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.
2015/12/21 22:30:45
Subject: Pre-Game Analysis: Big Mek Stompa Orks vs. Tau!
I have to disagree. I think a lot of people are forgetting the initial amount of research Reecius put into the poll for the ITC vote. It was actually a lot of work. The rule in the campaign book is not worded crystal clear and can be interpreted different ways. Typically I am not in favor of rules mods but this was actually a clarification .
No, lol, the questions weren't worded to favor anyone or influence the decision. The rule may be clear to you, which is 100% cool, but almost everyone I asked to define the RAW of that rule gave me a different answer.
For example, if we just put on the poll: Should we play the Hunter Contingent Coordinated Firepower rule RAW? Yes? No? It would have been a meaningless question as it would have given players no way to interpret it or actually apply it in a game. It's not clear to most players how to read or apply the rule. We'd be in the exact same position at events with players asking us how to play the rule.
As RAW was not clear, we simply asked folks how they wanted to play it. You can build whatever narrative around that approach you want, that is your prerogative, but the very simple truth is we simply asked everyone how they preferred to play it.
And what is or is not competitive 40k is 100% subjective these days. You want to play unmodified 40k straight out of the book? Go ahead, lol, it's actually an awful ruleset from that perspective, very similar to AoS. The game is absolutely not written to be played competitively. In order to have that type of game, we as players must modify it, or add "house rules" as you put it, which by the way, every 40k player does in 7th ed. How far we go with the modifications is also 100% subjective. One person will see a change as going too far where another sees it as not going far enough. It's not if we change the rules but to what degree. It's just the nature of the beast.
The only time rules have been toned down is when a majority of people feel they are simply unenjoyable to play with. It's rare that it happens but when it does, typically it represents players going towards the middle ground which often leads to more people having fun. You may not agree with that, which is fine, but remember that while we do play the game to win we also play the game vs. another person who came to a tournament with an expectation for a fun and fair game. An army wide rule that potentially grants ignores cover/twin link/monst and tank hunter is, unsurprisingly, a bit much and most folks wanted to see that toned down a bit. No surprise.
If GW deigns to FAQ it we'll see what they have to say, but that is unlikely. Tau have so many powerful tools at their disposal, there's really no need to lament this one thing that was clearly going to make a lot of people not enjoy their games vs. it. I am of the opinion that while some do not like the ruling (which stinks), more gamers will have more fun as a result which is a net gain. At any rate, this is water under the bridge at this point so I will let it go.
@Mojo1JoJo
Love the name, Mojo Jojo was an awesome villan!
But, yeah, it rarely hits but when it does, it is very good as in that game!
No, lol, the questions weren't worded to favor anyone or influence the decision. The rule may be clear to you, which is 100% cool, but almost everyone I asked to define the RAW of that rule gave me a different answer.
For example, if we just put on the poll: Should we play the Hunter Contingent Coordinated Firepower rule RAW? Yes? No? It would have been a meaningless question as it would have given players no way to interpret it or actually apply it in a game. It's not clear to most players how to read or apply the rule. We'd be in the exact same position at events with players asking us how to play the rule.
As RAW was not clear, we simply asked folks how they wanted to play it. You can build whatever narrative around that approach you want, that is your prerogative, but the very simple truth is we simply asked everyone how they preferred to play it.
And what is or is not competitive 40k is 100% subjective these days. You want to play unmodified 40k straight out of the book? Go ahead, lol, it's actually an awful ruleset from that perspective, very similar to AoS. The game is absolutely not written to be played competitively. In order to have that type of game, we as players must modify it, or add "house rules" as you put it, which by the way, every 40k player does in 7th ed. How far we go with the modifications is also 100% subjective. One person will see a change as going too far where another sees it as not going far enough. It's not if we change the rules but to what degree. It's just the nature of the beast.
The only time rules have been toned down is when a majority of people feel they are simply unenjoyable to play with. It's rare that it happens but when it does, typically it represents players going towards the middle ground which often leads to more people having fun. You may not agree with that, which is fine, but remember that while we do play the game to win we also play the game vs. another person who came to a tournament with an expectation for a fun and fair game. An army wide rule that potentially grants ignores cover/twin link/monst and tank hunter is, unsurprisingly, a bit much and most folks wanted to see that toned down a bit. No surprise.
If GW deigns to FAQ it we'll see what they have to say, but that is unlikely. Tau have so many powerful tools at their disposal, there's really no need to lament this one thing that was clearly going to make a lot of people not enjoy their games vs. it. I am of the opinion that while some do not like the ruling (which stinks), more gamers will have more fun as a result which is a net gain. At any rate, this is water under the bridge at this point so I will let it go.
@Mojo1JoJo
Love the name, Mojo Jojo was an awesome villan!
But, yeah, it rarely hits but when it does, it is very good as in that game!
Explain to me how its not clear. I read you article on Frontline Gaming and it was completely incorrect. The big argument against RAWCFP you had was "unit coherency" which is completely incorrect. Unit coherency has NOTHING to do with shooting. You do not have to be in coherency to fire. There is an ongoing thread here and NOT ONE PERSON has been able to give an argument as to why Rules don't share. Because they do.
2500 2500 2200
2015/12/22 02:10:22
Subject: Pre-Game Analysis: Big Mek Stompa Orks vs. Tau!
Haldir wrote: Reecius , the rules out of the box are terrible. Just awful. Kudos to Frontline and ITC for the work you have done!!
Well, we play out of the book. The only exception is allowance to reroll missions that can't be possibly completed. But it's such a widespread rule that kinda >80% of players apply.
2015/12/22 19:20:54
Subject: Pre-Game Analysis: Big Mek Stompa Orks vs. Tau!
Maelstrom cards that say "destroy an enemy building" while your opponent didn't take any fortifications. "Successfully manifest a psychic power" when you have no psykers. That sort of thing.
2015/12/24 17:55:15
Subject: Pre-Game Analysis: Big Mek Stompa Orks vs. Tau!
gungo wrote: Rules out of the book is unbound, mysterious objectives, and a bunch of other junk no one uses. I doubt you play by the book.
What's wrong with mysterious objectives? Sometimes we forego them just for simplicity or cause we forget about them. But games with mysterious objectives seem fine.
Noone prohibits unbound here. It's just that obsec or formation bonuses usually outweigh the silly stuff you can bring with unbound. Besides, with all that formations, multiple detachments and allies you can bring whatever you want with little limitations anywayz. There might probably be some utterly broken unbound lists but i haven't seen one irl. Noone really plays unbound here even if it's not prohibited. The only occasions are when there are new guyz with random models or a harlequin player trying to get the list up to an agreed ammount of points without messing it up with over-using upgrades.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/12/25 05:55:50
2015/12/25 06:36:16
Subject: Pre-Game Analysis: Big Mek Stompa Orks vs. Tau!
I really liked this battle report, one thing that really stuck out was the losing player stating they played correctly at the end, only to agree they could have played much better and tied or won the game by making certain other decisions. That's a pretty major aspect of any game, as most players won't see error in their decision making at the time, and they won't really be presented with alternatives, but in this the player was and agreed with it, so honestly that's just brilliant as it shows how easy it is to miss things that could be majorly game changing.
That being said, stop raging Reece, no one wants to watch the first ten minutes of a video being you griping about something, especially when you win. I mean I like you as a person, just the amount of salt seen here left me so parched I needed a drink just to get beyond that point.
gungo wrote: Rules out of the book is unbound, mysterious objectives, and a bunch of other junk no one uses. I doubt you play by the book.
What's wrong with mysterious objectives? Sometimes we forego them just for simplicity or cause we forget about them. But games with mysterious objectives seem fine.
Noone prohibits unbound here. It's just that obsec or formation bonuses usually outweigh the silly stuff you can bring with unbound. Besides, with all that formations, multiple detachments and allies you can bring whatever you want with little limitations anywayz. There might probably be some utterly broken unbound lists but i haven't seen one irl. Noone really plays unbound here even if it's not prohibited. The only occasions are when there are new guyz with random models or a harlequin player trying to get the list up to an agreed ammount of points without messing it up with over-using upgrades.
You do realize when you forego certain rules for simplicity sake or whatever reason you decide to house rule that game (mission objectives) then you are still not playing by the book? Rules for ruined buildings, mysterious objectives, unbound, and many other gak in the brb are routinely just ignored by the nearly everyone because it's needless overly complicated time wasting crap or just lazy rules writing that people just don't use beyond that first game when you buy the rule book and don't know any better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/25 15:24:45
2015/12/25 15:24:25
Subject: Pre-Game Analysis: Big Mek Stompa Orks vs. Tau!
koooaei wrote: That's pedantic. We're still using 99% of the rules.
So is nearly every other player. Everyone uses most of the rules. Nobody plays by all of the rules. Hence no one plays by the book.
You said yourself you house rule objectives...
And then claim you play by the book... Wtf???
Are you serious... You house rule like everyone else.
It doesn't matter if it's only two or three rules you change or ignore.
It's only pedantic because you feel your version of house ruling is "by the book".
2015/12/25 18:45:20
Subject: Pre-Game Analysis: Big Mek Stompa Orks vs. Tau!
Tinkrr wrote: That being said, stop raging Reece, no one wants to watch the first ten minutes of a video being you griping about something, especially when you win. I mean I like you as a person, just the amount of salt seen here left me so parched I needed a drink just to get beyond that point.
Well, I think many people in Reece's shoes would feel the same way. He was out in the open with the intention of going first, only to get seized on by a Tau player. No one would be excited to play a game like that when first turn is that important. Tau is brutal, I know it, he knows it, everyone knows it. The game seemed to have been lost right at the beginning, but that turned out to be false after his stellar second turn. As the losing player, I was glad that he was able to turn the game around. It made the game more appealing for both the players and the viewers.
Don't get me wrong though, I'll drink the tears of my opponents when I go to tournaments. >:]
7000
5000
1000
3000
2015/12/26 05:59:11
Subject: Pre-Game Analysis: Big Mek Stompa Orks vs. Tau!
Tinkrr wrote: That being said, stop raging Reece, no one wants to watch the first ten minutes of a video being you griping about something, especially when you win. I mean I like you as a person, just the amount of salt seen here left me so parched I needed a drink just to get beyond that point.
Well, I think many people in Reece's shoes would feel the same way. He was out in the open with the intention of going first, only to get seized on by a Tau player. No one would be excited to play a game like that when first turn is that important. Tau is brutal, I know it, he knows it, everyone knows it. The game seemed to have been lost right at the beginning, but that turned out to be false after his stellar second turn. As the losing player, I was glad that he was able to turn the game around. It made the game more appealing for both the players and the viewers.
Don't get me wrong though, I'll drink the tears of my opponents when I go to tournaments. >:]
Feel the same, yes, but let's look at it this way, what did his opponent do after that one turn of horrible rolls? Did that opponent go "Oh my god, I can't believe this, this is so bad I lose because of dice, omg, omg, omg." for the next few turns, or did the opponent just keep going in a professional manner?
I mean I like Reece, and it didn't kill the report for me, but it does take away from things when a professional like Reece complains just that much, no matter how bad it is. We're not there to see Reece on tilt, we're there to be entertained by him, so when he does go on tilt it's really bad as it takes away from what makes him and Frankie great. Again, this isn't to say I hated everything, it's just to say that this is something Reece could work on to make a better viewing experience for his fans.
Edit: Basically, when playing against someone, do you appreciate it more when they go "Well that sucks, but ok I'll move on." or they continue to dwell on it all game? I get in person this is much more of a grey area since the emotional state of people differs, and I've played against those who have apologized because they have a medical condition that makes them behave in extremes, but Reece is a professional, he should behave in the ideal ways when being filmed at the very least.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/26 06:05:49
koooaei wrote: That's pedantic. We're still using 99% of the rules.
So is nearly every other player. Everyone uses most of the rules. Nobody plays by all of the rules. Hence no one plays by the book.
You said yourself you house rule objectives...
And then claim you play by the book... Wtf???
Are you serious... You house rule like everyone else.
It doesn't matter if it's only two or three rules you change or ignore.
It's only pedantic because you feel your version of house ruling is "by the book".
A few minor canges don't change the outcome so much. They're just there to lessen the effect of needlessly annoying stuff.
2016/01/04 03:07:20
Subject: Pre-Game Analysis: Big Mek Stompa Orks vs. Tau!
No, lol, the questions weren't worded to favor anyone or influence the decision. The rule may be clear to you, which is 100% cool, but almost everyone I asked to define the RAW of that rule gave me a different answer.
For example, if we just put on the poll: Should we play the Hunter Contingent Coordinated Firepower rule RAW? Yes? No? It would have been a meaningless question as it would have given players no way to interpret it or actually apply it in a game. It's not clear to most players how to read or apply the rule. We'd be in the exact same position at events with players asking us how to play the rule.
As RAW was not clear, we simply asked folks how they wanted to play it. You can build whatever narrative around that approach you want, that is your prerogative, but the very simple truth is we simply asked everyone how they preferred to play it.
And what is or is not competitive 40k is 100% subjective these days. You want to play unmodified 40k straight out of the book? Go ahead, lol, it's actually an awful ruleset from that perspective, very similar to AoS. The game is absolutely not written to be played competitively. In order to have that type of game, we as players must modify it, or add "house rules" as you put it, which by the way, every 40k player does in 7th ed. How far we go with the modifications is also 100% subjective. One person will see a change as going too far where another sees it as not going far enough. It's not if we change the rules but to what degree. It's just the nature of the beast.
The only time rules have been toned down is when a majority of people feel they are simply unenjoyable to play with. It's rare that it happens but when it does, typically it represents players going towards the middle ground which often leads to more people having fun. You may not agree with that, which is fine, but remember that while we do play the game to win we also play the game vs. another person who came to a tournament with an expectation for a fun and fair game. An army wide rule that potentially grants ignores cover/twin link/monst and tank hunter is, unsurprisingly, a bit much and most folks wanted to see that toned down a bit. No surprise.
If GW deigns to FAQ it we'll see what they have to say, but that is unlikely. Tau have so many powerful tools at their disposal, there's really no need to lament this one thing that was clearly going to make a lot of people not enjoy their games vs. it. I am of the opinion that while some do not like the ruling (which stinks), more gamers will have more fun as a result which is a net gain. At any rate, this is water under the bridge at this point so I will let it go.
@Mojo1JoJo
Love the name, Mojo Jojo was an awesome villan!
But, yeah, it rarely hits but when it does, it is very good as in that game!
Explain to me how its not clear. I read you article on Frontline Gaming and it was completely incorrect. The big argument against RAWCFP you had was "unit coherency" which is completely incorrect. Unit coherency has NOTHING to do with shooting. You do not have to be in coherency to fire. There is an ongoing thread here and NOT ONE PERSON has been able to give an argument as to why Rules don't share. Because they do.
Probably best to leave this discussion for YMDC, or just not at all. It's simply not worth getting this heated over how two events (BAO and LVO) will handle this. FWIW, I voted for the rules to be shared because it looked RAW to me. But them's the breaks. Majority rules, and it's not like the Tau are lacking for good options. If you watched the video report (which was awesome by the way! Great job Reece and Keith) you would have seen how that game was lost for Keith - his commander failing leadership twice in a row to die, and grots shooting up stealth suits while in 2+ cover, who proceeded to run for the hills in fear...I mean with those kinds of odds, anything could have lost. Plus the stompa just went NUTS. Mork was simply on Reece's side that day (or was it Gork?).
2016/01/05 20:16:01
Subject: Pre-Game Analysis: Big Mek Stompa Orks vs. Tau!
To be honest, I am not concerned with convincing you (or anyone) of anything. I don't say that to be mean, it's just the truth. If we had t convince everyone of a ruling NOTHING WOULD EVER GET DONE. EVER. NEVER, EVER. lol
I write that in caps not to simulate yelling, just for emphasis. People disagree on rulings, that is quite simply a fact. And, it will never change as GW takes no (or very little) action to do anything about it. I accept that we will never have 100% support for any rules call, interpretation, change, whatever. So, we don't worry about it. It'd be like worrying about the rain or something, we have no control over what others think.
So, we're left as players with the responsibility of deciding how to play things on our own. There's lots of ways to do that, we decided to go with a democratic approach. You may not agree with this ruling, which is fine, but it is what it is. And guess what? The ITC is very popular. So, despite any perceived shortcomings (and it is an imperfect system, as all systems are) it's passed the harshest test of all: peer acceptance.
At this stage you can simply choose not to play in ITC events, try to convince your local group to play the rule the way you want to, start your our tournament circuit where every rules call is the way you want it to be, or simply accept that your fellow gamers made a choice (that you happen to disagree with) accept it and move on. But arguing with me that I am "wrong" about a rules call is well and truly a futile endeavor at this stage. My rightness or wrongess in this is irrelevant. Everyone voted and that was that. Again, not trying to be mean, just being honest with you.
@luke1705
Yeah, I straight up go lucky in this game! Haha, I seriously should have lost, but my turn two was stupid lucky.
@DirtyDeeds
Thank you for being such a class act opponent! That was a very fun game, would love a rematch sometime.
@Tinkrr
You are right, being mature and simply getting over the bad luck instead of bringing it up again several times is a bad habit. I agree with you 100%. The thing is though, when I lose myself in the game, I don't always think about what is coming out,of my mouth, it's a bit stream of consciousness...and apparently my inner mind really hates bad luck, lol!
I am aware of it, all my gaming buddies make fun of me for it all the time. I appreciate the reminder though, honestly, as I need to work on it.
2500 
2200 
7000
5000
1000
3000 
