[Abington MA] Warhammer 40k DOUBLES Event - 1/25/14

[AstartesXXVI]

I will too.  The "optional" rules from stronghold are really how the fortification rules (which are still often contradictory and just absent in certain cases) should have been written in the first place.  They really should have just been in an official FAQ, but I dunno, GW thought it was cool to charge for them instead, or something. 

It's also not at all as if these rules change the ways fortifications work in a way someone owning a fortification wouldn't want, so your rationale doesn't even make sense.

Consistency is more important than whether or not players benefit from the change. You can't have core rules acting differently from table to table, player to player.

I have asked like a 1,000 times, what do you base these opinions on?  You don't play, yourself.  Are you even aware how massively unclear the void shield rules are?  Like, literally no one even knows how to play them. 

For all you know, the event was going to open with an announcement of how to play them for the day...

[Grand Master Steve]

The best way to debate Chase about an event is to open up a picture of him from Facebook, and just speak aloud. All the catharsis, just as productive, and you don't actually have to bother anyone!

If the rules for an event enrage you, just don't go. It certainly makes my life easier.

This

[Sir_Prometheus]

I will too.  The "optional" rules from stronghold are really how the fortification rules (which are still often contradictory and just absent in certain cases) should have been written in the first place.  They really should have just been in an official FAQ, but I dunno, GW thought it was cool to charge for them instead, or something. 

It's also not at all as if these rules change the ways fortifications work in a way someone owning a fortification wouldn't want, so your rationale doesn't even make sense.

Consistency is more important than whether or not players benefit from the change. You can't have core rules acting differently from table to table, player to player.

Well, consistency is important.  But I'm saying the stronghold optional rules should be used all the time.  They're strictly superior.  The model/units, though, are kinda hit or miss.  Some are all right, some are broken nonsense. 

I don't see why that would lead to core rules being different from table to table.

[Tharcil]

Unsure if we really need a 40k section on the forum. Really just need the Thursday night 40k thread and another one for Sir Prometheus to disagree with every event. Much simpler to moderate. This event looks like fun to me, even with some adjustments that I personally might have done differently, but really I'm just grateful for BG putting the time and effort into having them, to not nit pick and fuss.

 Little saturated between Templecon, the primer, 500 and this event so it shouldn't be hard to find an event out of these 4 in the next month of so to make anyone happy.

[Ian Mulligan]

Unsure if we really need a 40k section on the forum. Really just need the Thursday night 40k thread and another one for Sir Prometheus to disagree with every event.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[AstartesXXVI]

I will too.  The "optional" rules from stronghold are really how the fortification rules (which are still often contradictory and just absent in certain cases) should have been written in the first place.  They really should have just been in an official FAQ, but I dunno, GW thought it was cool to charge for them instead, or something. 

It's also not at all as if these rules change the ways fortifications work in a way someone owning a fortification wouldn't want, so your rationale doesn't even make sense.

Consistency is more important than whether or not players benefit from the change. You can't have core rules acting differently from table to table, player to player.

Well, consistency is important.  But I'm saying the stronghold optional rules should be used all the time.  They're strictly superior.  The model/units, though, are kinda hit or miss.  Some are all right, some are broken nonsense. 

I don't see why that would lead to core rules being different from table to table.

You don't think one table using the expansion rules for their fortifications and one person using the standard rules doesn't pose a problem?

Unlike my club, Battleground has the unenviable task of needing to be a business success as well as a social one. So I think they made the best call they could as a retail hosted event -- include the new stuff as best they can and try to keep a consistent ruleset in the process. If you don't have a retail interest in promoting the games you can just ban the expansion books, and if you don't, you include them in a capacity intended to keep things at least within a degree of consistency with your existing event standards.

There are more things to worry about then just how big of a jerk someone could potentially be with their lists.

[Grand Master Steve]

wait, technically don't these rules let me field a Thunderhawk?

[Chase]

wait, technically don't these rules let me field a Thunderhawk?

Yes.

If you take Str D ranged weapons they will be treated as Str 10 AP 1 though.

[Benjamin]

For all you know, the event was going to open with an announcement of how to play them for the day...

If there's a rules question/interpretation, it should be sorted out before players are required to submit their lists. It would be professional.

[robpro]

wait, technically don't these rules let me field a Thunderhawk?

Yes.

If you take Str D ranged weapons they will be treated as Str 10 AP 1 though.

Is it possible to also give them Ignores Cover? I feel like at just S10 Ap1, D-shooting doesn't do much.

Also, should we put together a separate thread with some questions about Void Shield generators? I have 2-3 myself and it would be good to know ahead of time how it will be played.

[Typhus]

wait, technically don't these rules let me field a Thunderhawk?

Yes.

If you take Str D ranged weapons they will be treated as Str 10 AP 1 though.

Wait, I'm confused.  Is Escalation allowed?

[PhoenixFire]

wait, technically don't these rules let me field a Thunderhawk?

Yes.

If you take Str D ranged weapons they will be treated as Str 10 AP 1 though.

Wait, I'm confused.  Is Escalation allowed?

yes escalation is in but anything that is STR D has been nerfed to STR10 AP1 which means STR D also loses the "ignores all save" rule which is basically what makes the D the D.


as far as this...

11. Alternative Fortification rules out of Stronghold Assault will not be in play for this event.  Void Shield Generators are obviously allowed.

i'm taking that to mean you can use the new buildings out of stronghold assault but cant use the modified rules on the existing buildings

aka starting a flyer on the skyshield pad turn 1 or giving a bastion void shields and such

as far as new buildings i know they don't yet have a model for void shield generators but it seems most people are using these with the guns taken off



meets the criteria of a small building with battlements, i bet at least one of the Battlegrounds has some in stock right.... meow!

[Typhus]

Ok...so.

Escalation is in.  FW with 40k Stamp Approved is in.  This mean we can use the FW Lords of War update?

"With the publication of Warhammer 40,000: Escalation, players now have the option of taking Lords of War choices in their armies. The following is a list of Forge World models that should be considered Lords of War choices and may therefore be taken using the guidelines detailed in Warhammer 40,000: Escalation, along with the publication in which the model’s most up to date rules can be found."

www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/L/lordsofwar.pdf

[shwnlyns]

Important note, it says ranged str D will be treated as str 10 so 1, I assume melee str D remains unchanged. Hello Chaos Lord of Skulls.

[jhobin]

I think this cool, and might give me the motivation to finish my baneblade! (and get the dust off of it!)