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.

ccs wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Yeah, that Reaver gak makes me cringe. Normally I don't fault players in these situations, but... you know what you did there, Aussieman! You know those points are not regular GW wrong, but flat out wrong wrong! And I cringe even more that GW didn't fix that as soon as the community noticed, no need to wait 2 weeks.

So you're saying it doesn't count because you don't agree with GW?

Are you saying that 10ppm is accurate to represent current Reaver rules?

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Are you saying that 10ppm is accurate to represent current Reaver rules?

To say that you'd have to argue that points are primarily a balancing force rather than a framework for putting your dudes on the table and I'm not sure GW has ever had rules robust enough to support that view.

Again, we went through this before though with Obliterators. It was literally a typo, and I think most tournaments elected to use the old points values. There is a point where TOs should be intervening and forging their own way (a la ITC in 7th). This is that point. I agree, points don't magically give us shangri la balance but just like we generally agree on rules of engagement when we play games, we should think of that same framework extending to gross rule errors, especially in the case of tournaments.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Again, we went through this before though with Obliterators. It was literally a typo, and I think most tournaments elected to use the old points values. There is a point where TOs should be intervening and forging their own way (a la ITC in 7th). This is that point. I agree, points don't magically give us shangri la balance but just like we generally agree on rules of engagement when we play games, we should think of that same framework extending to gross rule errors, especially in the case of tournaments.

At that point, do we expect TOs to alter anything and everything we don't like, that we feel is unfair, or that seems like it could be a typo? How does anybody build a tournament list if there isn't a consensus on what is or isn't an 'obvious' mistake?

Who disagreed that Obliterators were, and now Ravagers are not fairly pointed? To people who play 9th edition, it's obvious that it's a typo.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Yeah, that Reaver gak makes me cringe. Normally I don't fault players in these situations, but... you know what you did there, Aussieman! You know those points are not regular GW wrong, but flat out wrong wrong! And I cringe even more that GW didn't fix that as soon as the community noticed, no need to wait 2 weeks.

So you're saying it doesn't count because you don't agree with GW?

Are you saying that 10ppm is accurate to represent current Reaver rules?

Its what gw has currently costed them at, so for the moment thats their pts.

I'm still curious as to why so many Necron players are running Annihilation Barges.

So apart from the codices and list builds that surprise some people of the other side of the world, is there nothing that strike you in these lists ?

Massive Forgewold usage maybe ?

Tyranid army, three Hierodules costing 140 € / 175 $ each + a Malanthrope at 72 € / 90 $ , totalling 492 € / 615 $ worth of FW models on top an otherwise not so small army of regular plastic tyranids.
Then...
38 Death Korps riders in the Astra Militarum + Sisters list. That's 836 € / 1026 $ worth of models right there.

Oh yeah Forgeworld entries in the 9th edition book are totally balanced, they promised you. GW rules team had taken over the matter and straightened all the wonky things. They are so well balanced that some top players spend nearly a grand for a bunch models, spamming those very units, that when FW codex's released, were already seen as "powerful". And they win. 9th edition, an edition that's perfect for everyone. FW book and miniatures usage are perfectly legit, balanced and good for the health of the game as a whole, right ? (But you would be better to have deep pockets). And you'd be better to have no fear for these entries to be phased out, like those who were removed from the 8th edition Imperial Armour a few months ago...

I will bet that almost none of those has generated money for GW however. Australia has crazy prices, and is nearby China.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
So apart from the codices and list builds that surprise some people of the other side of the world, is there nothing that strike you in these lists ?

Massive Forgewold usage maybe ?

Tyranid army, three Hierodules costing 140 € / 175 $ each + a Malanthrope at 72 € / 90 $ , totalling 492 € / 615 $ worth of FW models on top an otherwise not so small army of regular plastic tyranids.
Then...
36 Death Korps riders in the Astra Militarum + Sisters list. That's 792 € / 972 $ worth of models right there.

Oh yeah Forgeworld entries in the 9th edition book are totally balanced, they promised you. GW rules team had taken over the matter and straightened all the wonky things. They are so well balanced that some top players spend nearly a grand for a bunch models, spamming those very units, that when FW codex's released, were already seen as "powerful". And they win. 9th edition, an edition that's perfect for everyone. FW book and miniatures usage are perfectly legit, balanced and good for the health of the game as a whole, right ? (But you would be better to have deep pockets). And you'd be better to have no fear for these entries to be phased out, like those who were removed from the 8th edition Imperial Armour a few months ago...

Perhaps it's more of a case of the FW stuff is new, sometimes it's more recent by a year or more compared to the rest of a codex that could be massively out of date.

It seems like many of the new and up to date codices aren't really using much of the FW stuff, marines, sisters and well that's it so far.

I'd be willing to bet as the books get updated less of the FW stuff will see attention outside of niche lists/tactics. Compare the Heirodules we saw in 3rd place vs Fexes. The fexes feel like they should fill the same slot but are also lacking. So it's less a case of FW OP, but more of a case of the rest of the books have to catch up.

Triple Hierodule is certainly interesting - but as some have said perhaps not so surprising.

The rest just seem like variants (well, 10 point Reaver spam isn't that interesting) on themes which are reasonably well worn at this point.

If I was patient it might be interesting to do some stats on the whole roster. Marines seem under represented compared to their usual demographic dominance at other events - which might impact both the specific tournament meta and their placing. But I've not clicked every list, so could be wrong on that fact. Which could be a meta shift in itself.

Go take a look at the Aus prices for most of the primaris kits especially the stuff that's new and I think you'll see a part of why marines in Aus arn't popular $100 per intercessor squad $70 per ATV.

Atleast the older factions you have half a chancw of second hand sales and time to build the collection.

Ice_can wrote:
Go take a look at the Aus prices for most of the primaris kits especially the stuff that's new and I think you'll see a part of why marines in Aus arn't popular $100 per intercessor squad $70 per ATV...

For clarity: That's $100 AUS for ten Intercessors, which is about $80 US, which is a 33% Australia tax, which is still silly.

Darsath wrote:
I'm still curious as to why so many Necron players are running Annihilation Barges.

*shrug*

I think of it as a Dreadnought that can fly, heal, and take melta on 4s with a 5++ for only 130 points. Basic Eradicators do 6.6 to a dreadnought ( including -1D ) and 4.6 to this.

They're probably Mephrit so that means +3", +1AP under half, +1AP on 6s to wound, and ignore cover. Then you have tesla arcing and the 3MW Mephrit strat.

So they drop some ok shooting and one of them will drop up to 6MW in that area. Though 2 CP...so...I dunno.

EDIT: now that I look at a list it is like a monster mash. The barge is the least concerning target while still durable and it bring along good chaff clearing.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Again, we went through this before though with Obliterators. It was literally a typo, and I think most tournaments elected to use the old points values. There is a point where TOs should be intervening and forging their own way (a la ITC in 7th). This is that point. I agree, points don't magically give us shangri la balance but just like we generally agree on rules of engagement when we play games, we should think of that same framework extending to gross rule errors, especially in the case of tournaments.

At that point, do we expect TOs to alter anything and everything we don't like, that we feel is unfair, or that seems like it could be a typo? How does anybody build a tournament list if there isn't a consensus on what is or isn't an 'obvious' mistake?

There's an old canard about defining pornography (maybe apocryphal, but I think by a Supreme Court justice): "I know it when I see it". The whole point of TOs is to be that "I know it when I see it" arbiter. Could they get it wrong? Yeah. Is it better than the system of GW's lips to god's ears? Also yeah.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
...There's an old canard about defining pornography (maybe apocryphal, but I think by a Supreme Court justice): "I know it when I see it"...

Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), for the curious.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
There's an old canard about defining pornography (maybe apocryphal, but I think by a Supreme Court justice): "I know it when I see it". The whole point of TOs is to be that "I know it when I see it" arbiter. Could they get it wrong? Yeah. Is it better than the system of GW's lips to god's ears? Also yeah.

The issue here is when is this info going to be disseminated? Players have the documents from GW and are building lists based on it. If they show up to an event and only then find out that the TO has changed something that's a raw deal. Even if the TO send out a package of rules two weeks before an event that kind of change can leave a player scrambling to track down models (sometimes even an entirely new faction) to compete in the event.

Unless this is an ITC level competitive scene wide thing it just doesn't work that well.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
...There's an old canard about defining pornography (maybe apocryphal, but I think by a Supreme Court justice): "I know it when I see it"...

Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), for the curious.

Exalted!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
There's an old canard about defining pornography (maybe apocryphal, but I think by a Supreme Court justice): "I know it when I see it". The whole point of TOs is to be that "I know it when I see it" arbiter. Could they get it wrong? Yeah. Is it better than the system of GW's lips to god's ears? Also yeah.

The issue here is when is this info going to be disseminated? Players have the documents from GW and are building lists based on it. If they show up to an event and only then find out that the TO has changed something that's a raw deal. Even if the TO send out a package of rules two weeks before an event that kind of change can leave a player scrambling to track down models (sometimes even an entirely new faction) to compete in the event.

Unless this is an ITC level competitive scene wide thing it just doesn't work that well.

I mean, not really... tournaments have to be organized, it's not like 30 people spontaneously turn up at an LGS on the day of and magically have a tournament. I have never been part of a tournament that doesn't give any sort of FAQ or at least set of rules. In this day and age, it's easier than ever.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
I mean, not really... tournaments have to be organized, it's not like 30 people spontaneously turn up at an LGS on the day of and magically have a tournament. I have never been part of a tournament that doesn't give any sort of FAQ or at least set of rules. In this day and age, it's easier than ever.

That's not what I said the issue was. The issue is how fast can we expect them to react to an 'incorrect' ruling by GW and does that give enough time for players to react and change their lists to meet these new unofficial changes to the game? It's one thing to run your own mission pack and to exclude content that dropped a few days before the event but rather another to start taking a red pen to GWs official rules.

For an obvious typo? The day of/the day after the typo hits does not seem unreasonable to me. I know if I am running an upcoming tournament and any sort of FAQ/errata drops I am on it within the hour.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
For an obvious typo? The day of/the day after the typo hits does not seem unreasonable to me. I know if I am running an upcoming tournament and any sort of FAQ/errata drops I am on it within the hour.

That requires you (or the organizing committee) to agree that it's an obvious typo. Also, what happens if GW comes out and says this is 100% intentional?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The issue here is when is this info going to be disseminated? Players have the documents from GW and are building lists based on it. If they show up to an event and only then find out that the TO has changed something that's a raw deal. Even if the TO send out a package of rules two weeks before an event that kind of change can leave a player scrambling to track down models (sometimes even an entirely new faction) to compete in the event.

Unless this is an ITC level competitive scene wide thing it just doesn't work that well.

Agreed on the issue of TOs having to update things like this. It's hard enough getting players to read the tournament pack once, let alone read any late updates. There's only so much we can reasonably ask of TOs. Adjusting points is probably a step too far.

As for implications for the meta, this isn't just Australia, it's Western Australia during a crisis where we've shut our borders and demand travelers spend 2 weeks in quarantine. Our player base is, in my opinion, too small to truly reflect the meta at large. Especially when you consider how few of us here are truly competitive players.

I didn't attend the event for several reasons. If I had, I'd have taken Dark Angels. So there's one less marine player for you....

 Canadian 5th wrote:
...That requires you (or the organizing committee) to agree that it's an obvious typo. Also, what happens if GW comes out and says this is 100% intentional?

What's the difference between patching what you (the TO) see as an obvious typo, and, say, doing your own mission pack instead of the official GW missions? Plenty of people were happy to play at ITC events in 8th with missions GW didn't write.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What's the difference between patching what you (the TO) see as an obvious typo, and, say, doing your own mission pack instead of the official GW missions? Plenty of people were happy to play at ITC events in 8th with missions GW didn't write.

The mission pack doesn't invalidate your army list because you didn't read it fully.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What's the difference between patching what you (the TO) see as an obvious typo, and, say, doing your own mission pack instead of the official GW missions? Plenty of people were happy to play at ITC events in 8th with missions GW didn't write.

The mission pack doesn't invalidate your army list because you didn't read it fully.

And not reading the mission pack fully doesn't present a handicap that makes it more likely you'll get trounced by the people who did read the mission pack? Do you normally not read the missions before going to an event?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
And not reading the mission pack fully doesn't present a handicap that makes it more likely you'll get trounced by the people who did read the mission pack? Do you normally not read the missions before going to an event?

Let's say it's an event run by a specific group and you know from a friend they haven't changed the missions or scoring you could easily miss that detail and try to register an illegal list.

Your friend paid enough attention to the tournament packet to know they were using the official missions/scoring but not enough to notice they were using their own FAQ? Are you assuming "what missions we're using" is always going to be up-front information but "any other house rules for the tournament" is always going to be buried in fine print?

And "try and register an illegal list"? Are you trying to send your list to the TO five minutes before the event, or is the TO not telling you your list is illegal until five minutes before the event?

That kind of stuff will always be a balancing act. On the one hand you might have legitimate mistakes or errors that need to be corrected by the TO's, on the other hand you get the terrible WTC FAQ which straight up just changes rules because of.... reasons?

 Bosskelot wrote:
That kind of stuff will always be a balancing act. On the one hand you might have legitimate mistakes or errors that need to be corrected by the TO's, on the other hand you get the terrible WTC FAQ which straight up just changes rules because of.... reasons?

No different than the entirety of the US and large parts of the 40K community elsewhere playing 8th Edition with all kinds of houserules like 1st-floor ruins blocking line of sight or "touching = within" or turning first blood into first strike or whatever.

Some of those arbitrary house-rules still kick around in 9th for most tournaments (as far as they exist), such as adding rules that specify which bases models have to be on, despite no GW rule requiring anything in this regard.

I haven't seen a 40K tournament in over a decade or two that played the game without "changing rules because of ... reasons?".

If we want to be 100% technical on this, ALL the events run until now were using at least one house rule.

In no part of GW's rules there is an explanation of which tie breaker to choose in an event when 2 players end with the same amount of wins.

All events tally up the victory points of the games and use that as a tie breaker, but that is 100% an house rule.

ITC used to do that, so we can kind of defaulted on it, even if it is something that warps the meta and benefits some factions compared to other possible tie breakers.