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.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
So you want to determine the winner by luck?

I'd like to point out that this is a game where a huge part of the results of any particular match boil down to dice. Just saying.

 Smirrors wrote:
Adepticon looks like it has a pretty diverse top top 25.

It does. And Adepticon doesn't use ITC Champions missions.

I'm seeing a pattern here that indicates what the REAL problem in competitive 40k is.

Wayniac wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
Adepticon looks like it has a pretty diverse top top 25.

It does. And Adepticon doesn't use ITC Champions missions.

I'm seeing a pattern here that indicates what the REAL problem in competitive 40k is.

Eh, given any mission set, there will always be races better at that mission set. Adepticon missions aren't played as much as ITC missions, but given enough time I'm sure people would solve for which army is best suited for it.

Given the top 10 of Adepticon are mostly infantry horde armies, it looks like people may have already figured out the best way to win it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
There IS an award for best single model which doesn't factor in the rest of your army at all.

But it still factors in the rules of the game. For example, an IG company commander can't be armed with dual plasma pistols, so even if I think it looks cool from a painting point of view I can't do it. Or maybe I have an idea for a diorama scene that isn't practical as a gaming piece. The painting contest is no longer just about painting, it's about painting within the limits of what makes a viable tournament army. And wouldn't it be better to have a true test of artistic skill?

But a high-skill player probably can't beat a low-skill player if the high-skilled player has an army that is incredibly incredibly inferior to the super-optimised netlist of the low-skill player. Again, as most people seem to think, most of 40k's strategic depth comes from what units you have, not how you use them.

Why are you assuming that the high skill player has a weak list? They're a high skill player after all, they're going to have a list that is at least as good as the netlists because they have the skill to correctly evaluate lists/units. And yes, their list may significantly resemble the netlists even if they came to it independently because 40k is not a terribly deep game and the best choices are often obvious. But they're almost certainly going to beat the low-skill player who just grabbed a netlist for the event. Contrast that with painting, where spending enough money on a commission painting service guarantees maximum painting scores even if you don't know which end of the brush goes in the paint pot. One is a direct and guaranteed route to maximum scores, the other is not.

Sure, you argue that LVO-style events are run elsewhere, but so are WHW style events, throughout the UK. In fact, WHW style events seem far more common in the UK than ITC style ones.

There is a difference between "WHW style" in some vague undefined sense of similarity and "ITC event" where it's a standard tournament format. WHW isn't publishing a standard tournament format that other events use, anything happening there applies only to the specific WHW events in question. Contrast this with, say, FFG's organized play system where they do publish standard tournament rules and what FFG says is far more important than some random third-party event. Hell, even GW used to publish (terrible) tournament rules and run official tournaments worldwide, and back then "what GW's events do" would have been much more relevant in this kind of discussion because the average player would be much more likely to encounter an event run by GW's rules.

There's baseline sportsmanship, which I agree, should be expected, but there should be incentive for people who go that extra mile. Basic sportsmanship can still be incredibly dull - but someone who actually makes you laugh, makes you feel relaxed, someone who is genuinely polite and friendly: they absolutely should get recognition over someone who wordlessly rolls dice and moves models and makes no effort beyond basic social elements to interact with their opponent.

That's not sportsmanship, that's the type of player you personally enjoy playing with. Making jokes is being an extroverted person who enjoys making jokes, it has nothing to do with the game or your approach to it. I mean, what are you going to do, penalize someone who is more introverted and quiet because they aren't your ideal opponent?

 Peregrine wrote:


There is a difference between "WHW style" in some vague undefined sense of similarity and "ITC event" where it's a standard tournament format. WHW isn't publishing a standard tournament format that other events use, anything happening there applies only to the specific WHW events in question.

It is the same missions played by the same (book) rules. What happens on the gaming tables is pretty much the same. The biggest differences between locations for these tournaments tend to be the availability and style of terrain - which is also pretty variable in ITC events outside those run by FLG.

I think the big take-away from that in terms of the subject of the thread is the loads of players are playing the game "out of the book" with no need for additional material provided and that does mean the game is in a pretty good place. In 6th/7th there was a need for community supported FAQs and tournament mission packs, now there is no need for those things at all. If some player communities choose to have their own tournament packs then that is fine and I'm sure its fun for them but the game no longer *needs* those things to function well in matched play.

As for the level of conformity between events, I think that is an interesting but different discussion. It does not really have much to do with GW staff thinking their game is in a pretty good place right now - which my almost any objective measure is a well justified belief.

That makes sense now why my hugely zealous competitive 40k guys don't go to Adepticon; they don't use the ITC rules there and those guys are pretty much ITC-only.

auticus wrote:
That makes sense now why my hugely zealous competitive 40k guys don't go to Adepticon; they don't use the ITC rules there and those guys are pretty much ITC-only.

Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.

Which yet again proves the main dominance of the castellan is due to the itc missions. It's a bit too good by itself but the itc missions exacerbate the problem. This is basically proved now by how often the castellan dominates events that run ITC champions missions, while not dominating at events which do not.

Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.

Yeah. I have been taught from my own experiences that people buy armies based on the expected missions. If Adepticon is using non standard tournament missions I understand why my community aren't huge on going to adepticon but religiously attend every other tournament.

auticus wrote:

Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.

Yeah. I have been taught from my own experiences that people buy armies based on the expected missions. If Adepticon is using non standard tournament missions I understand why my community aren't huge on going to adepticon but religiously attend every other tournament.

It still makes me wonder why the people who want to play competitive games don't pick a game better suited to that style than try to make 40k into it. 40k's atmosphere has always been more laid back and based around the story with more random gameplay, and yet the desire is to strip that out rather than play something which has it baked in from the start.

Wayniac wrote:

auticus wrote:

Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.

Yeah. I have been taught from my own experiences that people buy armies based on the expected missions. If Adepticon is using non standard tournament missions I understand why my community aren't huge on going to adepticon but religiously attend every other tournament.

It still makes me wonder why the people who want to play competitive games don't pick a game better suited to that style than try to make 40k into it. 40k's atmosphere has always been more laid back and based around the story with more random gameplay, and yet the desire is to strip that out rather than play something which has it baked in from the start.

Because 40k gives a good blend of all worlds. I like the competitive side of the game. I also love the universe/lore/fluff. I also love the modeling aspect. All other game systems I've seen are lacking in the fluff/lore aspect and the modeling aspect compared to it, and those are important. I spend way more time painting my guys than actually playing, so if I don't enjoy that too what's the point?

I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

auticus wrote:

Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.

Yeah. I have been taught from my own experiences that people buy armies based on the expected missions. If Adepticon is using non standard tournament missions I understand why my community aren't huge on going to adepticon but religiously attend every other tournament.

I buy armies based on aesthetic, model design, theme, lore, and ease of painting.
Editions and missions change, rules change, my army is My Army regardless of that.

 Horst wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

auticus wrote:

Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.

Yeah. I have been taught from my own experiences that people buy armies based on the expected missions. If Adepticon is using non standard tournament missions I understand why my community aren't huge on going to adepticon but religiously attend every other tournament.

It still makes me wonder why the people who want to play competitive games don't pick a game better suited to that style than try to make 40k into it. 40k's atmosphere has always been more laid back and based around the story with more random gameplay, and yet the desire is to strip that out rather than play something which has it baked in from the start.

Because 40k gives a good blend of all worlds. I like the competitive side of the game. I also love the universe/lore/fluff. I also love the modeling aspect. All other game systems I've seen are lacking in the fluff/lore aspect and the modeling aspect compared to it, and those are important. I spend way more time painting my guys than actually playing, so if I don't enjoy that too what's the point?

I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

That makes sense, but it feels like there's this subgroup that wants to force 40k to change into a highly competitive game despite that stripping away most of the interesting parts of it.

Wayniac wrote:

 Horst wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

auticus wrote:

Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.

Yeah. I have been taught from my own experiences that people buy armies based on the expected missions. If Adepticon is using non standard tournament missions I understand why my community aren't huge on going to adepticon but religiously attend every other tournament.

It still makes me wonder why the people who want to play competitive games don't pick a game better suited to that style than try to make 40k into it. 40k's atmosphere has always been more laid back and based around the story with more random gameplay, and yet the desire is to strip that out rather than play something which has it baked in from the start.

Because 40k gives a good blend of all worlds. I like the competitive side of the game. I also love the universe/lore/fluff. I also love the modeling aspect. All other game systems I've seen are lacking in the fluff/lore aspect and the modeling aspect compared to it, and those are important. I spend way more time painting my guys than actually playing, so if I don't enjoy that too what's the point?

I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

That makes sense, but it feels like there's this subgroup that wants to force 40k to change into a highly competitive game despite that stripping away most of the interesting parts of it.

How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?

Wayniac 773029 10401038 wrote:
That makes sense, but it feels like there's this subgroup that wants to force 40k to change into a highly competitive game despite that stripping away most of the interesting parts of it.

Ok, but what is wrong if it was a competitive game though? Clear rules are not a bad thing. Having armies match each other standard of gamplay isn't either. What is interesting in suddenly being told after 2-3 months that you spend the same amount of money on your army as he did, but yours is a bit too good, so now either he has to buy a new army or you have to buy a new one, with a high chance that one or even both of you may end up playing lists neither of you like.

Being a game with proper rule set and less unbalance between units or faction, doesn't suddenly make it illegal to paint someone models or convert them. In fact from the pictures I saw, and the few people at my store who play real big events their armies look great.

It is the fact that w40k is unbalanced and not create with actually playing the game in mind that creates problem for some people. I mean I get it in places where a GW store is in every major town and there is litteral thousands of people playing the game, it is probably possible to find that magical perfect meta for your army, maybe even most armies. But for everyone else, how the hell are 6 people suppose to balance their armies if 3 of them like eldar, knights and lets say demons, and the other 3 want to play some bottom feeder armies? create two separate metas of 3 people each, that kills the want to play after a few months of intensive playing or one summer.

But I doubt GW is ever going to fix their rules. They seem to work like a mix of a mobile games company with a cars sales emporium. Ton of gatcha stuff like sudden resets, DLCs sometimes day one or week later, those lol moments when the store manager tries to explain to you while the army was created for the lols to play in some ultra rare narrative home brew enviroment, but costs like a normal army. Paid patch every year. Patch only 3 times a year, with a huge game like this.

Seem to make them too much money, for them to stop. And by the way I see nothing wrong with making big money, so this is not an anti GW rant.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?

A lot of them, honestly. the CA18 missions are all really cool (perhaps barring the no invuln one) and change the dynamic of how the game is played that you can't just listbuild your way to victory. I played a really close game with the one that required characters to get the VP, and it changed how we both played the game than if we were playing just take objectives/kill units. Having that extra twist to the game enabled me to win a game that I was outgunned in because I could focus on the victory condition.

Slayer-Fan123 773029 10401069 wrote:
How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?

Each one that makes ones army win over other armies more, while still being able to high horse around with the banner of I-play-for-fun not for wins ?

I had a friend who fights in a lower weight class then he should, just because there he can just dominate everyone. Easier for him to get points and prise from trainers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?

A lot of them, honestly. the CA18 missions are all really cool (perhaps barring the no invuln one) and change the dynamic of how the game is played that you can't just listbuild your way to victory. I played a really close game with the one that required characters to get the VP, and it changed how we both played the game than if we were playing just take objectives/kill units. Having that extra twist to the game enabled me to win a game that I was outgunned in because I could focus on the victory condition.

Doesn't it just promote armies like demon soups or eldar, that can stack -1to hit or have very hard to kill characters. Where is the twist in victory conditions ?

Wayniac wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?

A lot of them, honestly. the CA18 missions are all really cool (perhaps barring the no invuln one) and change the dynamic of how the game is played that you can't just listbuild your way to victory. I played a really close game with the one that required characters to get the VP, and it changed how we both played the game than if we were playing just take objectives/kill units. Having that extra twist to the game enabled me to win a game that I was outgunned in because I could focus on the victory condition.

I have had a lot of negative experiences with gw missions. Maybe ba are just that poor.

Karol wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 773029 10401069 wrote:
How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?

Each one that makes ones army win over other armies more, while still being able to high horse around with the banner of I-play-for-fun not for wins ?

I had a friend who fights in a lower weight class then he should, just because there he can just dominate everyone. Easier for him to get points and prise from trainers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?

A lot of them, honestly. the CA18 missions are all really cool (perhaps barring the no invuln one) and change the dynamic of how the game is played that you can't just listbuild your way to victory. I played a really close game with the one that required characters to get the VP, and it changed how we both played the game than if we were playing just take objectives/kill units. Having that extra twist to the game enabled me to win a game that I was outgunned in because I could focus on the victory condition.

Doesn't it just promote armies like demon soups or eldar, that can stack -1to hit or have very hard to kill characters. Where is the twist in victory conditions ?

The point is that your playing a tournament of 3-5 games or more and while one mission prioritises characters, another you want units with Fly and in a 3e you just want troops ect.
Its about diversity instead of playing the same mission every single game with minor differences in where objectives are placed that don't matter because objectives are pretty worthless anyway.

Doesn't it just promote armies like demon soups or eldar, that can stack -1to hit or have very hard to kill characters. Where is the twist in victory conditions ?

The twist is that it forces HQs to the objectives. Normally your HQs can either sit back with your firebase, or smash face with your forward-thrusting units.

The one I played like that had only one objective in the center. I was playing a list built around running up the flanks and not holding the line anywhere. He was playing a gunline built to castle up in the corner, with chaff to move forward on the objectives.

I couldn't just move up the sides an ignore the middle - because I needed the VP. He tried to castle and rake me over the middleground. He lost because he didn't spring forward quickly enough - because the flow was very different from most of his games.

Even a small change like "Only HQs score this time" can significantly change a stale game.

(The 2k game ended with me removing 1 admech chaff infantry unit and 1 DA HQ of his army, and me being left with my 4 HQs and two Warp Spider Aspect Warriors - but I won on VP. It was a very different and fun game.)

 Ordana wrote:
The point is that your playing a tournament of 3-5 games or more and while one mission prioritises characters, another you want units with Fly and in a 3e you just want troops ect.
Its about diversity instead of playing the same mission every single game with minor differences in where objectives are placed that don't matter because objectives are pretty worthless anyway.

Exactly this. If you are going to an event and you could get one mission where HQ is needed to get VP, one where units with FLY get super objective secured, and one where its a relatively normal mission, it influences what you bring rather than knowing ahead of time it'll be the same goals (kill units/hold objectives) with the only difference being the objectives are in different places, and since they are in static places you could, in theory, memorize where they will be for each mission.

That's the whole "problem". You lose diversity in what you bring when you know what you'll have to do before you even get to the event. With the CA18 missions you don't know which one you would get before you get to the table (you know, the way the rules say to play; place terrain, generate mission, roll deployment, etc.) it means you can't just consider every possibility that might come up in the listbuilding phase. It encourages list diversity because if you take minimal HQs, that mission hurts you, if you have nothing that can FLY and get the mission where they get bonuses, either you are disadvantaged or you need to focus on killing their units that can fly to even the score, etc.

This same thing also seems to be why a lot of people dislike it.

text removed.

Reds8n

Bharring wrote:

Doesn't it just promote armies like demon soups or eldar, that can stack -1to hit or have very hard to kill characters. Where is the twist in victory conditions ?

The twist is that it forces HQs to the objectives. Normally your HQs can either sit back with your firebase, or smash face with your forward-thrusting units.

The one I played like that had only one objective in the center. I was playing a list built around running up the flanks and not holding the line anywhere. He was playing a gunline built to castle up in the corner, with chaff to move forward on the objectives.

I couldn't just move up the sides an ignore the middle - because I needed the VP. He tried to castle and rake me over the middleground. He lost because he didn't spring forward quickly enough - because the flow was very different from most of his games.

Even a small change like "Only HQs score this time" can significantly change a stale game.

(The 2k game ended with me removing 1 admech chaff infantry unit and 1 DA HQ of his army, and me being left with my 4 HQs and two Warp Spider Aspect Warriors - but I won on VP. It was a very different and fun game.)

Oh am not saying it doesn't change the game play or that new units don't have to be bought. It is natural that a "castel" style of play would not work. Interesting thought how would a IK list, with multiple warlords and only some IG fare? Big tought HQs, some chaff and maybe some cheap IG characters to try not to be shot too fast .

Wayniac wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?

A lot of them, honestly. the CA18 missions are all really cool (perhaps barring the no invuln one) and change the dynamic of how the game is played that you can't just listbuild your way to victory. I played a really close game with the one that required characters to get the VP, and it changed how we both played the game than if we were playing just take objectives/kill units. Having that extra twist to the game enabled me to win a game that I was outgunned in because I could focus on the victory condition.

So basically because you won a single game the imbalance is good?
You're off your rocker.

Also if anything the No Invul one is the ultimate Forge The Narrative! I love that this is THE one you don't approve of.

I like producing the missions and terrain layout right before a game. As I understand it, all potential tourny missions and even sometimes the board layout is clearly defined before the event, so players have time to tailor their lists and playtest.

By producing the missions and terrain layout right before the game, you need to bring a more TAC list that can handle a variety of missions or layouts. I think it makes games more dynamic and fun. The downside is that you can wind up truly boned from the missions or layout itself; even if you try to build TAC, there will be times when the other guy is just much better suited to that mission/layout. That's the nature of random.

The good thing about not being a competitive player, is that it's a lot easier to accept that sometimes one side simply gets boned by luck.

The last tourny I went to, one of my games saw me on a board half where *nothing* in my list could get cover *anywhere* in my deployment zone. To add insult to injury, the objectives used d3-vp-each, and the two in my DZ were 1 and 2, and the two in theirs were each worth 3. So I got hosed on that - but I'm still glad we did it that way. It was still a really fun game. (Wound up winning because one of my DA squads fell back one round and rallied the next - had they not fallen back they would have been wrecked, and had they not rallied, they wouldn't have taken the objective - it's a dice game, luck happens.)

Karol wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Doesn't it just promote armies like demon soups or eldar, that can stack -1to hit or have very hard to kill characters. Where is the twist in victory conditions ?

The twist is that it forces HQs to the objectives. Normally your HQs can either sit back with your firebase, or smash face with your forward-thrusting units.

The one I played like that had only one objective in the center. I was playing a list built around running up the flanks and not holding the line anywhere. He was playing a gunline built to castle up in the corner, with chaff to move forward on the objectives.

I couldn't just move up the sides an ignore the middle - because I needed the VP. He tried to castle and rake me over the middleground. He lost because he didn't spring forward quickly enough - because the flow was very different from most of his games.

Even a small change like "Only HQs score this time" can significantly change a stale game.

(The 2k game ended with me removing 1 admech chaff infantry unit and 1 DA HQ of his army, and me being left with my 4 HQs and two Warp Spider Aspect Warriors - but I won on VP. It was a very different and fun game.)

Oh am not saying it doesn't change the game play or that new units don't have to be bought. It is natural that a "castel" style of play would not work. Interesting thought how would a IK list, with multiple warlords and only some IG fare? Big tought HQs, some chaff and maybe some cheap IG characters to try not to be shot too fast .

That list would work for that missions, but would get crashed in the no invul one.
I kill your puny guards and then you have to cap with no invul knights. Oh and they count as a single model.
Also, you have no flying units, so i foresee another really hard mission there.

No sorry, that list in CA18 isn't really good.

Bharring wrote:
I like producing the missions and terrain layout right before a game. As I understand it, all potential tourny missions and even sometimes the board layout is clearly defined before the event, so players have time to tailor their lists and playtest.

By producing the missions and terrain layout right before the game, you need to bring a more TAC list that can handle a variety of missions or layouts. I think it makes games more dynamic and fun. The downside is that you can wind up truly boned from the missions or layout itself; even if you try to build TAC, there will be times when the other guy is just much better suited to that mission/layout. That's the nature of random.

The good thing about not being a competitive player, is that it's a lot easier to accept that sometimes one side simply gets boned by luck.

The last tourny I went to, one of my games saw me on a board half where *nothing* in my list could get cover *anywhere* in my deployment zone. To add insult to injury, the objectives used d3-vp-each, and the two in my DZ were 1 and 2, and the two in theirs were each worth 3. So I got hosed on that - but I'm still glad we did it that way. It was still a really fun game. (Wound up winning because one of my DA squads fell back one round and rallied the next - had they not fallen back they would have been wrecked, and had they not rallied, they wouldn't have taken the objective - it's a dice game, luck happens.)

I really don't like paying to show up to an event, possibly traveling an hour or more for it, maybe buying a hotel room for a weekend, only to find out that my army is utterly unsuited to half the missions out there.

It's hard enough to build an army that has a chance at a set of 6 known missions against every codex out there. It's probably one of the reasons "netlisting" is so popular, because it's really not easy to build an army list that can deal with all possible combinations that can be fielded against you.

If it is for a local tournament that's just for fine, yea tha'ts OK, bust out the wacky missions. I went to a local tournament this past weekend, mission 2 was a Maelstrom of war mission, completely random as hell. But for major events like ITC or Adepticon? Those need to have published missions so you can plan for them.

 Horst wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I like producing the missions and terrain layout right before a game. As I understand it, all potential tourny missions and even sometimes the board layout is clearly defined before the event, so players have time to tailor their lists and playtest.

By producing the missions and terrain layout right before the game, you need to bring a more TAC list that can handle a variety of missions or layouts. I think it makes games more dynamic and fun. The downside is that you can wind up truly boned from the missions or layout itself; even if you try to build TAC, there will be times when the other guy is just much better suited to that mission/layout. That's the nature of random.

The good thing about not being a competitive player, is that it's a lot easier to accept that sometimes one side simply gets boned by luck.

The last tourny I went to, one of my games saw me on a board half where *nothing* in my list could get cover *anywhere* in my deployment zone. To add insult to injury, the objectives used d3-vp-each, and the two in my DZ were 1 and 2, and the two in theirs were each worth 3. So I got hosed on that - but I'm still glad we did it that way. It was still a really fun game. (Wound up winning because one of my DA squads fell back one round and rallied the next - had they not fallen back they would have been wrecked, and had they not rallied, they wouldn't have taken the objective - it's a dice game, luck happens.)

I really don't like paying to show up to an event, possibly traveling an hour or more for it, maybe buying a hotel room for a weekend, only to find out that my army is utterly unsuited to half the missions out there.

It's hard enough to build an army that has a chance at a set of 6 known missions against every codex out there. It's probably one of the reasons "netlisting" is so popular, because it's really not easy to build an army list that can deal with all possible combinations that can be fielded against you.

If it is for a local tournament that's just for fine, yea tha'ts OK, bust out the wacky missions. I went to a local tournament this past weekend, mission 2 was a Maelstrom of war mission, completely random as hell. But for major events like ITC or Adepticon? Those need to have published missions so you can plan for them.

That's why I get why they do it, for tournaments. Fortunately, those concerns are typically not present in PuGs - or at least my PUGs.

Seems like the ideal is that tournies - at least those of reasonable size - needs to have more consistancy, but PuGs - at least for some - can be better with less.

Tourny games needn't be played like PuGs, and that's a good thing.

I'd argue it may be possible, with sufficient and unbiased playtesting/planning, to do balanced missions that are not released early. But that's incredibly hard, and an easily-missed mistake can ruin a large number of people's weekend. So I get why tournies do it that way. I'm less sold on rigid terrain setup, but the same arguments apply (although not as strongly).

TLR; great point, I agree in those cases.

Warhammer world is just 15 minutes from a commercial intercontinental airport and under two hours from a whole bunch of super airports.

The idea that it is remote to international travellers is laughable.

Wayniac wrote:

auticus wrote:
That makes sense now why my hugely zealous competitive 40k guys don't go to Adepticon; they don't use the ITC rules there and those guys are pretty much ITC-only.

Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.

Which yet again proves the main dominance of the castellan is due to the itc missions. It's a bit too good by itself but the itc missions exacerbate the problem. This is basically proved now by how often the castellan dominates events that run ITC champions missions, while not dominating at events which do not.

The main dominance of the castellan is it can reliably kill 2-3 targets a turn while being impossible to remove. It's going to do good in every possible format.

nareik wrote:
Warhammer world is just 15 minutes from a commercial intercontinental airport and under two hours from a whole bunch of super airports.

The idea that it is remote to international travellers is laughable.

East Midlands is hardly a main airport. The flights from there are very limited.