can take duplicate dataslate units. would this mean in my example of the bloodhost, i could only take one gorepack, but multiple war engines? am i over complicating this?

You are correct.

So in your example, you could take only 1 bloodhost, only 1 gorepack and up to 8 soulgrinders/maulerfiends (if points allow) if you want.

Great, thanks. I had missed t he da taste clarification on the ITC page when I fir st looked at it

Tickets are running low for 40k Champs! Get em while they're hot!

Reece,

Any chance we can get a ruling on knights before the last of the tickets go?

The knight codex isn't even out yet, and already expect a ruling?

My advice, buy the ticket first and the return it later if you don't like whatever ruling it is on the new Knights.

It came out last friday J, and the current 0-1 superheavy LoW rulling does have a large effect on people who run knights as primary, as in they currently cant

I completely understand that the codex has only been out since Saturday, and I know how busy Reece is, trying to coordinate quite a bit of excellent work.

I'd rather not take a ticket from a soul that wants to go regardless, so I'll bide my time and see how it plays out.

Reece is just using the time-honored presidential option of the Pocket Veto; wait 'til BAO sells out then punt, decide to leave the 0-1 restriction as is and deal with Knights later.

I can dig it. I just gotta figure out if there's another army I can get ready in time or I'll be a Sad Panda.

Well I plan on going whatever the decision but I am really hoping I can bring my 5 Knights. Why? Not because I think it will win me the tournament but because I want to finish my games quickly.

We aren't going to invalidate an entire codex, everyone, we are bouncing some ideas around but if you are a Knight player your entire army did not just become moot.

We will have a decision this week.

An entire Codex is not made illegal, just aspects of it. (like certain formations) Seriously why is this even a thing? If GW came out with a codex that was Codex:Wraithknights, it would be "ban it with fire". I strongly dislike the special snowflake allowances because GW didn't appropriately declare them LoW to begin with.

Don't get me wrong I like knights, I am bringing a knight even, but there are other LoW, superheavies that aren't getting that special treatment of 'it'll get addressed' and to me that seems a bit daft.

Yeah, I want to use a knight and a macharious

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, I want to use a knight and a macharious

And if multi-knights are allowed that should be as well

 z3n1st wrote:
An entire Codex is not made illegal, just aspects of it. (like certain formations) Seriously why is this even a thing? If GW came out with a codex that was Codex:Wraithknights, it would be "ban it with fire". I strongly dislike the special snowflake allowances because GW didn't appropriately declare them LoW to begin with.

Don't get me wrong I like knights, I am bringing a knight even, but there are other LoW, superheavies that aren't getting that special treatment of 'it'll get addressed' and to me that seems a bit daft.

Because no other LoW is its own army/faction that the Knights are?

 z3n1st wrote:
An entire Codex is not made illegal, just aspects of it. (like certain formations) Seriously why is this even a thing? If GW came out with a codex that was Codex:Wraithknights, it would be "ban it with fire". I strongly dislike the special snowflake allowances because GW didn't appropriately declare them LoW to begin with.

Don't get me wrong I like knights, I am bringing a knight even, but there are other LoW, superheavies that aren't getting that special treatment of 'it'll get addressed' and to me that seems a bit daft.

Here in lies the problem. We should be playing 40k not some bastardized version. Knights have their own codex, the idea of banning a codex (or the majority of one) is asinine. It does nothing but set a terrible precedence leading us down the slippery slope of having to carry around, and/or learn, massive additional rulesets and list building criteria for every tournament you want to participate in.

Cue the blame GW for blah, blah, blah, because I don't want to deal with reality arguments.

Sigh.

This is the exact reaction we knew would come.

"If they can use multiple LoW, why can't I?!"

The only thing that has changed with Knights is that they got the LoW tag. Literally nothing else has changed with Knights. They are an entire codex and while we totally understand folks feeling left out, the Codex in this instance consists of essentially, a single model. So, unless we want to make an entire Faction all but unplayable (and yes, it would be if they could only take a single model, lol), we have to make an exception in this case.

If Codex: Wraithknight does indeed come along, well, we'd have to adjust. Although honestly, who is going to say the Wraithknight and Imperial Knight are in the same league? They quite simply are not. A Wraithknight is much better. Plus, Eldar have the rest of their book to draw on for very good units. Knights have 1 unit. They have no other options. This is not an apples to apples comparison.

Most people do not want to come to a tournament and play apocalypse or Escalation every game. We have to be reasonable and consider all of the factors; not just a black and white comparison to every other book as that isn't going to give an accurate picture.

Anyway, we will make a decision on this topic this week. Thank you for your feedback, everyone.

While it logically follows that (1) if ITC has the rule 0-1 LOW and (2) Knights are all LOW; therefore, (3) you shouldn't be able to play the Knight codex because it would require more than one Knight...

ITC is its own thing and is free to make whatever rules seem best for their event. You see, ITC set that limitation in the first place-not based on an arbitrary or capricious whim but based on reasoned discussion and considerations of what is best/most fun for their perceived player base. Therefore, they are free to make exceptions and modifications to the rules for their format as they see fit.

So in the end, ITC isn't telling you how you have to play 40k, you don't have to play in an ITC events. I personally don't like that you can't double up on formations and various other rulings but if I want to play in their events, everyone is playing by the same rules and part of the fun is coming up with a list that will succeed in that given format. That is like choosing to play in a highlander format event and complaining about only being able to take one of everything.

Reecius wrote:Sigh.

This is the exact reaction we knew would come.

"If they can use multiple LoW, why can't I?!"

The only thing that has changed with Knights is that they got the LoW tag. Literally nothing else has changed with Knights. They are an entire codex and while we totally understand folks feeling left out, the Codex in this instance consists of essentially, a single model. So, unless we want to make an entire Faction all but unplayable (and yes, it would be if they could only take a single model, lol), we have to make an exception in this case.

If Codex: Wraithknight does indeed come along, well, we'd have to adjust. Although honestly, who is going to say the Wraithknight and Imperial Knight are in the same league? They quite simply are not. A Wraithknight is much better. Plus, Eldar have the rest of their book to draw on for very good units. Knights have 1 unit. They have no other options. This is not an apples to apples comparison.

Most people do not want to come to a tournament and play apocalypse or Escalation every game. We have to be reasonable and consider all of the factors; not just a black and white comparison to every other book as that isn't going to give an accurate picture.

Anyway, we will make a decision on this topic this week. Thank you for your feedback, everyone.

mortetvie wrote:While it logically follows that (1) if ITC has the rule 0-1 LOW and (2) Knights are all LOW; therefore, (3) you shouldn't be able to play the Knight codex because it would require more than one Knight...

ITC is its own thing and is free to make whatever rules seem best for their event. You see, ITC set that limitation in the first place-not based on an arbitrary or capricious whim but based on reasoned discussion and considerations of what is best/most fun for their perceived player base. Therefore, they are free to make exceptions and modifications to the rules for their format as they see fit.

So in the end, ITC isn't telling you how you have to play 40k, you don't have to play in an ITC events. I personally don't like that you can't double up on formations and various other rulings but if I want to play in their events, everyone is playing by the same rules and part of the fun is coming up with a list that will succeed in that given format.

Both exalted.