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.

every GT is some sort of "bastardized version of the game"

even if you leave the rules as is... toss in new missions or add in paint scores and soft scores and guess what. You have "someone else's opinion of 'how it should be".

I'd rather see missions dictate play style. Probably requires bit more thinking.

I guess that's your opinion

Steve doesn't play unmodified 40k. Nobody does - every tournament plays their version - every last one.

Just a friendly general reminder to keep it civil in here - has been a very good and mature debate thus far (thanks to all for that, and let's keep it that way!).

My GT the only restriction is armies must be battle forged so yeah you are right.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
My GT the only restriction is armies must be battle forged so yeah you are right.

And you don't use straight book missions, and you award points for accomplishing things, etc etc. If you allow all forgeworld, then there's that, too. Yada yada. Basically you've just committed yourself not to attend your own tournament. Alternately, you're just saying only your way of modifying 40k is acceptable to you as the only appropriate homebrew way to play 40k ... IE that steve hammer is better than the others. Which is actually perfectly reasonable of you, if a little narrow minded.

Forgeworld is a division of GW .

Also are these rules changes for Beakycon?
Steve Turner
2 hrs · Clearwater, FL
Note the following clarifications:
Conjured, spawned and summoned units are not objective secured
Space Marines cannot cast from the Malefic lore


PS - I'm gonna be at LVO for sure

Those are clarifications. Not rules mods. IMO

Ok, guys, let's stop it here. We are going way OT. This thread is about the LVO, not what we think a tournament should or shouldn't be.

Thanks.

Had to remove a few posts - see the mod note posted above. Please no more baiting-type posts (or in turn accusations of "trolling" and the subsequent rebuttals of such). Make your points in as supported a way as possible, and let them stand on their own merits!

Also please take further discussion of BeakyCon to it's own thread - this thread is for discussion of the LVO. Thanks.

Anyone know if Crissy is / who is running the Malifaux events at LVO this year?

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
We know that 2++ re rollable was the intent of the developers with the release of the Dark Angels codex. It is really good for them but when you think about it there is actually a fair amount of Ignore Cover...

Astra Militarum - Orders and Sanctioned Psykers
Necrons - Tomb Blades
Tau - Markerlights
Many armies - Divination

Every time a rule is modified it changes the game dynamics. Everyone has their pet peeves. I'm not really knocking anyone but at some point you've got to say where willit end. There are things I really don't like for whatever reason but I finally decided to just go with "Bring it." I have to deal with it.

Intent or not is not the main issue. What is is that the mechanism of 2+ re-rollable is just plain broken. It totally discourages interaction if you don't have the tools to deal with it and many armies just do not. BTW, re-rollable 2+ isn't just limited to cover. You have re-rollable 2++ invuln's (Tzeentch) as well as 2+ armor (seer council w/Protect).

Yes, the dynamics of the game changes whenever you change the rules, but sometimes, that can be a good thing IMO. I know there is the question of "where do you draw the line" but that is something for each TO to decide for their events. Sometimes, their personal opinions influence their judgements but many times, their decisions are supported by data from their customer-base/attendees as well. And if you don't agree with one group of TO's decision, you can change it yourself and run a modified ITC ruleset. Heck, you don't even have to use their ruleset at all and still run an ITC event.

I have decided to not attend tournaments that change rules from now on. It is just getting too crazy to keep up with now. I feel that Ravenwing needs their re rollable cover save to be competitive - taking away something they are obviously meant to have is just not right imo .

Basically you are playing a bastardized version of the game skewed by someone else's opinion 'how it should be".

Fare thee well, Black Blow Fly!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:
Anyone know if Crissy is / who is running the Malifaux events at LVO this year?

No there will be a different Malifaux TO this year.

MVBrandt wrote:
PS - I'm gonna be at LVO for sure

I look forward to meeting you, Mr. Brandt. Your lotsa good posts, good contributions to the hobby and general good guy for 40k makes you someone I'd like to meet. And somewhere a ways back, you gave me some advice on how to run something in the last broken eldar book.

Which I didn't use (Shove it, you buncha elf h8uhs, you know who you are, Bahkara).

Mr. Brandt, I don't think I have any reputation to speak of. No one knows me, so you might have to hunt me down by table.

I know I'll be too focused on winning to look up from my game. I prolly won't even make it over to the bar.

....
Back On Topic:
(seriously)
Will the tourney organizers allow us to have Round 1 Grudge Matches? This event iis going to draw folks from all over, and more than just the "I hope I pull you for a match" but a certain mechanism to let those of us who connected via the 'Net, can shake hands and square off in a game. I figure if we ask early enough, Neil Gilstrap will have the time to work it into the software.

And no, 'tis not a subtle hint to play Mike Brandt. A hand shake, bottle clinked, and some kibbtiz time would be cool. I wouldn't say no if if we get paired up, though.

Man, it's funny how much the Tau suit debate has flared up. We deal with internet shitstorms every quarter or so but this one actually caused more debate than expected.

We actually do have a set criteria we judge for LoW, and we do stick to it. Our fault in this is that for some reason, it's not up on the site anymore. It used to be. The Tau Titan was DOA in terms of the ITC because it violates 2 of our exclusion clauses. I will write an article about this as otherwise I'd have to rewrite this on a ton of social media sites and I don't have time to do that.

Short answer: we do have a system for allowing or disallowing LoW in the game, and we apply it fairly only making exceptions to let things in that may violate those guidelines after we've tried them out. But, the system is applied fairly, it is not arbitrary.

@RiTides

We have quantifiable proof that players do not always vote in their own self-interest. That is a myth, we have what is actually a very benevolent group of people in our hobby despite the vocal minority of people online that can be very negative.

@Dozer

If you change any rules at all, you are "bastardizing" 40k. It is sanctimonious to claim your version is more "true" 40k or whatever. Get off the high horse my friend. I say that with no malice as I am sure in your mind you feel justified in making that statement. As MVBrandt pointed out, unless you play unbound and no points limit 40k, where players can choose their mission type and points limit (if they use points at all!) as the book indicates, you are altering the game to fit the way you think it should be played.

It isn't objectively better, it is subjectively better. And that's fine, you are free to play the game the way you choose, but don't delude yourself into thinking your way is "better" or more "pure" or whatever, because that is patently false.

Also, calling a rule call a "clarification" instead of a whatever, again, does not make it more squeaky clean. In any instance where you have more than one interpretation of a rule, choosing to go with one version of it will be a rules change to people seeing it another way. That is a simple fact no matter what verbiage you use to describe your methodology.

@MVBrandt

Awesome! See you at the LVO, buddy!

@Thread

Thanks for the feedback, everyone, always good to hear different opinions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@brotherE

YES! We love stuff like that, let the Grudge matches commence! lol

We will come up with a way to facilitate that, working on some scoring software now, actually.

 Reecius wrote:
@RiTides

We have quantifiable proof that players do not always vote in their own self-interest.

Thanks for the responses, Reecius! But on this note, I think that "players do not ALWAYS vote in their own self-interest" doesn't really mean anything... they certainly will sometimes (much of the time, even) and the incentive is definitely there with the method of polling attendees. I've talked to a few other TOs about this and will respectfully disagree with that method.

 Reecius wrote:
@brotherE

YES! We love stuff like that, let the Grudge matches commence! lol

We will come up with a way to facilitate that, working on some scoring software now, actually.

That is pretty cool, particularly if some high profile names face off with competitive armies, and play the full game out / don't cede full points to one side or the other. Looking forward to hearing of some grudge matches play out this way

I think one of the reasons people are upset is that in the podcast/videocast Reece, you kept saying things like "I bet this suit has a D-weapon, making tau competitive again" and things like "This will be the counter to the wraithknight"
It made it sound like you where gonna allow it TBH.
And it is like I said, tau have only 2 allowed LOW. One is a glorified transport. the other is useless. Tau would be alot more competitive if you allowed the other Tigershark

@RiTides

I can actually prove measurably that folks vote for what they believe is the right way to do things regardless of their own faction. We have data that proves that. You can disagree, and that is fine, but you would be incorrect to assume that folks vote in their own self interest even most of the time. The exact number is of course impossible to prove, but our data indicates that more often than not, more people in the ITC vote with their conscious than don't.

The alternative is to dictate to people and that method has it's merits but doesn't work as well as we've seen. No system is perfect, but this one has proven to work best so far.

@Hotsauce

I didn't say anything about making Tau competitive, particularly not "competitive again" indicating I felt that Tau are not now competitive. Quite the contrary, Tau are very powerful as they are. I did say that I believe the Tau codex will have a LoW in it, as all of the others baring Space marines have. And I mentioned no counter to a Wraithknight, but a unit comparable to a Wraithknight in terms of an in-Codex LoW for Tau players. Big difference.

Allowing LoW or not has nothing to do with making an army competitive. We have guidelines we feel improve the play experience of the largest number of people.

The number of LoW an army has also has nothing to do with our decision making process. That is something we have no control over. If an army only had one LoW but it was insanely powerful, we still wouldn't let it in just so they got a LoW, that would be silly. And some armies have no LoW at all.

The Tau titan instantly was not going in under our current guidelines, there was never even a question of it unless we chose to make an exception to the rule. But out of the gates, it was already a no go, same as the other models with similar stats and abilities.

But that is why Tau are feeling left out and want this. IG has like 13 allowed. We are allowed 2. and neither of them good. Tau players are feeling picked on because e dont get a whole lot.

HotSauce, you do realize we have no control over which LoW are made or how many or for which factions, right? That is absolutely beyond our control.

We apply our guidelines to all LoW that come out, if that unfortunately nixes one of the few (or only LoW) your factoin gets, that stinks, but it is better that than to let something in that disrupts the game just to allow one faction to get a LoW. That is being fair and consistent, which is what we strive to do.

While I love model diversity, and I am typically one of those folk who has a more loose interpretation of game-skewing, I think Reecius and Co. made the best decision possible.

They have a rubric, they follow that rubric, and that's that.

The real sticky issue would be if the suit was part of the Tau Codex (which it is not) as Frontline is consistent with allowing in-codex LoWs. Maybe the new Tau dex will have another super-suit LoW.

In the end, when managing an event that has almost 300 players, consistency to a rubric is going to save more hurt-feelings than trying to make everyone happy.

 Reecius wrote:
Garret, you do realize we have no control over which LoW are made or how many or for which factions, right? That is absolutely beyond our control.

We apply our guidelines to all LoW that come out, if that unfortunately nixes one of the few (or only LoW) your factoin gets, that stinks, but it is better that than to let something in that disrupts the game just to allow one faction to get a LoW. That is being fair and consistent, which is what we strive to do.

But you do understand why this can make players feel left out right? and upset them? I mean I applaud you for sticking to your rules. But you seem perplexed why people are upset.
And please dont use RL names, it isnt something I want out.

 RiTides wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
@brotherE

YES! We love stuff like that, let the Grudge matches commence! lol

We will come up with a way to facilitate that, working on some scoring software now, actually.

That is pretty cool, particularly if some high profile names face off with competitive armies, and play the full game out / don't cede full points to one side or the other. Looking forward to hearing of some grudge matches play out this way

Reece,
Shall we have Call Outs here on dakka or will you get back to us with another mechanism? FLG's site?

I'm holding back the joke Call Outs. I couldn't figure out anything funny about that Grant-Stolen-Car guy or Mr. I-Know-How-to-Paint-Tau and such. Sometimes the Comedy Well dries out while I'm lowering the bucket for more.

I should have said I am for less change - and no I am not running for office. Just something got me a bit riled up yesterday... sorry for being curt. I had a great time at LVO this year and I am sure I will eventually go again.

 Reecius wrote:
@RiTides

I can actually prove measurably that folks vote for what they believe is the right way to do things regardless of their own faction. We have data that proves that. You can disagree, and that is fine, but you would be incorrect to assume that folks vote in their own self interest even most of the time. The exact number is of course impossible to prove, but our data indicates that more often than not, more people in the ITC vote with their conscious than don't.

The alternative is to dictate to people and that method has it's merits but doesn't work as well as we've seen. No system is perfect, but this one has proven to work best so far.

Reecius, there are certainly a lot of studies that show people do vote in their self-interest in these type of situations, and a ton of data to back that up. I would love to see the numbers you're mentioning, but the fact remains that this is going to be a factor - how much of a factor, it's hard to say without seeing the numbers you are mentioning.

But the alternative is definitely not only to "dictate to people" - and the ITC system does just that in other circumstances, such as the LoW discussion going on! There are many alternatives... one example is putting out a set of guidelines and allowing for a period of public comments (such as what would be going on in this thread about the Tau LoW, if you hadn't already decided on it). Another would be taking a poll of TOs or other qualified people to help weigh certain decisions. To simply say it's your own system or one of dictating (which again, your system does in some aspects!) is not genuinely considering the alternatives.

To be clear, I think you guys are doing an awesome job. But I also think you could be a little more open to feedback on some of these things, and just saying that you can "prove measurably" that people don't always vote in their self interest... again, really doesn't mean very much, as the system is obviously set up in such a way that that will be a factor (although to what degree would depend on a lot of other factors, too).

I mean this feedback to be helpful - it is a discussion thread about the LVO after all - and I hope it is. I am always of the view that we don't have to agree to have a fruitful discussion - in some ways that's kind of the point of a forum! You guys are doing an amazing job with a difficult task, but it doesn't mean there isn't room to discuss how to improve the system for the future, etc

Biggest issue for me is scoring objectives only on turn 2. I mean seriously, who thought of that? I'm still waiting for someone to tell me it's a joke!!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
Garret, you do realize we have no control over which LoW are made or how many or for which factions, right? That is absolutely beyond our control.

We apply our guidelines to all LoW that come out, if that unfortunately nixes one of the few (or only LoW) your factoin gets, that stinks, but it is better that than to let something in that disrupts the game just to allow one faction to get a LoW. That is being fair and consistent, which is what we strive to do.

But you do understand why this can make players feel left out right? and upset them? I mean I applaud you for sticking to your rules. But you seem perplexed why people are upset.
And please dont use RL names, it isnt something I want out.

Garret, don't make me get the fedora picture

KillswitchUK wrote:
Biggest issue for me is scoring objectives only on turn 2. I mean seriously, who thought of that? I'm still waiting for someone to tell me it's a joke!!

Do you mean, scoring at the End-of-Turn?

It was put in place to mitigate the First Turn, Alpha Strike. Gaining First Blood can be significant, so the thinking was that End-of-Turn scoring shifts a some power back to the Goes-2nd player.

I did present an argument to the ITC organizers against it, but it's now been in place so long, I just go along and play as such. Not that big a deal ... unless you use Eldar Jetbikes.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
@brotherE

YES! We love stuff like that, let the Grudge matches commence! lol

We will come up with a way to facilitate that, working on some scoring software now, actually.

That is pretty cool, particularly if some high profile names face off with competitive armies, and play the full game out / don't cede full points to one side or the other. Looking forward to hearing of some grudge matches play out this way

Reece,
Shall we have Call Outs here on dakka or will you get back to us with another mechanism? FLG's site?

I'm holding back the joke Call Outs. I couldn't figure out anything funny about that Grant-Stolen-Car guy or Mr. I-Know-How-to-Paint-Tau and such. Sometimes the Comedy Well dries out while I'm lowering the bucket for more.

That reminds me! What happened to last years round 1 grudge match between Nick Rose and JY2? It never took place was my understanding. Did one duck the other? Inquiring minds want to know! Rematch this year? Huh huh?