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.

tneva82 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?

Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?

LOL. Banned from matched play not the game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?

Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?

LOL. Banned from matched play not the game.

Which at least in my area is the ONLY mode of play for 40k now.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?

Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?

LOL. Banned from matched play not the game.

Which at least in my area is the ONLY mode of play for 40k now.

I have never played Open or Narrative play. It looks like it'd be a broken mess. Armies that have access to expensive upgrades that would be taken in moderation in matched play destroy armies without access to similar now-free upgrades.

In fact, I've not yet come across anyone who has played non-Matched play.

At your service. I have played more semi or non-matched play games than matched play ones.

They're speaking to their relative experience, 127.

In their areas, as in the only games they're able to play, that is how things are. Your existence does not nullify their point.

It does, they( or a lof of dakkanuats) pretend matched is the only way to go everywhere and thus the only worthy of time and interest. Both theirs and GW's.

Matched play is where fluff goes to die for competitive "balance" at a specific points lvl. GW did not include proper scaling so it doesn't. Arguing the fluff for armies in matched is moot. This has been an pet peeve of mine since the first previews of 8th were being discussed.

 Earth127 wrote:
It does, they( or a lof of dakkanuats) pretend matched is the only way to go everywhere and thus the only worthy of time and interest. Both theirs and GW's.

Matched play is where fluff goes to die for competitive "balance" at a specific points lvl. GW did not include proper scaling so it doesn't. Arguing the fluff for armies in matched is moot. This has been an pet peeve of mine since the first previews of 8th were being discussed.

Obviously its not the only way, or else they'd drop support for it. But in my area I'm unable to get a game of non-matched play in unless we play apocalypse. We do have monthly multiplayer apocalypse games and those are fun, but otherwise it is all matched. We used to use PL but it got abused so we moved to points strictly, even in our apocalypse games. My FLGS is a mtg shop and most of the players are hardcore mtg players so it is a very very competitive lot. So they don't mind dropping fluff for balance.

 Earth127 wrote:
It does, they( or a lof of dakkanuats) pretend matched is the only way to go everywhere and thus the only worthy of time and interest. Both theirs and GW's.

Matched play is where fluff goes to die for competitive "balance" at a specific points lvl. GW did not include proper scaling so it doesn't. Arguing the fluff for armies in matched is moot. This has been an pet peeve of mine since the first previews of 8th were being discussed.

Makes sense and the open play being easy to abuse only happens if you're the sort of person trying to be competitive or force easy wins, which is against the spirit of those matches.

It doesn't. They're saying they only play matched play, that was their point.

If no one in their area plays anything else, then that's the only option they have.

This isn't particularly difficult.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:


Which at least in my area is the ONLY mode of play for 40k now.

Sure, for lots of people. How is a restriction different from raising points on a unit, which knocks that unit or others out of a list?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:


Which at least in my area is the ONLY mode of play for 40k now.

Sure, for lots of people. How is a restriction different from raising points on a unit, which knocks that unit or others out of a list?

Because I can make room in my army if I want to run something more expensive. I can't for something that's banned. Maybe it isn't super competitive but I play Grey Knights and nerfed Ynnari with no Dark reapers no stratagems. I'm already not playing the most competitive. I'd like to at least be able to take the units I want even if it means I have to give up units elsewhere

 Cephalobeard wrote:
It doesn't. They're saying they only play matched play, that was their point.

If no one in their area plays anything else, then that's the only option they have.

This isn't particularly difficult.

But not GW‘s fault. They are not writing rules just for your neck of the woods.

I dont know of any places where matched play is tbe default outside formal events AND local events using matched play often are a lot less competitive than club-games, because by their very nature it‘s the place where people play who don’t have regular games with pals and only get their toys out once or twice a year.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
It doesn't. They're saying they only play matched play, that was their point.

If no one in their area plays anything else, then that's the only option they have.

This isn't particularly difficult.

But not GW‘s fault. They are not writing rules just for your neck of the woods.

I dont know of any places where matched play is tbe default outside formal events AND local events using matched play often are a lot less competitive than club-games, because by their very nature it‘s the place where people play who don’t have regular games with pals and only get their toys out once or twice a year.

I'm not blaming GW. It's their rules.

I'm just illustrating that some necks of the woods are different than others.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
It doesn't. They're saying they only play matched play, that was their point.

If no one in their area plays anything else, then that's the only option they have.

This isn't particularly difficult.

But not GW‘s fault. They are not writing rules just for your neck of the woods.

I dont know of any places where matched play is tbe default outside formal events AND local events using matched play often are a lot less competitive than club-games, because by their very nature it‘s the place where people play who don’t have regular games with pals and only get their toys out once or twice a year.

Of course not. I'm not saying they should just write rules for me. But I should be able to complain when they make a rule that invalidates models I have paid money for. And saying "Its only matched, just play open or narrative" doesn't fly in my area.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
It doesn't. They're saying they only play matched play, that was their point.

If no one in their area plays anything else, then that's the only option they have.

This isn't particularly difficult.

But not GW‘s fault. They are not writing rules just for your neck of the woods.

I dont know of any places where matched play is tbe default outside formal events AND local events using matched play often are a lot less competitive than club-games, because by their very nature it‘s the place where people play who don’t have regular games with pals and only get their toys out once or twice a year.

Of course not. I'm not saying they should just write rules for me. But I should be able to complain when they make a rule that invalidates models I have paid money for. And saying "Its only matched, just play open or narrative" doesn't fly in my area.

There are virtually no models invalid for matched play, with some rare exceptions like the Chapter Approved Land Raiders. If you consider „not-horrifically-broken-and-an-obvious-rules-writer-error-of-the-kind-you-see-at-Adepticon/LVO-finals“ as „invalid“, you‘re by definition only willing to play with models that need fixing.

That base assumption is by definition bound to cause you to be frustrated with what GW does with the rules.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
It doesn't. They're saying they only play matched play, that was their point.

If no one in their area plays anything else, then that's the only option they have.

This isn't particularly difficult.

But not GW‘s fault. They are not writing rules just for your neck of the woods.

I dont know of any places where matched play is tbe default outside formal events AND local events using matched play often are a lot less competitive than club-games, because by their very nature it‘s the place where people play who don’t have regular games with pals and only get their toys out once or twice a year.

Of course not. I'm not saying they should just write rules for me. But I should be able to complain when they make a rule that invalidates models I have paid money for. And saying "Its only matched, just play open or narrative" doesn't fly in my area.

There are virtually no models invalid for matched play, with some rare exceptions like the Chapter Approved Land Raiders. If you consider „not-horrifically-broken-and-an-obvious-rules-writer-error-of-the-kind-you-see-at-Adepticon/LVO-finals“ as „invalid“, you‘re by definition only willing to play with models that need fixing.

That base assumption is by definition bound to cause you to be frustrated with what GW does with the rules.

But this restriction WILL cause me to have to drop 3 of my interceptor squads. Now I know that I'm but one person. And yeah I'll survive, but it still sucks.

 Earth127 wrote:
It does, they( or a lof of dakkanuats) pretend matched is the only way to go everywhere and thus the only worthy of time and interest. Both theirs and GW's.

Matched play is where fluff goes to die for competitive "balance" at a specific points lvl. GW did not include proper scaling so it doesn't. Arguing the fluff for armies in matched is moot. This has been an pet peeve of mine since the first previews of 8th were being discussed.

I think it is reasonable to assume most people will use matched play against opponents they don't know. I agree though arguing fluff for balance is some of the worst stuff I have seen.Instead almost any fluff can be accounted for by some story telling even the dumbest of lists. Even the most basic Star Trek plot of "________" crashed on a planet and now have to survive against ________________ can explain most lists. Although don't get me wrong as a Tau player I am loving how much the tune changed about hard limits once every army was potentially going to get effected.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:


Because I can make room in my army

Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).

I can't for something that's banned.

Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.

There's fluff, but there's also feel.

Orkz could be buffed by replacing all their rules with exact copies of Eldar rules. So der da boyz! Dey gunna krump! By moving fast, with high-quality low-quantity guys. Who can't take a punch, and get by by evading/running away. They don't feel much like Orkz anymore.

So it's more than just fluff. I certainly wouldn't want to see the above change (the extreme case).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:


Because I can make room in my army

Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).

I can't for something that's banned.

Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.

But I have my own choice in the matter (hint, I wouldn't choose my interceptors, I'd probably cut my paladins). I get to choose what goes whereas with this restriction they'll choose for me that I am going to lose 3 squads of interceptors and a command point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not saying that it's the worst thing in the world. Just annoying when I've spent $200 on interceptors and I'll only be able to use half of them, unless I take 10 man squads but that doesn't accomplish what I'm trying to do. I'll survive. I'll make a new list. Maybe I can convert them to something else. Maybe they'll balance my codex and I'll have a good army and not need the interceptors in which case I can sell them to buy the models I need.

Who knows. But it does suck. Should GW listen to just me? No. I'm hardly representative of the hobby as a whole. But if no one shares their concerns for rules then rules won't be changed satisfactorily. So I'll complain for a bit then go on to playing with my plastic toy soldiers.

My real issue though is everyone who says just play narrative or open to use the units you want. I would if that was an available option

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:


Because I can make room in my army

Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).

I can't for something that's banned.

Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.

But I have my own choice in the matter (hint, I wouldn't choose my interceptors, I'd probably cut my paladins). I get to choose what goes whereas with this restriction they'll choose for me that I am going to lose 3 squads of interceptors and a command point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not saying that it's the worst thing in the world. Just annoying when I've spent $200 on interceptors and I'll only be able to use half of them, unless I take 10 man squads but that doesn't accomplish what I'm trying to do. I'll survive. I'll make a new list. Maybe I can convert them to something else. Maybe they'll balance my codex and I'll have a good army and not need the interceptors in which case I can sell them to buy the models I need.

Who knows. But it does suck. Should GW listen to just me? No. I'm hardly representative of the hobby as a whole. But if no one shares their concerns for rules then rules won't be changed satisfactorily. So I'll complain for a bit then go on to playing with my plastic toy soldiers.

My real issue though is everyone who says just play narrative or open to use the units you want. I would if that was an available option

The biggest issue with Interceptors, Grey Knights and this potential restriction, isn't so much the "loss of units" cos, you can still take 30, in 6 squads via combat squads, it is the loss of the 1CP from the detachment bonus, while only saving you the cost of 1 HQ points wise (and maybe 3 hammers if you run all Justicars with hammers).

The question then becomes - can a list be built containing 30 Interceptors whilst maintaining the same amount of CP as before. Possibly, but, that choice is then up to the Grey Knights player to decide how they want to run things. If the rumours of Grey Knights getting points changes is also true, then, it might be easier to do that it is currently, pre-faq.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:


Because I can make room in my army

Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).

I can't for something that's banned.

Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.

But I have my own choice in the matter (hint, I wouldn't choose my interceptors, I'd probably cut my paladins). I get to choose what goes whereas with this restriction they'll choose for me that I am going to lose 3 squads of interceptors and a command point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not saying that it's the worst thing in the world. Just annoying when I've spent $200 on interceptors and I'll only be able to use half of them, unless I take 10 man squads but that doesn't accomplish what I'm trying to do. I'll survive. I'll make a new list. Maybe I can convert them to something else. Maybe they'll balance my codex and I'll have a good army and not need the interceptors in which case I can sell them to buy the models I need.

Who knows. But it does suck. Should GW listen to just me? No. I'm hardly representative of the hobby as a whole. But if no one shares their concerns for rules then rules won't be changed satisfactorily. So I'll complain for a bit then go on to playing with my plastic toy soldiers.

My real issue though is everyone who says just play narrative or open to use the units you want. I would if that was an available option

Making people play with bigger squads is actually part of the intention. At least that cute ability called ATSKNF would have a meaning...

Spoletta wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:


Because I can make room in my army

Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).

I can't for something that's banned.

Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.

But I have my own choice in the matter (hint, I wouldn't choose my interceptors, I'd probably cut my paladins). I get to choose what goes whereas with this restriction they'll choose for me that I am going to lose 3 squads of interceptors and a command point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not saying that it's the worst thing in the world. Just annoying when I've spent $200 on interceptors and I'll only be able to use half of them, unless I take 10 man squads but that doesn't accomplish what I'm trying to do. I'll survive. I'll make a new list. Maybe I can convert them to something else. Maybe they'll balance my codex and I'll have a good army and not need the interceptors in which case I can sell them to buy the models I need.

Who knows. But it does suck. Should GW listen to just me? No. I'm hardly representative of the hobby as a whole. But if no one shares their concerns for rules then rules won't be changed satisfactorily. So I'll complain for a bit then go on to playing with my plastic toy soldiers.

My real issue though is everyone who says just play narrative or open to use the units you want. I would if that was an available option

Making people play with bigger squads is actually part of the intention. At least that cute ability called ATSKNF would have a meaning...

I'd love bigger squads if I could keep my cp. 10 man squads work great for the psybolt stratagem. I do run a 10 man squad of strikes for that.. The entire stratagem thing will always promote msu. Until they fix cp msu will be a problem.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CaptainBetts wrote:

Looks like it's a Summer FAQ!

Where did you find that image? It's not on the Warhammer 40,000 page that I can readily find and your image link is via Imgur.

Also, the post is from June 26. GW are clearly time travelers.

Hah. Yeah...it makes me think it's from last year.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hah. Yeah...it makes me think it's from last year.

Well, that would be with 8th came out and I don't think they would tease those nurgle models that early.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CaptainBetts wrote:

Looks like it's a Summer FAQ!

Where did you find that image? It's not on the Warhammer 40,000 page that I can readily find and your image link is via Imgur.

Also, the post is from June 26. GW are clearly time travelers.

this picture is almost certainly a fake. Just the inconsistencies in the date alone is enough to invalidate it. Not to mention that whomever made the image just changed S"pring" to S"ummer". You can see the change in blurring around the letters for the 'ummer' part.

Yes, you can clearly see the "UMMER" is a slightly different shade than the other letters. Very much faked.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hah. Yeah...it makes me think it's from last year.

Well, that would be with 8th came out and I don't think they would tease those nurgle models that early.

GW revealed/teased Death Guard models at Adepticon 2017, late March.


BoLS & Co. at the time were running "rumours" for a month or two that Death Guard would be the last 7th Ed. Codex, because they clearly misinterpreted the teasers.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hah. Yeah...it makes me think it's from last year.

Well, that would be with 8th came out and I don't think they would tease those nurgle models that early.

GW revealed/teased Death Guard models at Adepticon 2017, late March.


BoLS & Co. at the time were running "rumours" for a month or two that Death Guard would be the last 7th Ed. Codex, because they clearly misinterpreted the teasers.

Yes, but that is out in the open view of the model. I would have remembered the posts that a picture like that would have prompted.