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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I think we need to ask GW to publish a step by step instructional video about "How to Write An Army List" at this point...

Speaking of dumb GW flowcharts, I am still waiting for someone to abuse the Index chart on big tourney. Say, supreme command detachment of exarchs sniping enemy characters from across the table or five commissars with power axes using Index morale rules

 lolman1c wrote:
Interesting. So do these successor chapters have any relics or chapter traits at all? Or do they just get the character... That sucks if you give up all the for chat a single character. XD

Eh, in this case, yes. FT have cheap chapter master, BA have amazing standard relic. The guy combined both.

It's a far less clear and ambiguous case in regular SM book, though. The rules are so stupidly written that only the big 6 of original first founding chapters are entitled to anything at all. You want to play Novamarines, a chapter so ridiculously Ultramarine in spirit they revere Calgar above their actual Chapter Master? Nope, no access to anything Ultramarine for you, ever, unless you declare you're playing Ultramarines who forgot to paint half of their armour. These pink 'Imperial Fists' on the next table? Ditto, apparently having similar 'count as' relic or trait as their parent Chapter would be somehow OP

Remember when Matt Ward, actual player and tester of his rules, said in 5th edition SM book he is totally cool with taking special characters from the book, filing serial numbers off, and using them as 'count as' similarly legendary characters of their successor chapters? When UM successor could use say 'count as' Sicarius as tactically adept captain, something that today is 100% banned? Why, frak your ingenuity and creativity, paint your plastic dudes exactly as you see in the book or no toys for you!

It's even worse in the case of (totally 'balanced' as usual) FW chapters, who can either field their special Characters, and lose access to literally everything becoming Index-grade force, or you can leave the only thing that makes your Raptors or Blood Ravens unique in the first place on the shelf and get actual rules by pretending these are weirdly painted Raven Guard or Blood Angels...

 Galas wrote:
Guys we found all the Tyranid players that werent at NOVA!

https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

What are the adepticon missions?

Clearly they do well with Hive Tyrant spam. Also disgusted to see a Supreme Command with 5 tyrants, and the rest imperial guard with some cult sentinels. That list is everything wrong with 8th edition.

 Irbis wrote:
It's a far less clear and ambiguous case in regular SM book, though. The rules are so stupidly written that only the big 6 of original first founding chapters are entitled to anything at all. You want to play Novamarines, a chapter so ridiculously Ultramarine in spirit they revere Calgar above their actual Chapter Master? Nope, no access to anything Ultramarine for you, ever, unless you declare you're playing Ultramarines who forgot to paint half of their armour. These pink 'Imperial Fists' on the next table? Ditto, apparently having similar 'count as' relic or trait as their parent Chapter would be somehow OP

You know successors get access to both the Chapter Tactics and Stratagems of their parent chapter right? They lose access to the WL trait and relic. This discounts the further effect of simply playing your <Keyword> as the parent chapter while painting them however you want.

A tournament I'm going to in june simply banned the Supreme Command detachment. Its only used for stupid abuse anyway.

 Ordana wrote:
A tournament I'm going to in june simply banned the Supreme Command detachment. Its only used for stupid abuse anyway.

I used to be against this but the further on we've gotten in 8th I tend to agree with it.

Isn't the first list just what was DQ'd at adepticon? He has flesh tearers with the banner.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Isn't the first list just what was DQ'd at adepticon? He has flesh tearers with the banner.

I don't follow?

Is there no way for a big tournament like AdeptiCon to have people turn in lists by a certain date so that the TOs can go over them in depth before the players show up?

SG

 ServiceGames wrote:
Is there no way for a big tournament like AdeptiCon to have people turn in lists by a certain date so that the TOs can go over them in depth before the players show up?

SG

Adepticon had 240~ people playing this year. The time frame to check and adjust all those lists would be astronomical. I know it seems like the ready solution but I just don't think there's a feasible amount of time to get it done in. I think they'd be better served by doing list checking pods ala magic on day 1.

 ServiceGames wrote:
Is there no way for a big tournament like AdeptiCon to have people turn in lists by a certain date so that the TOs can go over them in depth before the players show up?

SG

Way to much work for tournaments the size of Adepticon or Nova. WIth all the tournaments going on you end up checking what? 500+ lists?
I am however in favor of something like checking the top 16 lists if they are held on a separate day.

In the end, players should learn to write legal lists or be DQ'd.

 Ordana wrote:
A tournament I'm going to in june simply banned the Supreme Command detachment. Its only used for stupid abuse anyway.

Eh, I dunno about that. I'm a fan of it in general. It's on the big baddies with 10+ Wounds like Flyrants where it's bad.

We have a total of 7 Shield Captains in the top 16, none in top 8, and they're clearly not dominating like having the tens of tens of hive tyrants we're looking at for Nids.

It looks like his list has a flesh tearer's <chapter> but the banner he's carrying is a relic called the standard of devastation. I can't find that standard anywhere but it's listed as free so presumably it's from somewhere in the Blood Angel codex. I thought the only relic that flesh tearers could take was an Archangels shard.

 Galas wrote:
Guys we found all the Tyranid players that werent at NOVA!

https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

Thousand Sons are there, but only as a detachment with Ahriman, a Daemon Prince, and tzaangors.

Vindication!

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It looks like his list has a flesh tearer's <chapter> but the banner he's carrying is a relic called the standard of devastation. I can't find that standard anywhere but it's listed as free so presumably it's from somewhere in the Blood Angel codex. I thought the only relic that flesh tearers could take was an Archangels shard.

Yeah that's why he was DQ'd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Guys we found all the Tyranid players that werent at NOVA!

https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

Thousand Sons are there, but only as a detachment with Ahriman, a Daemon Prince, and tzaangors.

Vindication!

It is personal vindication for me, I've been arguing for quite some time that competitively the book is an amazing chaos soup addition (more than a few posters did not agree).

OK now I see why I'm confused. I thought that those lists came from NOVA (missed the "n't" in weren't).

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Guys we found all the Tyranid players that werent at NOVA!

https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

Thousand Sons are there, but only as a detachment with Ahriman, a Daemon Prince, and tzaangors.

Vindication!

My 10k of Tzeentch weeps at it being called a TSons Army.

Feels wrong.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Guys we found all the Tyranid players that werent at NOVA!

https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

Thousand Sons are there, but only as a detachment with Ahriman, a Daemon Prince, and tzaangors.

Vindication!

It is personal vindication for me, I've been arguing for quite some time that competitively the book is an amazing chaos soup addition (more than a few posters did not agree).

Yeah, I was in the same boat as you; those exact three units I expected to end up in competitive lists while the rest of the codex would be non-competitive, and lo and behold there they are.

 Ordana wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:
Is there no way for a big tournament like AdeptiCon to have people turn in lists by a certain date so that the TOs can go over them in depth before the players show up?

SG

Way to much work for tournaments the size of Adepticon or Nova. WIth all the tournaments going on you end up checking what? 500+ lists?
I am however in favor of something like checking the top 16 lists if they are held on a separate day.

In the end, players should learn to write legal lists or be DQ'd.

If they're gonna be checking lists (which IMO they absolutely should be, kinda hard to call yourself a competitive event if you don't ensure that your participants are following the rules), then they need to be doing it before the event starts. Doing it for just the top 16 is far too late, as if there are any problems found, then the offending player already cheated everyone they played against to get to the top 16, which could have drastically affected the standings of the tournament.

Tournaments need to be checking lists for their events. There is no excuse not to. They need to be checking these lists prior to the event starting in order to ensure that no player is cheated from the get go. Yes, this is most likely gonna be a logistical nightmare for the TOs. Tough . If you want your event to be considered legitimate and worthy of being called a tournament, that is what you're gonna have to do. Especially if you're gonna be one of the largest tournaments in the US. Don't like it? Too much for you to handle? Quit, and let someone more competent take over. The amount of nonsense the 40k tournament circuit has seen in 8th edition is frankly unacceptable and needs to be dealt with.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
If they're gonna be checking lists (which IMO they absolutely should be, kinda hard to call yourself a competitive event if you don't ensure that your participants are following the rules), then they need to be doing it before the event starts. Doing it for just the top 16 is far too late, as if there are any problems found, then the offending player already cheated everyone they played against to get to the top 16, which could have drastically affected the standings of the tournament.

Tournaments need to be checking lists for their events. There is no excuse not to. They need to be checking these lists prior to the event starting in order to ensure that no player is cheated from the get go. Yes, this is most likely gonna be a logistical nightmare for the TOs. Tough . If you want your event to be considered legitimate and worthy of being called a tournament, that is what you're gonna have to do. Especially if you're gonna be one of the largest tournaments in the US. Don't like it? Too much for you to handle? Quit, and let someone more competent take over. The amount of nonsense the 40k tournament circuit has seen in 8th edition is frankly unacceptable and needs to be dealt with.

That's a cool attitude from someone who hasn't ever organized anything close to the scale of an event like Adepticon. I've organized and run 50-60 person events and it takes about 2 weeks to go through all those (given that I also work a full time job). It simply isn't feasible to check every list before a major event unless you give yourself a 3 month window (which is an infeasible time frame). The excuse not to is it simply isn't possible to get it done in a timely manner that will give players time to submit lists in a reasonable window. And if they quit? Well I can tell you no one is going to magically step-up to fill the void (especially not anyone with the experience, know how, and infrastructure to run an event of any size).

I think people online forget these are not professional events. They are played and run by amateurs.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
If they're gonna be checking lists (which IMO they absolutely should be, kinda hard to call yourself a competitive event if you don't ensure that your participants are following the rules), then they need to be doing it before the event starts. Doing it for just the top 16 is far too late, as if there are any problems found, then the offending player already cheated everyone they played against to get to the top 16, which could have drastically affected the standings of the tournament.

Tournaments need to be checking lists for their events. There is no excuse not to. They need to be checking these lists prior to the event starting in order to ensure that no player is cheated from the get go. Yes, this is most likely gonna be a logistical nightmare for the TOs. Tough . If you want your event to be considered legitimate and worthy of being called a tournament, that is what you're gonna have to do. Especially if you're gonna be one of the largest tournaments in the US. Don't like it? Too much for you to handle? Quit, and let someone more competent take over. The amount of nonsense the 40k tournament circuit has seen in 8th edition is frankly unacceptable and needs to be dealt with.

That's a cool attitude from someone who hasn't ever organized anything close to the scale of an event like Adepticon. I've organized and run 50-60 person events and it takes about 2 weeks to go through all those (given that I also work a full time job). It simply isn't feasible to check every list before a major event unless you give yourself a 3 month window (which is an infeasible time frame). The excuse not to is it simply isn't possible to get it done in a timely manner that will give players time to submit lists in a reasonable window. And if they quit? Well I can tell you no one is going to magically step-up to fill the void (especially not anyone with the experience, know how, and infrastructure to run an event of any size).

Really? The argument is that it's okay not to ensure that every player is not cheating when they build their lists simply because it will take a long time? I'm sorry, but no. Do major MtG tournaments not check every deck to ensure the players aren't cheating right out of the gate? Would it be so hard to simply have every player show up an hour or two early to the first day of the event, have every player assigned to a TO in groups, and have the TO go over each list in their group prior to the first round of play? Is it really so much to ask that a tournament ensure that each player who shows up at the very least plays with a legal list for the event? Is that really something that needs to be argued against?

Also, thank you, random nobody on the internet, for assuming my history, both professional and personal, at organizing major events of any kind. I really appreciate the unfounded assumptions on your part buddy.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
If they're gonna be checking lists (which IMO they absolutely should be, kinda hard to call yourself a competitive event if you don't ensure that your participants are following the rules), then they need to be doing it before the event starts. Doing it for just the top 16 is far too late, as if there are any problems found, then the offending player already cheated everyone they played against to get to the top 16, which could have drastically affected the standings of the tournament.

Tournaments need to be checking lists for their events. There is no excuse not to. They need to be checking these lists prior to the event starting in order to ensure that no player is cheated from the get go. Yes, this is most likely gonna be a logistical nightmare for the TOs. Tough . If you want your event to be considered legitimate and worthy of being called a tournament, that is what you're gonna have to do. Especially if you're gonna be one of the largest tournaments in the US. Don't like it? Too much for you to handle? Quit, and let someone more competent take over. The amount of nonsense the 40k tournament circuit has seen in 8th edition is frankly unacceptable and needs to be dealt with.

That's a cool attitude from someone who hasn't ever organized anything close to the scale of an event like Adepticon. I've organized and run 50-60 person events and it takes about 2 weeks to go through all those (given that I also work a full time job). It simply isn't feasible to check every list before a major event unless you give yourself a 3 month window (which is an infeasible time frame). The excuse not to is it simply isn't possible to get it done in a timely manner that will give players time to submit lists in a reasonable window. And if they quit? Well I can tell you no one is going to magically step-up to fill the void (especially not anyone with the experience, know how, and infrastructure to run an event of any size).

Really? The argument is that it's okay not to ensure that every player is not cheating when they build their lists simply because it will take a long time? I'm sorry, but no. Do major MtG tournaments not check every deck to ensure the players aren't cheating right out of the gate? Would it be so hard to simply have every player show up an hour or two early to the first day of the event, have every player assigned to a TO in groups, and have the TO go over each list in their group prior to the first round of play? Is it really so much to ask that a tournament ensure that each player who shows up at the very least plays with a legal list for the event? Is that really something that needs to be argued against?

Also, thank you, random nobody on the internet, for assuming my history, both professional and personal, at organizing major events of any kind. I really appreciate the unfounded assumptions on your part buddy.

Sitting some players and a judge down does what? Is every player suddenly a perfect font of knowledge? If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If they were the first opponent would catch the illegal part.

Checking lists takes time. Go to the army list section of the forum here. Grab 10 random lists and check them. Really check them, grab the relevant codexes and CA. check all point costs, check all legallity, check everything.
Now do another 200+.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:


Really? The argument is that it's okay not to ensure that every player is not cheating when they build their lists simply because it will take a long time? I'm sorry, but no. Do major MtG tournaments not check every deck to ensure the players aren't cheating right out of the gate? Would it be so hard to simply have every player show up an hour or two early to the first day of the event, have every player assigned to a TO in groups, and have the TO go over each list in their group prior to the first round of play? Is it really so much to ask that a tournament ensure that each player who shows up at the very least plays with a legal list for the event? Is that really something that needs to be argued against?

Also, thank you, random nobody on the internet, for assuming my history, both professional and personal, at organizing major events of any kind. I really appreciate the unfounded assumptions on your part buddy.

No worries - if you have credentials worth discussing present them, otherwise I'll carry on with my assumption. Generally if you're going to level those kinds of 'if you don't like it then get out' types of criticisms and you've got relevant experience you should go ahead and present them. Now that we've addressed you being offended I can move on to the rest of this.

Do MTG events check decks? Yes - this is a a far simpler task than checking 40k lists because its literally looking at a deck list and making sure there is nothing from the ban list - done. That's nowhere near the complexity of checking a multiple source 40k list or even something like the DQ'd list where if you aren't aware of a specific line in the relic section you may still miss it. And how many TOs do you think a major event has? Do you think they have enough for each TO to only check 8 lists? If so you have no clue how many judges are at a major event (usually 6-8 for 200+ people, so each judge would need to check over 20 lists). And no one is arguing against legal lists - however the onus is on the player to check their opponent's list. It is simply unreasonable to ask 10 people to check 20 lists each in an hour (and that's being generous with the math). The reason I made assumptions about your personal history - to be clear - is you are arguing from a position that indicates you lack any practical experience in this area.

I'm confused about this. Do Flesh Tearers get any special rules or units that Blood Angels do not?

Or is it simply a matter of which keywords were used and you get penalized (power-wise) for being a successor?

 docdoom77 wrote:
I'm confused about this. Do Flesh Tearers get any special rules or units that Blood Angels do not?

Or is it simply a matter of which keywords were used and you get penalized (power-wise) for being a successor?

They get access to Gabriel Seth who is one of the cheapest chapter masters available. If it were he just chose Flesh Tearers and there were no actual rules for it, it would not have mattered. However he specifically chose the cheap CM option and one of the drawbacks is he can only take a specific single relic per the codex.

 docdoom77 wrote:
I'm confused about this. Do Flesh Tearers get any special rules or units that Blood Angels do not?

Or is it simply a matter of which keywords were used and you get penalized (power-wise) for being a successor?

They get a different special character. Which the list in question was using.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
This sets an great example. The mistake at this level is inexcusable.

Is it though?
I'm not familiar with tournaments, so do you have to hand in your list to a judge/representative for approval first?

100% inexcusable - you don't make top 16 at a major without knowing rules like that. I don't think Gonyo is a bad dude or anything but you can't make those mistakes at that tier.

I don't have a well constructed argument but Olympians still get caught using performance enhancements

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
I'm confused about this. Do Flesh Tearers get any special rules or units that Blood Angels do not?

Or is it simply a matter of which keywords were used and you get penalized (power-wise) for being a successor?

They get access to Gabriel Seth who is one of the cheapest chapter masters available. If it were he just chose Flesh Tearers and there were no actual rules for it, it would not have mattered. However he specifically chose the cheap CM option and one of the drawbacks is he can only take a specific single relic per the codex.

There really is no reason that flesh tearers don't get access to the same relics as blood angels. It is the rules though - he should have known better.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
I'm confused about this. Do Flesh Tearers get any special rules or units that Blood Angels do not?

Or is it simply a matter of which keywords were used and you get penalized (power-wise) for being a successor?

They get access to Gabriel Seth who is one of the cheapest chapter masters available. If it were he just chose Flesh Tearers and there were no actual rules for it, it would not have mattered. However he specifically chose the cheap CM option and one of the drawbacks is he can only take a specific single relic per the codex.

There really is no reason that flesh tearers don't get access to the same relics as blood angels. It is the rules though - he should have known better.

Yeah I;m not arguing if he should be able to - this is Adepticon, the rules are the rules and its a major.

One thing to point out is we are assuming he used the Blood Angel's "Standard of Sacrifice" with Seth. Gonyo's list names the "Standard of Devastation" which is a Dark Angel Relic. So his list writing was sloppier than we thought.