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.

I only play in local tournaments and the only restriction we have is no Forgeworld (mostly because that doesn't sell any models at the FLGS).

We're currently in a discussion about restricting superheavies, with the store owners very reluctant to restrict an entire codex (Imperial Knights).

I get the impressions from podcasts and discussion that restrictions on Superheavies and Gargantuan creatures are fairly common, but I don't have any real data on the subject.

Is that perception correct? Is there a list of tournaments that I can review for more data?

Thanks!

Most tournaments, including the most popularly copied formats (LVO/FLG and NOVA), have at least a 0-1 limit on SH/GC.

Until the release of the new Knights dex, Knights were made an unusual (and largely unexplained) exception to the rule because their book had the word "Codex" on it.

That exception, unless FLG or NOVA change their rules to accommodate Knight players, will fade due to their branding as Lords of War (probably should have been regardless, but that's another story). So, it is entirely possible that the common tournament ruling will now be that iKnights can either not be fielded (for events that do not allow SH/GC Lords of War regardless) or armies may only field 0-1 of them (rendering Knights as legal only within non-Primary formations from among those that allow a single Knight to fulfill the minimums).

It is generally uncommon for an event to allow unrestricted SH/GC usage (other than as each dex or detachment dictates). Those events which have allowed totally unfettered SH/GC use have seen attendance dropoffs in some cases (whether there is a connection is entirely speculative).

I don't know of any events off the top of my head that have no restrictions on GC/SH units. Most at least have a 0-1 limitation if nothing else. Many have bans on ranged D weapons on top of that to boot.

Knights are an odd thing, but there's increasingly more and more pressure to restrict them. I know a local event I went to recently had a player run an Adamantine Lance just to prove a point, won all three games by tabling his opponents, and now the option to bring more than one Knight or an entire Knight army is under review, though again, that's a local event not a huge GT style event. The new Knight book doesn't look to be helping Knights in this regard, particularly with formations that duplicate the capabilities of the basic Knight detachment but pile even better abilities on top for zero additional cost

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't know of any events off the top of my head that have no restrictions on GC/SH units. Most at least have a 0-1 limitation if nothing else. Many have bans on ranged D weapons on top of that to boot.

Knights are an odd thing, but there's increasingly more and more pressure to restrict them. I know a local event I went to recently had a player run an Adamantine Lance just to prove a point, won all three games by tabling his opponents, and now the option to bring more than one Knight or an entire Knight army is under review, though again, that's a local event not a huge GT style event. The new Knight book doesn't look to be helping Knights in this regard, particularly with formations that duplicate the capabilities of the basic Knight detachment but pile even better abilities on top for zero additional cost

We routinely, every second Saturday of the month. run tournaments of 20-30 players with at least 2 AdLance formations in attendance, as far back as I can remember they never won over all.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't know of any events off the top of my head that have no restrictions on GC/SH units. Most at least have a 0-1 limitation if nothing else. Many have bans on ranged D weapons on top of that to boot.

Knights are an odd thing, but there's increasingly more and more pressure to restrict them. I know a local event I went to recently had a player run an Adamantine Lance just to prove a point, won all three games by tabling his opponents, and now the option to bring more than one Knight or an entire Knight army is under review, though again, that's a local event not a huge GT style event. The new Knight book doesn't look to be helping Knights in this regard, particularly with formations that duplicate the capabilities of the basic Knight detachment but pile even better abilities on top for zero additional cost

We routinely, every second Saturday of the month. run tournaments of 20-30 players with at least 2 AdLance formations in attendance, as far back as I can remember they never won over all.

Sidebar, but, from a TO perspective, what wins an event is rarely a concern. Unsurprisingly, similar good players win or finish near the top of just about every event they attend. They're rarely running weak or underpowered lists, but the player has more to do with actually winning or placing highly than the list.

I take a longer look at the overall % of success of certain builds and lists, in terms of curiosity. Ad lance and Knight primaries in general win about 65%+ of their games, which is dramatically higher than any other primary selection. Important to know it's rarely - at least from a TO perspective - about what's winning events; it's far more about what's beating people across the span of the tournament, and how reliably. Whatever anyone says about how balanced or not 40K is, most primary faction choices fall in the 45-55% win rate area ... the exceptions are the bigger problems.

MVBrandt wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't know of any events off the top of my head that have no restrictions on GC/SH units. Most at least have a 0-1 limitation if nothing else. Many have bans on ranged D weapons on top of that to boot.

Knights are an odd thing, but there's increasingly more and more pressure to restrict them. I know a local event I went to recently had a player run an Adamantine Lance just to prove a point, won all three games by tabling his opponents, and now the option to bring more than one Knight or an entire Knight army is under review, though again, that's a local event not a huge GT style event. The new Knight book doesn't look to be helping Knights in this regard, particularly with formations that duplicate the capabilities of the basic Knight detachment but pile even better abilities on top for zero additional cost

We routinely, every second Saturday of the month. run tournaments of 20-30 players with at least 2 AdLance formations in attendance, as far back as I can remember they never won over all.

Sidebar, but, from a TO perspective, what wins an event is rarely a concern. Unsurprisingly, similar good players win or finish near the top of just about every event they attend. They're rarely running weak or underpowered lists, but the player has more to do with actually winning or placing highly than the list.

I take a longer look at the overall % of success of certain builds and lists, in terms of curiosity. Ad lance and Knight primaries in general win about 65%+ of their games, which is dramatically higher than any other primary selection. Important to know it's rarely - at least from a TO perspective - about what's winning events; it's far more about what's beating people across the span of the tournament, and how reliably. Whatever anyone says about how balanced or not 40K is, most primary faction choices fall in the 45-55% win rate area ... the exceptions are the bigger problems.

From a player perspective I find it more important to face stiff competition and a variety of armies. Limiting Knights because they are good doesn't make for an exciting tournament experience from me. Perhaps I am in the minority but I want to face a challenge when I play.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't know of any events off the top of my head that have no restrictions on GC/SH units. Most at least have a 0-1 limitation if nothing else. Many have bans on ranged D weapons on top of that to boot.

Knights are an odd thing, but there's increasingly more and more pressure to restrict them. I know a local event I went to recently had a player run an Adamantine Lance just to prove a point, won all three games by tabling his opponents, and now the option to bring more than one Knight or an entire Knight army is under review, though again, that's a local event not a huge GT style event. The new Knight book doesn't look to be helping Knights in this regard, particularly with formations that duplicate the capabilities of the basic Knight detachment but pile even better abilities on top for zero additional cost

We routinely, every second Saturday of the month. run tournaments of 20-30 players with at least 2 AdLance formations in attendance, as far back as I can remember they never won over all.

Sidebar, but, from a TO perspective, what wins an event is rarely a concern. Unsurprisingly, similar good players win or finish near the top of just about every event they attend. They're rarely running weak or underpowered lists, but the player has more to do with actually winning or placing highly than the list.

I take a longer look at the overall % of success of certain builds and lists, in terms of curiosity. Ad lance and Knight primaries in general win about 65%+ of their games, which is dramatically higher than any other primary selection. Important to know it's rarely - at least from a TO perspective - about what's winning events; it's far more about what's beating people across the span of the tournament, and how reliably. Whatever anyone says about how balanced or not 40K is, most primary faction choices fall in the 45-55% win rate area ... the exceptions are the bigger problems.

From a player perspective I find it more important to face stiff competition and a variety of armies. Limiting Knights because they are good doesn't make for an exciting tournament experience from me. Perhaps I am in the minority but I want to face a challenge when I play.

Judging on the results across all factions, there aren't any particular codices/factions that crush all other armies. The argument that an absence of Knights will reduce the variety of stiff competition you face depends on evidence that the inclusion of Knights in the scene increases variety. Their increasing popularity and dramatically higher win % when fielded as a Primary detachment argues for a decrease in variety over time (as people adopt a statistically more successful faction) rather than the opposite. It's important for me to try and understand what the reality actually is (as opposed to how I or anyone else "feels" the reality is).

MVBrandt wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't know of any events off the top of my head that have no restrictions on GC/SH units. Most at least have a 0-1 limitation if nothing else. Many have bans on ranged D weapons on top of that to boot.

Knights are an odd thing, but there's increasingly more and more pressure to restrict them. I know a local event I went to recently had a player run an Adamantine Lance just to prove a point, won all three games by tabling his opponents, and now the option to bring more than one Knight or an entire Knight army is under review, though again, that's a local event not a huge GT style event. The new Knight book doesn't look to be helping Knights in this regard, particularly with formations that duplicate the capabilities of the basic Knight detachment but pile even better abilities on top for zero additional cost

We routinely, every second Saturday of the month. run tournaments of 20-30 players with at least 2 AdLance formations in attendance, as far back as I can remember they never won over all.

Sidebar, but, from a TO perspective, what wins an event is rarely a concern. Unsurprisingly, similar good players win or finish near the top of just about every event they attend. They're rarely running weak or underpowered lists, but the player has more to do with actually winning or placing highly than the list.

I take a longer look at the overall % of success of certain builds and lists, in terms of curiosity. Ad lance and Knight primaries in general win about 65%+ of their games, which is dramatically higher than any other primary selection. Important to know it's rarely - at least from a TO perspective - about what's winning events; it's far more about what's beating people across the span of the tournament, and how reliably. Whatever anyone says about how balanced or not 40K is, most primary faction choices fall in the 45-55% win rate area ... the exceptions are the bigger problems.

From a player perspective I find it more important to face stiff competition and a variety of armies. Limiting Knights because they are good doesn't make for an exciting tournament experience from me. Perhaps I am in the minority but I want to face a challenge when I play.

Judging on the results across all factions, there aren't any particular codices/factions that crush all other armies. The argument that an absence of Knights will reduce the variety of stiff competition you face depends on evidence that the inclusion of Knights in the scene increases variety. Their increasing popularity and dramatically higher win % when fielded as a Primary detachment argues for a decrease in variety over time (as people adopt a statistically more successful faction) rather than the opposite. It's important for me to try and understand what the reality actually is (as opposed to how I or anyone else "feels" the reality is).

That's fair, I think it just boils down to a difference in our perspectives and experiences with Knights. I don't travel to your events on the East coast so the way you rule it doesn't really matter for me personally anyway.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't know of any events off the top of my head that have no restrictions on GC/SH units. Most at least have a 0-1 limitation if nothing else. Many have bans on ranged D weapons on top of that to boot.

Knights are an odd thing, but there's increasingly more and more pressure to restrict them. I know a local event I went to recently had a player run an Adamantine Lance just to prove a point, won all three games by tabling his opponents, and now the option to bring more than one Knight or an entire Knight army is under review, though again, that's a local event not a huge GT style event. The new Knight book doesn't look to be helping Knights in this regard, particularly with formations that duplicate the capabilities of the basic Knight detachment but pile even better abilities on top for zero additional cost

We routinely, every second Saturday of the month. run tournaments of 20-30 players with at least 2 AdLance formations in attendance, as far back as I can remember they never won over all.

Sidebar, but, from a TO perspective, what wins an event is rarely a concern. Unsurprisingly, similar good players win or finish near the top of just about every event they attend. They're rarely running weak or underpowered lists, but the player has more to do with actually winning or placing highly than the list.

I take a longer look at the overall % of success of certain builds and lists, in terms of curiosity. Ad lance and Knight primaries in general win about 65%+ of their games, which is dramatically higher than any other primary selection. Important to know it's rarely - at least from a TO perspective - about what's winning events; it's far more about what's beating people across the span of the tournament, and how reliably. Whatever anyone says about how balanced or not 40K is, most primary faction choices fall in the 45-55% win rate area ... the exceptions are the bigger problems.

From a player perspective I find it more important to face stiff competition and a variety of armies. Limiting Knights because they are good doesn't make for an exciting tournament experience from me. Perhaps I am in the minority but I want to face a challenge when I play.

Judging on the results across all factions, there aren't any particular codices/factions that crush all other armies. The argument that an absence of Knights will reduce the variety of stiff competition you face depends on evidence that the inclusion of Knights in the scene increases variety. Their increasing popularity and dramatically higher win % when fielded as a Primary detachment argues for a decrease in variety over time (as people adopt a statistically more successful faction) rather than the opposite. It's important for me to try and understand what the reality actually is (as opposed to how I or anyone else "feels" the reality is).

That's fair, I think it just boils down to a difference in our perspectives and experiences with Knights. I don't travel to your events on the East coast so the way you rule it doesn't really matter for me personally anyway.

It is a diff' in perspective, though the statistical results apply to numerous West Coast events and records as well - again, winning an event is more about a small cadre of higher level players, coast-to-coast, and beating up on more players than not on a regular basis is more relevant when discussing overall results. I.E. Knight primaries tend to beat people across the tournament, even if top tier and better players find ways to circumvent and leverage their weaknesses. At NOVA, for example, most top players had no complaints about Knights. The vast majority of attendees, however, had a very negative reaction to them in post-event Survey (as well as D / Super Heavy/GC in general).

Functionally speaking, the change in iKnight LOW status may impact you more directly on the West Coast than you'd otherwise think, in that it would not be surprising based on daily chats to see the ITC rule that the 0-1 SH LOW restriction now applies to Codex: iKnights (as opposed to changing their existing rules just to make iKnights happy). Of course, that's outside my AOR, but it may make the discussion more relevant to you than you think if it is a decision that needs to be made on that side.

MVBrandt wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't know of any events off the top of my head that have no restrictions on GC/SH units. Most at least have a 0-1 limitation if nothing else. Many have bans on ranged D weapons on top of that to boot.

Knights are an odd thing, but there's increasingly more and more pressure to restrict them. I know a local event I went to recently had a player run an Adamantine Lance just to prove a point, won all three games by tabling his opponents, and now the option to bring more than one Knight or an entire Knight army is under review, though again, that's a local event not a huge GT style event. The new Knight book doesn't look to be helping Knights in this regard, particularly with formations that duplicate the capabilities of the basic Knight detachment but pile even better abilities on top for zero additional cost

We routinely, every second Saturday of the month. run tournaments of 20-30 players with at least 2 AdLance formations in attendance, as far back as I can remember they never won over all.

Sidebar, but, from a TO perspective, what wins an event is rarely a concern. Unsurprisingly, similar good players win or finish near the top of just about every event they attend. They're rarely running weak or underpowered lists, but the player has more to do with actually winning or placing highly than the list.

I take a longer look at the overall % of success of certain builds and lists, in terms of curiosity. Ad lance and Knight primaries in general win about 65%+ of their games, which is dramatically higher than any other primary selection. Important to know it's rarely - at least from a TO perspective - about what's winning events; it's far more about what's beating people across the span of the tournament, and how reliably. Whatever anyone says about how balanced or not 40K is, most primary faction choices fall in the 45-55% win rate area ... the exceptions are the bigger problems.

From a player perspective I find it more important to face stiff competition and a variety of armies. Limiting Knights because they are good doesn't make for an exciting tournament experience from me. Perhaps I am in the minority but I want to face a challenge when I play.

Judging on the results across all factions, there aren't any particular codices/factions that crush all other armies. The argument that an absence of Knights will reduce the variety of stiff competition you face depends on evidence that the inclusion of Knights in the scene increases variety. Their increasing popularity and dramatically higher win % when fielded as a Primary detachment argues for a decrease in variety over time (as people adopt a statistically more successful faction) rather than the opposite. It's important for me to try and understand what the reality actually is (as opposed to how I or anyone else "feels" the reality is).

That's fair, I think it just boils down to a difference in our perspectives and experiences with Knights. I don't travel to your events on the East coast so the way you rule it doesn't really matter for me personally anyway.

It is a diff' in perspective, though the statistical results apply to numerous West Coast events and records as well - again, winning an event is more about a small cadre of higher level players, coast-to-coast, and beating up on more players than not on a regular basis is more relevant when discussing overall results. I.E. Knight primaries tend to beat people across the tournament, even if top tier and better players find ways to circumvent and leverage their weaknesses. At NOVA, for example, most top players had no complaints about Knights. The vast majority of attendees, however, had a very negative reaction to them in post-event Survey (as well as D / Super Heavy/GC in general).

Functionally speaking, the change in iKnight LOW status may impact you more directly on the West Coast than you'd otherwise think, in that it would not be surprising based on daily chats to see the ITC rule that the 0-1 SH LOW restriction now applies to Codex: iKnights (as opposed to changing their existing rules just to make iKnights happy). Of course, that's outside my AOR, but it may make the discussion more relevant to you than you think if it is a decision that needs to be made on that side.

You're absolutely right, I just meant arguing the point with you effects me very little.

Luckily I play mostly at our monthly local events and at 1-3 BAO/LVO/ITC GT events a year so it won't be world ending if they rule the way you're leaning, just a bit disappointing. I want a more open format like we have locally but am willing to participate in a more closed event(s) if that is the only way for me to play in the larger events on the West Coast.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't know of any events off the top of my head that have no restrictions on GC/SH units. Most at least have a 0-1 limitation if nothing else. Many have bans on ranged D weapons on top of that to boot.

Knights are an odd thing, but there's increasingly more and more pressure to restrict them. I know a local event I went to recently had a player run an Adamantine Lance just to prove a point, won all three games by tabling his opponents, and now the option to bring more than one Knight or an entire Knight army is under review, though again, that's a local event not a huge GT style event. The new Knight book doesn't look to be helping Knights in this regard, particularly with formations that duplicate the capabilities of the basic Knight detachment but pile even better abilities on top for zero additional cost

We routinely, every second Saturday of the month. run tournaments of 20-30 players with at least 2 AdLance formations in attendance, as far back as I can remember they never won over all.

Sidebar, but, from a TO perspective, what wins an event is rarely a concern. Unsurprisingly, similar good players win or finish near the top of just about every event they attend. They're rarely running weak or underpowered lists, but the player has more to do with actually winning or placing highly than the list.

I take a longer look at the overall % of success of certain builds and lists, in terms of curiosity. Ad lance and Knight primaries in general win about 65%+ of their games, which is dramatically higher than any other primary selection. Important to know it's rarely - at least from a TO perspective - about what's winning events; it's far more about what's beating people across the span of the tournament, and how reliably. Whatever anyone says about how balanced or not 40K is, most primary faction choices fall in the 45-55% win rate area ... the exceptions are the bigger problems.

From a player perspective I find it more important to face stiff competition and a variety of armies. Limiting Knights because they are good doesn't make for an exciting tournament experience from me. Perhaps I am in the minority but I want to face a challenge when I play.

Judging on the results across all factions, there aren't any particular codices/factions that crush all other armies. The argument that an absence of Knights will reduce the variety of stiff competition you face depends on evidence that the inclusion of Knights in the scene increases variety. Their increasing popularity and dramatically higher win % when fielded as a Primary detachment argues for a decrease in variety over time (as people adopt a statistically more successful faction) rather than the opposite. It's important for me to try and understand what the reality actually is (as opposed to how I or anyone else "feels" the reality is).

That's fair, I think it just boils down to a difference in our perspectives and experiences with Knights. I don't travel to your events on the East coast so the way you rule it doesn't really matter for me personally anyway.

It is a diff' in perspective, though the statistical results apply to numerous West Coast events and records as well - again, winning an event is more about a small cadre of higher level players, coast-to-coast, and beating up on more players than not on a regular basis is more relevant when discussing overall results. I.E. Knight primaries tend to beat people across the tournament, even if top tier and better players find ways to circumvent and leverage their weaknesses. At NOVA, for example, most top players had no complaints about Knights. The vast majority of attendees, however, had a very negative reaction to them in post-event Survey (as well as D / Super Heavy/GC in general).

Functionally speaking, the change in iKnight LOW status may impact you more directly on the West Coast than you'd otherwise think, in that it would not be surprising based on daily chats to see the ITC rule that the 0-1 SH LOW restriction now applies to Codex: iKnights (as opposed to changing their existing rules just to make iKnights happy). Of course, that's outside my AOR, but it may make the discussion more relevant to you than you think if it is a decision that needs to be made on that side.

You're absolutely right, I just meant arguing the point with you effects me very little.

Luckily I play mostly at our monthly local events and at 1-3 BAO/LVO/ITC GT events a year so it won't be world ending if they rule the way you're leaning, just a bit disappointing. I want a more open format like we have locally but am willing to participate in a more closed event(s) if that is the only way for me to play in the larger events on the West Coast.

FWIW I don't mind a more open format, personally, either. Just a lot of "mainstream" GT attendees - at least in terms of NOVA's usual constituency (nationwide and international) - often report very negatively on the experience of facing SH/GC and super units both in a travel-to tournament setting. The general feeling is players would prefer a game where there's less need to chase the meta investment and otherwise. Given I'm not a big fan of exhaustive comp, there's a limit to what can be done about it. We probably see more eye to eye at least on a personal level than you might think.

Not that we've derailed the OP question ... actually probably helped.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't know of any events off the top of my head that have no restrictions on GC/SH units. Most at least have a 0-1 limitation if nothing else. Many have bans on ranged D weapons on top of that to boot.

Knights are an odd thing, but there's increasingly more and more pressure to restrict them. I know a local event I went to recently had a player run an Adamantine Lance just to prove a point, won all three games by tabling his opponents, and now the option to bring more than one Knight or an entire Knight army is under review, though again, that's a local event not a huge GT style event. The new Knight book doesn't look to be helping Knights in this regard, particularly with formations that duplicate the capabilities of the basic Knight detachment but pile even better abilities on top for zero additional cost

We routinely, every second Saturday of the month. run tournaments of 20-30 players with at least 2 AdLance formations in attendance, as far back as I can remember they never won over all.

This player didn't win best overall either (for one, they weren't fully painted, he also gave up First Blood in one of his games when one of his supported Assassins got splatted before the Knights got stuck in and thus didn't get *quite* full points on that game) but that doesn't mean they can't still be super busted.

I've never allowed apoc stuff in any tournament I've run, SH/GC or even formations for that matter. But at the same time the end goal was a 40k tournament, not an apoc mega battle.

It's been a while since formations have been an apoc thing. You sounds like one of our local TOs, who still insists that every army have 1 HQ 2 troops, and if you happen to want to play Harlequins, well, sucks to be you. He wonders why attendence spikes when he runs an ITC event rather than his usual format...

 DarkLink wrote:
It's been a while since formations have been an apoc thing. You sounds like one of our local TOs, who still insists that every army have 1 HQ 2 troops, and if you happen to want to play Harlequins, well, sucks to be you. He wonders why attendence spikes when he runs an ITC event rather than his usual format...

Dropping painting requirements also leads to more attendance. Inclusivity isn't a high priority for us, playing 40k instead of apoc with fully painted armies is the end goal

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
It's been a while since formations have been an apoc thing. You sounds like one of our local TOs, who still insists that every army have 1 HQ 2 troops, and if you happen to want to play Harlequins, well, sucks to be you. He wonders why attendence spikes when he runs an ITC event rather than his usual format...

Dropping painting requirements also leads to more attendance. Inclusivity isn't a high priority for us, playing 40k instead of apoc with fully painted armies is the end goal

So you play early 6th edition then since SGC/SHV are in the main rulebook and thus "40k"

 Bahkara wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
It's been a while since formations have been an apoc thing. You sounds like one of our local TOs, who still insists that every army have 1 HQ 2 troops, and if you happen to want to play Harlequins, well, sucks to be you. He wonders why attendence spikes when he runs an ITC event rather than his usual format...

Dropping painting requirements also leads to more attendance. Inclusivity isn't a high priority for us, playing 40k instead of apoc with fully painted armies is the end goal

So you play early 6th edition then since SGC/SHV are in the main rulebook and thus "40k"

Every major GT style event places some sort of restrictions and/or imposes some sorts of rules changes on their events.

I can't think of any tournament, GT or no, allowing "unbound" armies, is that any less "40k"? It's in the rulebook, it's fully allowed by 7E's rules.

If we're going to get into what's "40k" and what's "not" or what's "7th edition" or not, you're going to find nobody is playing 7E as GW has published it except a handful of people playing with small groups of friends in basements.

And there's a reason for that. GW is not producing a balanced ruleset designed to be used in organized and competitive events. They've been rather frank about that. For a competitive event to be something other than a "who brought the scariest model" contest, it needs changes and adjustments, and again, GW would often be the first to say do so.

That's why I made the comment. I find it funny that the distinction is being made between 40k and apoc based solely on gmc/shv.

Our local tournament(every 2nd Saturday for the last 8 years ) allows unbound but we rarely see anybody run it.

The Throne of Skulls events that are scheduled this year allow Unbound armies and all publications of rules.

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/Throne-of-Skulls-Into-the-Mealstrom.pdf

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/Steel-Fury-Event-Pack.pdf

MechaniCon is doing that as well.

http://www.themechanicon.com/1/

 Bahkara wrote:
That's why I made the comment. I find it funny that the distinction is being made between 40k and apoc based solely on gmc/shv.

Our local tournament(every 2nd Saturday for the last 8 years ) allows unbound but we rarely see anybody run it.

This is probably because its 'local'. No one wants to be that one tosser who shows up with pure cheese designed only to win and ruin everyone else's day because they will never get another game locally after that. In most cases, local events tend to be friendlier as the pool of players is smaller. These are the guys you play during the year, these are the same guys you will play in the future. You don't want to lose that, do you?

A local event here opened up Superheavies and Lord of War slots and the end result was not...pleasant. The out of town players who came along brought filth. This was a pre-7th ed Codex Necrons Tesseract Vault with spammed Pylons. It was not fun for anyone.

Surprisingly one of the strongest advocates against Superheavies and Gargantuans in normal 40k is the guy with a Reaver, 2 Warhounds and a full Imperial Knight maniple and his reasoning is brilliant. He doesn't want to see 40k turned into an arms race for expensive kits because that's just not fun. And his response to this? He fielded the Reaver.

Suffice to say that after this shambles we went back to our restrictions. Simply put, Superheavies and Gargantuans aren't fun. The points costs swing wildly one direction to the other. Basically, if you're a Tyranid or Ork player? You get crap. The Wraithknight as it appears in Craftworlds is a prime example of this. For a handful of points more you can field 2 Wraithknights per Hierodule and really...that's terrible.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Bahkara wrote:
That's why I made the comment. I find it funny that the distinction is being made between 40k and apoc based solely on gmc/shv.

Our local tournament(every 2nd Saturday for the last 8 years ) allows unbound but we rarely see anybody run it.

This is probably because its 'local'. No one wants to be that one tosser who shows up with pure cheese designed only to win and ruin everyone else's day because they will never get another game locally after that. In most cases, local events tend to be friendlier as the pool of players is smaller. These are the guys you play during the year, these are the same guys you will play in the future. You don't want to lose that, do you?

A local event here opened up Superheavies and Lord of War slots and the end result was not...pleasant. The out of town players who came along brought filth. This was a pre-7th ed Codex Necrons Tesseract Vault with spammed Pylons. It was not fun for anyone.

Surprisingly one of the strongest advocates against Superheavies and Gargantuans in normal 40k is the guy with a Reaver, 2 Warhounds and a full Imperial Knight maniple and his reasoning is brilliant. He doesn't want to see 40k turned into an arms race for expensive kits because that's just not fun. And his response to this? He fielded the Reaver.

Suffice to say that after this shambles we went back to our restrictions. Simply put, Superheavies and Gargantuans aren't fun. The points costs swing wildly one direction to the other. Basically, if you're a Tyranid or Ork player? You get crap. The Wraithknight as it appears in Craftworlds is a prime example of this. For a handful of points more you can field 2 Wraithknights per Hierodule and really...that's terrible.

Ya, that isn't our meta. We have lots of guys who play AdLance, bring Lynx, Sicarians, 9 Drop Pod armies, full White Scar cheese etc.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Bahkara wrote:
That's why I made the comment. I find it funny that the distinction is being made between 40k and apoc based solely on gmc/shv.

Our local tournament(every 2nd Saturday for the last 8 years ) allows unbound but we rarely see anybody run it.

This is probably because its 'local'. No one wants to be that one tosser who shows up with pure cheese designed only to win and ruin everyone else's day because they will never get another game locally after that. In most cases, local events tend to be friendlier as the pool of players is smaller. These are the guys you play during the year, these are the same guys you will play in the future. You don't want to lose that, do you?

A local event here opened up Superheavies and Lord of War slots and the end result was not...pleasant. The out of town players who came along brought filth. This was a pre-7th ed Codex Necrons Tesseract Vault with spammed Pylons. It was not fun for anyone.

Surprisingly one of the strongest advocates against Superheavies and Gargantuans in normal 40k is the guy with a Reaver, 2 Warhounds and a full Imperial Knight maniple and his reasoning is brilliant. He doesn't want to see 40k turned into an arms race for expensive kits because that's just not fun. And his response to this? He fielded the Reaver.

Suffice to say that after this shambles we went back to our restrictions. Simply put, Superheavies and Gargantuans aren't fun. The points costs swing wildly one direction to the other. Basically, if you're a Tyranid or Ork player? You get crap. The Wraithknight as it appears in Craftworlds is a prime example of this. For a handful of points more you can field 2 Wraithknights per Hierodule and really...that's terrible.

Our local meta(same as OverwatchCNC) must be made of sterner stuff since we use the ITC as a guideline and the number of attendees to the tournament is almost as high as the 5th edition days.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Bahkara wrote:
That's why I made the comment. I find it funny that the distinction is being made between 40k and apoc based solely on gmc/shv.

Our local tournament(every 2nd Saturday for the last 8 years ) allows unbound but we rarely see anybody run it.

This is probably because its 'local'. No one wants to be that one tosser who shows up with pure cheese designed only to win and ruin everyone else's day because they will never get another game locally after that. In most cases, local events tend to be friendlier as the pool of players is smaller. These are the guys you play during the year, these are the same guys you will play in the future. You don't want to lose that, do you?

A local event here opened up Superheavies and Lord of War slots and the end result was not...pleasant. The out of town players who came along brought filth. This was a pre-7th ed Codex Necrons Tesseract Vault with spammed Pylons. It was not fun for anyone.

Surprisingly one of the strongest advocates against Superheavies and Gargantuans in normal 40k is the guy with a Reaver, 2 Warhounds and a full Imperial Knight maniple and his reasoning is brilliant. He doesn't want to see 40k turned into an arms race for expensive kits because that's just not fun. And his response to this? He fielded the Reaver.

Suffice to say that after this shambles we went back to our restrictions. Simply put, Superheavies and Gargantuans aren't fun. The points costs swing wildly one direction to the other. Basically, if you're a Tyranid or Ork player? You get crap. The Wraithknight as it appears in Craftworlds is a prime example of this. For a handful of points more you can field 2 Wraithknights per Hierodule and really...that's terrible.

Ya, that isn't our meta. We have lots of guys who play AdLance, bring Lynx, Sicarians, 9 Drop Pod armies, full White Scar cheese etc.

However, the difference is? You probably have friendlier games with them than you would have on the tournament circuit. My locals can pull out the drop pods, bikes, AdLance and Lynx as well. I'm more than capable of fishing out the Tyranid Flying Circus and my best friend his Daemonception...but we tend not to. Because we know eachother. And if we did? We know eachother. The result is local opponents are generally a lot more friendly than a random.

It's sort of a delicate balance. If everyone has that approach everyone understands it. If someone local doesn't have that approach? I suspect you reel it in a bit for them. You generally want to keep your local opponents on friendly terms else when the next event comes up and you want to bounce list ideas off someone and give it a few test runs? Hard to do when you end up being 'exiled' for being that guy

 DarkStarSabre wrote:


However, the difference is? You probably have friendlier games with them than you would have on the tournament circuit. My locals can pull out the drop pods, bikes, AdLance and Lynx as well. I'm more than capable of fishing out the Tyranid Flying Circus and my best friend his Daemonception...but we tend not to. Because we know eachother. And if we did? We know eachother. The result is local opponents are generally a lot more friendly than a random.

It's sort of a delicate balance. If everyone has that approach everyone understands it. If someone local doesn't have that approach? I suspect you reel it in a bit for them. You generally want to keep your local opponents on friendly terms else when the next event comes up and you want to bounce list ideas off someone and give it a few test runs? Hard to do when you end up being 'exiled' for being that guy

To be honest its hard to say nowadays as to what is considered "local". Our store is one of the few, if not only, store that has a regular tournament schedule. This, in addition to it being an ITC event, has begun to generate a lot more attendance from a larger area. For instance, our tournament was yesterday and had about 25 players. Armies included 4 eldar, 3 necrons(one with pylons), and 3 wolf stars amongst the rest of the field. Overall winner was actually a Khorne Daemonkin w/allied CSM, playing against Tyranids for the top spot.

My FLGS just banned SH/GC including Knights, I don't know. 40k light?

 Byte wrote:
My FLGS just banned SH/GC including Knights, I don't know. 40k light?

That's too bad. We try to play as close to bsb as possible. This includes using maelstrom missions

There have been plenty of knight players at our tournaments and they have never been an issue.

Squeaky wheel...

 Byte wrote:
Squeaky wheel...

Pretty much. Luckily our local meta is insulated from the Dakka squeaky wheels.

 Byte wrote:
My FLGS just banned SH/GC including Knights, I don't know. 40k light?

"not apoc" would be a better choice

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Byte wrote:
My FLGS just banned SH/GC including Knights, I don't know. 40k light?

"not apoc" would be a better choice

Not really.