Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Erich on December 10, 2013, 10:11:04 AM
-
http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/12/feast-of-blades-will-be-enacting-restrictions-and-bans/#more-8692
1.) The Grimoire of True Names from Codex: Daemons is banned
As of right now, this is the only true banning. We feel there is too much potential for abuse, and disagree with the effect it has on the army and the game.
2.) A few units will receive 0-1 status
For those of you who weren't around when 0-1 was a thing in codecies, means that a maximum of 1 of that unit may be taken per army. These are all units whose mass inclusion limits the potential lists in the game, and will thus be restricted. (As none of them are a problem on their own.) Rest assured that this will be a very short list, we are not interested in creating very restricted armies.
3.) Supplemental Codecies will no longer be able to ally to their base codex
There will be no more self-allying, no more cherry picking the best parts of a supplement while paying none of the costs, and no more force-org bloat from doing so.
4.) Dataslates will take an ally slot
Taking units from many, many different books and ignoring the force organization chart is too much. This change will make dataslates an interesting addition to the game, without allowing for truly bizzare armies.
5.) The number of psychic mastery levels in an army will be limited
This change will eliminate a great many power combos from the game, and will stop a player from making a lot of lucky rolls on the psychic power tables to effectively win the game before it begins.
6.) Strength D is out, Lords of Battle are in
We feel the the Lords of Battle are not overpowered on their own, the fact that they give the opponent some advantages (bonus to seize, and especially victory points) balances out their fearsome firepower and powerful endurance. Strength D, however, is too powerful. This is well-known by every apoc player (and I am one of them), and has been the case for the past two editions. (Yes, it was even overpowered back in 5th, and it was much worse then.) There is some debate still going on, but it looks like S:D will become S:10, ordinance, ignores cover. That still makes it very powerful, but more in line with the price paid for the superheavy as well as it's other weapon options. In addition, superheavies will have to start on the table.
7.) Super-forts are gone, or at least downsized
No AV15, it will be AV14 instead. Every individual fortification from Stronghold Assault is allowed, but the “network” choices are simply too big and unwieldy to allow for tournament play. (As a consolation, they're pretty terrible, so I think it's OK.)
8.) Dedicated transport flyers will be limited
Flyers are not the be-all end-all of this edition, but all-flyer and mostly-flyer armies change the meta in uncomfortable ways and are notoriously unfun to play against.
-
So they ban the grimore but not JOTWW? Makes perfect sense :o
-
THAT'S what I'm talking about.
Love it.
Of course, this must be a "first stab"... I'm sure that people will point out issues, but I'm totally on board with the basic thrust of what they're doing here.
-
I disagree with literally everything they say.
-
Maybe I'm a little weird, but this sort of change makes me MORE likely to buy a superheavy. Because I won't feel bad when I play against someone who doesn't have one, and because I won't be afraid that superheavies will just get banned from a lot of events.
-
Another interesting quote from the article:
"Recently, we've been hearing from several very reliable sources that GW has stopped their playtesting, or has at least reduced it to a very minimal amount. This jives with the releases and units we've been seeing show up all across the country."
Yep.
-
I think it's good they're looking to get things back to working, but don't really agree with some of their specific ideas.
Grimoire isn't the problem, 2+ rerollable is, so just ban that and let people Grimoire their blood crushers or whatever.
Codexes allying with themselves isn't the problem, 4 riptide lists are, and it sounds like they're already looking to ban those.
etc....
-
I would encourage anyone reading this to please read the ENTIRE article linked to. It explains the motivation for doing what they're doing, in a lot of detail.
They are very clear that this is a VERY EARLY ALPHA version of the changes they're going to put into effect, and that it really serves as an illustration of the types of things they're willing to do. React to the endeavor, not to the details of the posted list of alterations in its current form.
-
So they are adding comp?
-
I would encourage anyone reading this to please read the ENTIRE article linked to. It explains the motivation for doing what they're doing, in a lot of detail.
They are very clear that this is a VERY EARLY ALPHA version of the changes they're going to put into effect, and that it really serves as an illustration of the types of things they're willing to do. React to the endeavor, not to the details of the posted list of alterations in its current form.
I did read, and I still do not agree.
The reason ETC for Fantasy works, is that they limit things/magic/items based on an army by army basis, after playtesting literally over 2000 games. They do not arbitrarily ban/modify the inherent rules of the game to suit their needs. What FoB is doing is just that, changing the rules of the game.
2++ reroll isn't a problem. Look at the major GT's since the release of Demons in April - did screamerstar or jetstar win them?
NOVA - Open was won by the first 4 riptide list, so no one knew what to do about it. Invitational was won by an Eldar player with Wave Serpents who beat the same 4 Riptide list because he killed the guys troops and hid.
Da Boyz - Won by a Jetstar list on a die roll to go to turn 5. Alan had 1 scoring model left against a Space Marine player with bikes, storm talons, and thunderfire cannons. I would not call that a crushing decisive victory.
Mechanicon - Grey Knights and Space Marines
WarGamesCon - Ben Mohile, Necrons and Orks
Feast of Blades - Darkwynn with Farssers, a few bikes, guardian blobs
Killadelphia - I think Neil won with Tau?
IndyGT - Necrons/Chaos
Good players can win with any lists, and 2+ rerollable is not the end all be all, and honestly, can easily be dealt with if you know what you are doing.
-
Typhus, I don't think the article even mentions 2+ rerolls at all.
-
2++ reroll isn't a problem. Look at the major GT's since the release of Demons in April - did screamerstar or jetstar win them?
Um, wut?
Yes....though it's mostly been seer council, not screamerstar. (which is why I' saying it's not the grimoire). Seer council won NOVA invitational, it came in first and second at DaBoyz.
Matt Defranza. Seer council, not a wave serpent list, I believe.
-
2++ reroll isn't a problem. Look at the major GT's since the release of Demons in April - did screamerstar or jetstar win them?
Um, wut?
Yes....though it's mostly been seer council, not screamerstar. (which is why I' saying it's not the grimoire). Seer council won NOVA invitational, it came in first and second at DaBoyz.
Matt Defranza. Seer council, not a wave serpent list, I believe.
2nd in invitational was aaron aelong with wave serpents. 1st at Da Boyz was Alan's list that barely won against the 2nd place which was Space Marines.
-
So they are adding comp?
Yes.
And changing rules.
And banning things.
-
So they are adding comp?
Yes.
And changing rules.
And banning things.
That's the crux of my position. They are arbitrarily banning things they don't like, which doesn't affect anything else that Matt, Matt, and others have been saying. Banning Grimoire because you don't like demons "abusing the rules"; but allying in the Baron with 2 Farseers and 10 Warlocks to get the same result is legal?(and even then, at least the Demons get a 2+ Reroll. Seerstar can reroll, hit and run, furious charge, heal wounds, and a ton of other tricks, and I think it is FAR more abusive)
0-1? Warlock Star is a 10 man unit. Can't stop it. 0-1 Riptides? 0-1 Wknights? 0-1 Heralds? This is changing the intrinsic rules of the game and I do not like it.
Supplements specifically state they can be allied with parent codex. That's like saying "Yeah, you have this allied chart but we don't want you using it, so let's just say you can't". And for note, the only 2 supplements that can do it are Farsight, and Black Legion. Seeing as no one cares about Black Legion, it's clear they don't want you to take Farsight. So again, let's ban something we don't like.
Dataslates are retarded, and shouldn't even be a thing.
Limiting psychic users? So either they outright ban ML3 dudes (Farseers, Heralds, MC's), or they say you can only get up to 2 charges per dude. Again, changes the rules of the game and is stupid.
Oh hey, lets allow super heavies? Great. This is my Lord of Skulls with a 2+ invul save. LETS PLAY A FUN GAME OK GUYZ. 0-1, still legal, this is gonna be fun!
Dedicated transport flyers are bad? They change the Meta? Since when? Cron air is dead and gone, and the only other transports are Storm Ravens (which are a points cost), and vendettas (which are mainly used as cheap ass nigh-untouchable lascannon platforms)
Changing the rules of the game does not make for a fun game, and I for one do not approve.
-
Typhus I find your position confusing... Codex Supplements, Dataslates, and Escalation are all rules published by GW. You say that you don't want tournaments to ban or adjust anything, but you also say that they shouldn't allow dataslates or superheavies. Doesn't that contradict?
-
ANd changing the rules doesn't make a fun game?
But the "rules" now, don't make a fun game. Games are meant to be fun. Things HAVE to change. The other option is to stop playing.
-
For those interested, Frontline did a complete 180 on their stance against titans.. in just 48 hours ;) Check out the army tactics here http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/12/10/guest-editorial-on-escalation-by-adam-b-from-the-dice-abide/
-
I dunno, I guess it's somehow different when certain rules from certain sources are cherry-picked and eliminated. I feel like it sits differently. Banning an entire model / unit just "feels" or "seems" better than banning a piece of gear or some power, especially when a few different things might be able to take them.
Not allowing entire books seems fine. Not allowing any dataslates seems fine. /shrug It's just different.
Also, I'm not against the attempt. I don't know that I would have gone public with it just yet though.
-
40k Rulebooks: Guilty until proven innocent.
-
I dunno, I guess it's somehow different when certain rules from certain sources are cherry-picked and eliminated. I feel like it sits differently. Banning an entire model / unit just "feels" or "seems" better than banning a piece of gear or some power, especially when a few different things might be able to take them.
Not allowing entire books seems fine. Not allowing any dataslates seems fine. /shrug It's just different.
Also, I'm not against the attempt. I don't know that I would have gone public with it just yet though.
Maybe that's the Magic player talking? 40k is different, people put all that time into a model, and most people pick a model because frankly they like the look. I don't really want to ban models.....people put a lot of love into their models, maybe someone thinks that throne of skulls thing is sexy, and I don't want to take that away from him.
But certain rules, rules combos can make the game unplayable. These have always cropped up from time to time, for me, 4th ed falcons always come to mind. But it seems very clear lately the notion of any sort of quality control has gone completely out the window.
So throw out rules, keep the models.
-
I think they should just rule that the grimoire doesn't stack with psychic powers. This still gives the ability to get a 3++ (re roll 1's), but without the extreme 2++.
IMHO - The seer council is entirely different because it is a 2+ Cover/Armour save re-rolled. That's either armour or cover, but their invulnerable is only a 4++, so it's no where near as frightening as the screamer council.
I have often wondered why we haven't gone back to a comp type system. M:TG and even warhammer fantasy have used a comp system for years. This is obviously a tough call because to comp immediately means your forming a bias against certain combo's or builds, which can lead to seemingly heavy handed bans (see the above grimoire ban). It is a slippery slope, and I personally am going to be very careful on the event I choose to go to based on which supplemental rulesets they allow.
On one hand all these new options give us a very Rogue Trader feel to 40k again, but conversely it is the most imbalanced set of rules releases I can remember in a long time.
-
haha... well, they don't have the best track record recently chase :) I guess I am a bit guilty of expecting Escalation / Stronhold to be a lot worse than they actually are (after I got BURNED by being one of the few to actually buy the inquisition codex).
Also, I think i agree with you that they might have erred by releasing this really early... people are just going to jump all over the holes in the very early version of the "comp system"... well, nothing to do now but sit back and enjoy the fireworks.
-
http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-40k-tumult-stay-cool-and-roll-dice.html
Well, as Brandt pointed out, not so subtly, it's a little silly for Feast to worry about this now, as feast is literally an age away.
But templecon? Yeah, shit gets real, real soon.
-
For those interested, Frontline did a complete 180 on their stance against titans.. in just 48 hours ;) Check out the army tactics here http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/12/10/guest-editorial-on-escalation-by-adam-b-from-the-dice-abide/
This is written by a different person. It's not a 180, it's more like an Op-Ed piece.
-
I wonder if that is why they did it, to root out all the dissension in the community. I mean sooner or later people will buzz enough and a sort of community agreement will form from what we (the players) want.
-
For those interested, Frontline did a complete 180 on their stance against titans.. in just 48 hours ;) Check out the army tactics here http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/12/10/guest-editorial-on-escalation-by-adam-b-from-the-dice-abide/
This is written by a different person. It's not a 180, it's more like an Op-Ed piece.
Well regardless, there is still really good info in there on how to take down a Revenant via "conventional" warfare.. even factoring in it erasing two units per turn.
-
IMHO - The seer council is entirely different because it is a 2+ Cover/Armour save re-rolled. That's either armour or cover, but their invulnerable is only a 4++, so it's no where near as frightening as the screamer council.
Add Baron Sarthonyx and its the most broken thing ever.
2+ Invul
2+ Armor
2+ Cover
Hit and Run at I7
+1 Str to HoW attacks
Heal wounds
Reduce armor on a unit.
Reduce LD on a unit
-
Oh, I definitely don't think Revenants are unbeatable. I just think that games involving a Revenant would not really resemble what I like about 40k.
Like, what if they came out with a new model, "Cosmic Coinflip Machine". When it activates, you flip a coin. Heads, you win the game. Tails, you lose the game.
There is a very effective strategy that you could use to beat the Cosmic Coinflip army half the time - just let them activate it! It's definitely not an unbeatable army. But... yet...something is missing... oh yeah, it's "playing 40k".
-
http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-40k-tumult-stay-cool-and-roll-dice.html
Well, as Brandt pointed out, not so subtly, it's a little silly for Feast to worry about this now, as feast is literally an age away.
But templecon? Yeah, shit gets real, real soon.
I think the idea here is that they plan to play test this comp to see how well it works before deciding upon it. Something it looks like gw has given up on. This seems to me like something they are testing the waters with and getting as much player response as they ca to make what they feel like will be the best set of rules.
-
He made some contradictory statements....nothing is final, yadda yadda, but "we are DEFINITELY banning that grimoire crap".
*shrug*
-
Maybe that's the Magic player talking?
I don't play Magic, but they do occasionally ban the "piece" of the "problem" and it always "fixes" the "issue."
-
I think people should play the game instead of going hog wild on the internet saying how terrible it is all of the sudden.
Is the Revenant really good? Probably. It's always been really good. If it's the only thing that's "too good" then get rid of it.
I don't think GTs should consider what models people own at all when they're designing their rules.
-
I think people should play the game instead of going hog wild on the internet saying how terrible it is all of the sudden.
I concur with Chase! How many people have actually played the with the new rules yet? I see a lot of people saying how "un-fun" the changes are. Who has actually had time to play though? And of those few people who might have gotten a game in in the last 4 days how many of you actually have played more than one game. Play it for a month. Then come back and whine complain about it. I might even join you all in the complaining. No idea as I haven't played it yet.
I don't think GTs should consider what models people own at all when they're designing their rules.
Agreed. Otherwise GTs might as well just give everyone specific lists that they are allowed to use only. In fact this might be the only "fair" way to have a real tournament. Make all players use the same list. That way you base winning on actual skill. Of course this wouldn't work because not everyone plays the same armies, but its the only thing that will really be "fair" and "balanced".
-
I think people should play the game instead of going hog wild on the internet saying how terrible it is all of the sudden.
I concur with Chase! How many people have actually played the with the new rules yet? I see a lot of people saying how "un-fun" the changes are. Who has actually had time to play though? And of those few people who might have gotten a game in in the last 4 days how many of you actually have played more than one game. Play it for a month. Then come back and whine complain about it. I might even join you all in the complaining. No idea as I haven't played it yet.
I don't think GTs should consider what models people own at all when they're designing their rules.
Agreed. Otherwise GTs might as well just give everyone specific lists that they are allowed to use only. In fact this might be the only "fair" way to have a real tournament. Make all players use the same list. That way you base winning on actual skill. Of course this wouldn't work because not everyone plays the same armies, but its the only thing that will really be "fair" and "balanced".
I really don't get this, people saying "Just try it, it might not be as bad as you think".
WE HAVE ALL TRIED IT.
It's just apocalypse. It's just rules for bringing "a little bit" of apocalypse into 40k. It is NOTHING more than that. Sure, sure, there are penalties for bringing the Lord of War. The thing is, it doesn't really matter if bringing one of these things actually reduces your chances of winning, that is NOT the point.
D weapons kill entire units, regardless of how expensive they are, what abilities they have, or how tough they are. Meaning the points spent to make that unit tough are wasted. I'm talking units that are supposed to be tough, like terminators.
Terminators already kinda suck for their points cost. But some people like 'em. When your 450 point termie squad, or two 225 points squads, gets straight up murdered by a unit that has nearly infinite range, unblockable line of sight, you're not going to have a lot of fun.
Or your centurions, or your wraith guard, or your landraiders, or your crisis suits, or blood crushers, or your MCs, or destroyers, or wraiths, or your meganobz, or your Ravenwing,or even big, fluffy BT crusader packs.
Really anything that's at all more expensive than a marine per model is worthless. The only meaningful response is to get a lot of relatively cheap big guns...distributed lascannons or lances, or deep strike meltas right next to the thing. Or bring your own D weapon.
WE HAVE ALL PLAYED THAT GAME, IT'S called APOCALYPSE.
This notion that we somehow haven't tried it and don't know what we're talking about really angers me. It'S JUST apocalypse, with some penalties thrown in for taking them.
If you want to play apocalypse, go play apocalypse.
-
Uh oh:(
-
I can't wait to D-bag a riptide
-
So, has anyone taken Escalation for a game or two yet?
-
Uh oh:(
lol
-
So, has anyone taken Escalation for a game or two yet?
That is what I've been asking. I really don't think anyone has.
-
I've taken it for many games... in my mind.
-
Hm. Well, I'd definitely buy the book and get a few games in before making any claims. Anything found online could be inaccurate and theoryhammer is cool but nothing to pass judgement with.
-
WE HAVE ALL TRIED IT.
I respectfully disagree with this statement.
WE HAVE ALL PLAYED THAT GAME, IT'S called APOCALYPSE.
Actually its not. Otherwise this would just be the Apocalypse book and not Escalation or Stronghold Assault.
I'm really not trying to stir up trouble or troll people or be a dick or anything. But again, I don't think anyone has actually PLAYED with these rule sets yet or given them a chance.
Will they work for GT? No idea. But until I play a few games with the new rules and/or talk to people have have played a few games with new rules then I think its premature to declare them NOT FUN or Breaking the game. That is all I was saying.
-
I honestly think we only wound up with Escalation because Apocalypse didn't sell very well.
-
I honestly think we only wound up with Escalation because Apocalypse didn't sell very well.
GW plans everything 18 months in advance, so no that's not possible.
-
I honestly think we only wound up with Escalation because Apocalypse didn't sell very well.
When did Apocalypse come out?
For some reason I thought it was just this past summer. Am I wrong? From a sales/marketing standpoint that is not nearly enough time to both get a sales report and to produce/market/print/distribute a new publication. For both books to be ready to distribute by this past week I would say that they had to be done and to the printer early November at the latest. You also have to factor in proofing/printing/shipping/distribution times into that. That really only leaves about 3-4 months to decide that Apocalypse wasn't selling and that is a pretty tight sales period to judge from.
I really think that this is part of a larger picture strategy to add expansions to the 40k game. Apocalypse isn't for everyone because there is a lot of Forgeworld stuff in there. This for the most part allows us to use what is already in production through the GW channel with the exception of a few kits that probably will be released next year(just guessing) using the same (basic) rules with some modifications as standard 40k. I would not be surprised if six months to a year from now another expansion gets released for the game.
These expansions are really ways for GW to keep giving the customer something new. They are doing a great job of getting new army books out but if for example you don't collect Tau then the Tau release wasn't going to make you buy stuff. What this books does is give me a a reason to run out an buy the Baneblade/Shadowsword kit so that I can to add a Stormlord to my IG army.
-
I honestly think we only wound up with Escalation because Apocalypse didn't sell very well.
GW plans everything 18 months in advance, so no that's not possible.
I don't think that's how they do things anymore, especially with COpy and paste jobs like this. Like the lack of play testing.
-
Escalation doesn't have much to do with Apocalypse at all, really.
The players who are most excited about Escalation don't play Apocalypse. It's daunting to get a zillion points together; a lot of players have to just field everything they own to play a real Apocalypse game, which makes their list kind of shoddy. Which if fine; Apocalypse is about throwing models at each other and watching things explode. But Escalation lets a player get just one super-cool thing and throw it into the army he already has, with a list designed to exploit that advantage. That's a very different animal altogether.
I think Apocalypse was updated as an excuse to bring out new super-heavies and other big stuff, with the intention that they would be used in Escalation. Because GW is a model company.
-
This talk about escalation not being apocalypse confuses me. The rules for super heavies is the exact same in each. No formations in 40k but they seem very similar to me. And I don't see a change in the meta over this from what it has been for most of 6th edition. Seems to me the current meta is bring the biggest gun and cheapest troops, only difference now is that there are bigger guns available.
-
I read the escalation rules and with the exception of the revenant Titan, think they are neat. The d weapons make people upset because a unit of grots dies just as easy as a 1000 pt deathstar. I like this because it kills 1k point Deathstars, I dislike this because it creates little incentive to take many cool units but tons of crappy units with some melta guns.
All of this being said I would also like to point out that a very limited number of Adepticon gladiator tournaments saw the guy bringing a super heavy as the victor and they allow it all.
In summary:
Are the escalation rules really cool? Yes
Do I think they should be allowed? Sure, in some events.
Do I think they would take the meta in a more diverse and interesting direction? Not a chance
Is this chase's every intention? Seems to be. Every event can be different so there is zero reason to saying xyz can always or never be allowed.
-
I don't mind there being escalation tournaments same way I don't mind there being apocalypse events. To each their own, if you enjoy it, Great!
But when chase starts talking "everything should be allowed in doubles tournaments" I get worried. My main doubles buddy has a baneblade.....still worried.
-
Dont worry be happy man!
-
Chill, dirrrty dawwg. Its a casual game not intended for tournament play. Just have fun and don't worry so much about winning.
-
Escalation isn't apocalypse because at most you get ONE lord of war, not as many as you like, and you have to follow the force org. There are also additional penalties for having one (opponent seizes easier, extra VP opportunity, and alternate warlord trait chart), and they don't score. You're also very limited in selection compared to what is available through FW and the regular Apoc book.
The rules for these units are the same as Apoc, but the framework around them is different.
How is D killing a unit any different than a broadside and missile drone unit killing a unit? Both are enough firepower to wipe out almost anything without a 2+ rerollable save, and you can always throw a 2nd missileside unit in for less combined points than super heavies with D. D is just a faster way to resolve it.
-
Chill, dirrrty dawwg. Its a casual game not intended for tournament play. Just have fun and don't worry so much about winning.
And yet, some people want to play it competitively, in tournaments. This is a really infuriating statement. You're basically saying the way they want to play it is invalid.
-
I love tournaments, do all the BG tournaments and attend about 5 GTs a year but I don't for a second kid myself and think that it is intended for tournaments. The community is forcing a square peg Into a round hole to make it a tournment game. I still enjoy it in that capacity none the less.
-
Bill gets it.
This is not the game you want it to be and it will probably never change.
-
Yes, it is not intended for competitive play. For years we have been playing as if it were, but it's getting to the point where that's not possible. So, those who want it to be competitive have to rewrite it then.
-
Yes, it is not intended for competitive play. For years we have been playing as if it were, but it's getting to the point where that's not possible. So, those who want it to be competitive have to rewrite it then.
I don't know how you can say it's not possible to be competitive in the current environment, it's just different than what it was in the previous environment. The game and environment have always changed, and we will see what good or bad this brings going forward. There are simply new units to consider during list building with very straightforward counters (void shield generators are also super good against everything else anyways).
Suppose GW comes out and says FW is fine all the time and should be used in every event? Would we need a ban/restrict list for that too?
-
Yes? Obviously.
-
Yes? Obviously.
I don't think this is obvious at all. That's why we have 4 pages of discussion here, 9 in the other thread, and links to other places discussing the subject across the web.
-
Boom headshot!!
-
It's not obvious to a lot of people that the Tau firebase shouldn't allowed.....I don't think that reflects well on those people.
-
Different strokes for different folks! Make love not war bring peace to the 41 millenium!!
-
Different strokes for different folks! Make love not war bring peace to the 41 millenium!!
All we are saying . . . is give D a chance!
-
Ill join that bandwagon -- chant with me
GIVE D A CHANCE!!
GIVE D A CHANCE!!
GIVE D A CHANCE!!
Make Love not war GIVE D A CHANCE!!
D will bring peace to the 41st Millenium the larger it is the better! GIVE D A CHANCE!!
-
"Give D a chance"
Is the triple entendre phrase of the year.
-
But when chase starts talking "everything should be allowed in doubles tournaments" I get worried. My main doubles buddy has a baneblade.....still worried.
Doubles are where I think it's fine to let all sorts of things come out to play. It's been successful for us from day one. People like them BECAUSE they can expect to bring goofy shit.
1000 point lists. Deep breaths. Relax.
-
Doubles are where I think it's fine to let all sorts of things come out to play. It's been successful for us from day one. People like them BECAUSE they can expect to bring goofy shit.
1000 point lists. Deep breaths. Relax.
Love it ;D
-
Wow, this is significant.... the upcoming Las Vegas Open (first big GT of 2013) polls its attendees and, based on results, decides to nuke most of the "new different stuff" and also nerfs 2+ rerolls a bit.
http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/12/11/las-vegas-open-poll-results-and-where-were-going-in-the-midst-of-the-current-40k-changes/
-
I really think that's the only way it COULD go. Keep in mind these are the same folks that ALWAYS allow forgeworld.
-
How could they always allow FW if this is the first year of the LVO?
-
Bay Area Open. Reecius runs that, and a bunch of other west coast tournaments. He must be, I think, the closest to having made an actual business out of running tournaments. (he also has a game store)
Far as I know, he uses the same rules for all them. He's sorta responsible for why FW gets used a lot more on the west coast.
-
How could they always allow FW if this is the first year of the LVO?
It's frontline gaming, they have run a bunch of GT's for a long time. THis is just the first one in Las Vegas.
-
Got ya.
-
This entire situation is analogous to a group of people modifying the rules of Candyland in order to make it tournament viable. You could do it, but the problems preventing high-level Candyland competition probably require more rules to fix than the original had in total.
-
No one has been playing candyland competitively for 20 years. We want to play it competitively, so leave us to it, ok?
-
Ian and I are very big into the competitive Candyland circut, how dare you be that insulting sir!
-
Dude I so want in on this Candyland competative circuit count me in fellas!!! My gingerbread man will own you!
-
Dude I so want in on this Candyland competative circuit count me in fellas!!! My gingerbread man will own you!
You don't stand a chance, I'm running gumdrop-star!
-
Codex: Chutes and Ladders now out with rules for fast movement.
-
Gumdrop star? I hope its not rasberry because only 1 man would give me the rasberry!!
-
Gumdrop star? I hope its not rasberry because only 1 man would give me the rasberry!!
Lonestar!!!!
-
No one has been playing candyland competitively for 20 years. We want to play it competitively, so leave us to it, ok?
You want to play candyland competitively?
-
No. Meaning it was a bad comparison.
-
Dude, I'm not here to judge. If you want to play Candyland competitively, do it up. Just don't be a WAAC Candyland player, they are the WORST.