News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?  (Read 4284 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« on: July 27, 2015, 06:55:25 PM »
In September I will be attending a tournament that is considered one of the largest in Canada; usually drawing over 100 players.  They run two events over a weekend:  a doubles tournament on Saturday and a singles on Sunday. 

They usually have restrictions in place regarding composition to try and keep things from becoming ridiculous.  For the doubles, it makes sense.  However, for the singles event, they have always had a carefree "take what you want" kind of attitude that has worked.  This year, with the rapid release of codexes and how the game has shifted to embrace formations, they are adding in more restrictions.  That's not a huge deal for me.  Tournaments are always putting in composition guidelines, so what ever.

What bothers me is that today they release an FAQ that they will be using.  But instead of calling it an FAQ, they are calling it what it is:  rule amendments.  They posted a 23 page document that is based on the ITC FAQ.  For the most part, it is filled with clarifications that are just making it clear how judges will rule in case of dispute.  But then they go and add in some points that are flat out rule changes.  Here are the changes that I was able to find:

  • 1)  Invisibility - Units attacking an Invisible unit do so at BS1 and hit on 5+ in close combat.
  • 2)  Destroyer weapons - D-weapons can not cause instant death.  In addition, a roll of 2-5 only does D2 wounds, and a roll of 6 does D6 wounds with no saves allowed.
  • 3)  Look Out, Sir! and Stomp roll of 6 - Characters can use LOS to pass the hit to a model not beneath the template.
  • 4)  2+ rerolled saves - We felt the math on a 2+ reroll did not allow for a good gaming experience for the vast majority of gamers who cannot field a unit with this, so if a 2+ save is rerolled, the wound is only saved on a 4+.
  • 5)  Blast / Template weapons targeting a ruin level - Blast weapons can only get the number of hits of models on a specific level of a ruin, and template weapons can only hit models that are +/- 1 level unless it is a torrent weapon.
I'll be honest, rule changes piss me off.  We've been playing this edition long enough that in a competitive environment, people should be able to put on their big boy pants and get through it.

For # 1 and #5, that is people stuck in the past where they didn't have to worry about this stuff.  Invisibility is a tough power to get off and it can be stopped, while having to target levels on ruins is just a hold over from the previous edition.  #2 is because the tournament organizer doesn't like D-weapons and doesn't care what anyone else thinks about it.  The one that really pisses me off is #4.  How many units can reroll their saves, let alone a 2+ save?  The only two that come to mind are Ravenwing and a Dark Eldar / Eldar combo.  Yeah, a rerolled 2+ save is hard to get through.  It is supposed to be hard to get through.  But because he didn't like "the math for it," he is taking it away.

Sorry, just had to vent.  But I wanted to hear what you guys think, either on these changes being made, or on the idea of a tournament changing the rules to the game at all.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Wyddr

  • Author Eminence: Hereticus Liber Daemonica | Fio'shas Shi
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5254
  • Country: us
    • My blog about SF/F stuff
  • Armies: Daemons, Imperial Fists, Tau, Ksons, Vostroyans
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2015, 10:01:27 AM »
I agree with #4 (re-rollable 2+ is no fun for anybody, no matter how often it appears) and #5 (it only makes sense that people hiding in a building would be *less* vulnerable to blast weapons, not *more*). The other three seem unnecessary (I kinda thought #3 already *was* the rule, but whatever).

That said, I've always had the belief that it is their tourney, so it's their rules. I build my army list accordingly with said rules and then play the damned games. If I really think a tourney is stupid, I won't go to it. As long as I am informed in advance however. Nothing sucks more than going to a tourney and discovering (surprise!) that they don't play the game by the same rules. That enrages me.   

Offline TheOnlySpiral

  • Keeper of the Book of Salvation; Last of the Timelords
  • Ancient
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
  • Country: ca
  • Returned from the Immaterium
  • Armies: Deathwing
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2015, 11:32:56 AM »
Technically they can do whatever they want. That being said, #4 does target two armies out the entire field which feels...punitive. This does feel like one neckbeard's personal gripes with an edition. I'd roll with it and just give honest feedback after the tournament was concluded. Just let them know it affected your enjoyment and could affect your attendance.
Quote from: David Holland
The Point of the Game is to be Playing it.

Quote from: Devern, The Unsung Hero
Actually, it pains me to say this, but Spiral is right.

Online Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2015, 12:43:47 PM »
I agree with #4 (re-rollable 2+ is no fun for anybody, no matter how often it appears) and #5 (it only makes sense that people hiding in a building would be *less* vulnerable to blast weapons, not *more*). The other three seem unnecessary (I kinda thought #3 already *was* the rule, but whatever).
But are re-rolled 2+ saves really that much of an issue?  If it is a cover save, how difficult is it to get a weapon with Ignores Cover or to charge it and deal with their armour save in combat?  A Tau player looks at that and laughs.  Armour saves are negated by AP2 weapons, and there isn't a single army in the game that doesn't have AP2 attacks.  The only one where there isn't a definitive answer is a Shadowfield Archon allied with Eldar who are casting Fortune on him.  And even then there is an answer, hit him with a D-weapon.

As for #5, it only applies if they are hiding in a ruin, buildings fall under a completely different set of rules.  So the argument can be made that the ruin isn't stable against an explosion.  The shell could hit the middle floor and cause a cave in, with the cover save representing the models avoiding the hazard.

That said, I've always had the belief that it is their tourney, so it's their rules. I build my army list accordingly with said rules and then play the damned games. If I really think a tourney is stupid, I won't go to it. As long as I am informed in advance however. Nothing sucks more than going to a tourney and discovering (surprise!) that they don't play the game by the same rules. That enrages me.
  It is their tournament, that much I will agree with.  And modifying parts for composition are part of the tournament scene.  But changing the rules for how the game actually plays, to me, is going too far.  Would you feel the same way about a set of tournament rules that said an army was capped at having 5 Mastery Levels for the Psychic Phase?

Technically they can do whatever they want. That being said, #4 does target two armies out the entire field which feels...punitive. This does feel like one neckbeard's personal gripes with an edition. I'd roll with it and just give honest feedback after the tournament was concluded. Just let them know it affected your enjoyment and could affect your attendance.
I've told them that I object to the rules of the game being changed, and while he said my objection was noted, I was more or less brushed off.  This tournament has been running semi-annually for the past 8 years, and I have been at every single one.  I made it clear to him that I am seriously considering whether or not I actually want to attend, and that if I do I will be asking my opponent whether they want to play 40k or the tournament's amended version.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline TheOnlySpiral

  • Keeper of the Book of Salvation; Last of the Timelords
  • Ancient
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
  • Country: ca
  • Returned from the Immaterium
  • Armies: Deathwing
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2015, 12:54:45 PM »
Speaking as someone who loves a good snark, that's nice. Also, your analysis is really solid here. Having been binging on new codeci for the past 2 days I'm finding that AP2 weapons are common and cheap. What game state is this a true problem in? You're taking AP2 weapons most of the time because they also kill vehicles. The more one looks at his argument the sillier it gets.
Quote from: David Holland
The Point of the Game is to be Playing it.

Quote from: Devern, The Unsung Hero
Actually, it pains me to say this, but Spiral is right.

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2015, 02:01:34 PM »
In response...

#1: I hate Invisibility. And I reserve the use of the word "hate" for rare occasions. I dislike intensely when my kids accidently nail me in the nards. I hate Invisibility. I have yet to see a game where one person manifested Invisibility, and the other person didn't, where the non-invis person won. If you've got something to take advantage of Invis, and you get it off, it's a free win in my books. I would have been MORE happy with seeing the power be rerolled until you get something else. It should flat-out be removed from the game.

#2: I've come to terms with D weapons. I intensely dislike the way they impact vehicles, but I like to play with vehicles. They aren't much worse than S 10 AP 1 against infantry... a little bit more effective against MC's and the like, but I never use those. I'd say that's unnecessary.

#3: We've been allowing LOS on stomps, mostly because we hadn't thought to see if that was legal. We weren't aware of anything preventing it, and it's been reasonable for us to allow the LOS to save our Characters. It's such an unfun rule as it is, no sense completely poo-holing someone for being unlucky enough to get 6'ed. I'm going to have to check that out, but we play that way anyhow.

#4: I'm on board for a general rule making rerolled saves cap out at 4+. Reanimation Protocols, FNP, a rerolled Armour / Cover / Invul save... all of those effects. It has been said elsewhere, but 40k is becoming a game without interaction. "Tee-hee, my Invisible Ravenwing with a boosted cover save gets hit on a 6, wounded on a 2+ [Lascannon] and then saves 35/36 successful wounds. So you have a 0.4 PERCENT chance of being wounded by your Lascannon. Tee hee!" Admittedly, a good chunk of that problem is Invisibility. But when you have slightly less than a 1/250 chance to wound something with a Lascannon, the game's gone wrong. Not everyone is ignoring cover. SM and IG are limited to a pair of AP 3 Flamers to deal with that kind of garbage, and how do you get those flamers into position against Ravenwing? Daemons can do a rerollable 2+, if I recall. There are ways to make it happen, and it's utterly demoralizing to play against that.

#5: I don't get this. It's not like blast weapons are OP against something in a ruin. They're getting a solid cover save against building-crushing firepower. I get that some people are used to the "old way", but the poor damage output of a Large Blast weapon against any kind of large model, like an MC or Vehicle, they've got to get a little boost somewhere.

Offline Dangerousdave0042

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Country: gb
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
  • Armies: Imperial Guard, Blood Angels and Tyranids
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2015, 09:33:21 PM »
I pretty much agree with Spectral Arbor, especially on points 1 and 4.

Personally I prefer the old rules for buildings/ruins. I fire my flamer into a ruin at the troops on the ground floor - how can I hit the troops on the 4th floor? it just doesn't make sense? - not that everything in the game has to make sense, but in my view GW changed the rules for the worse on this.

With Eldar getting such cheap ready access to D weapons something has to be done about D weapons. It's unfair because it penalises other armies, but short of specifically targeting the Eldar codex and modifying the Eldar codex, this is the best way of dealing with it. Personally, I would be happy to see a tournament FAQ that said Eldar had to add 50 % onto the points cost of their D units, and then left the D alone for everyone else.
Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

Online Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2015, 10:08:33 PM »
Personally, I would be happy to see a tournament FAQ that said Eldar had to add 50 % onto the points cost of their D units, and then left the D alone for everyone else.
But then look at it from an Eldar perspective.  Would you not be completely pissed that a tournament organizer just up and decided to increase the point cost of your units by 50% because he doesn't like how strong the army is?
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Dangerousdave0042

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Country: gb
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
  • Armies: Imperial Guard, Blood Angels and Tyranids
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2015, 10:18:29 PM »
Personally I would use the word "broken" than "strong", but this will digress from the point of the original post. As soon as you start changing ANY rule from those written by GW then someone will be pissed because it affects them negatively, even if you are doing it for the majority of the other players. Or because you feel this is how the majority of the players would prefer it. And if you are doing it for the majority then I would argue there would be more non Eldar players than Eldar players, so this would therefore be "fair" in practice.

Note: I picked 50 % at random. I have no idea what may or may not be construed as "fair", but I think everyone agrees that the WK is far too under pointed.
Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2015, 10:25:53 PM »
Then the better practice is to not change the rule at all rather than open yourself up to the Heckler's Veto
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Dangerousdave0042

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Country: gb
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
  • Armies: Imperial Guard, Blood Angels and Tyranids
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2015, 10:39:58 PM »
But as soon as you do as much as say the army has to be battleforged you're amending the rules as written by GW.

Like someone said either in this post or the other one:

You're the tournament organiser. You amend the rules as you feel "fair" and "right". If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to participate.

I've only organised small (less than 10) for friends tournaments and it's quite clear among us that WAAC lists are not acceptable and we kind of "police" ourselves so my experience is slightly skewed. But, therefore the 2+ re-rollable is always modified to 2+/4+. I don't change the D weapon table, but I limit it to 1 D weapon armed model per army.
Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2015, 10:47:04 PM »
Any group may limit the rules as they wish. A tourney may say "no Eldar armies at all as they're a sin against fashion!" We've recently seen arguments against grav weapons, a outrageously sexy lycra-clad pixie from long ago had a *serious* issue against Tau Disruption Pods and wanted massive changes. That there's a voice against certain rules doesn't mean "something must be done". IMO, leave it all alone and only rule on the grey areas. Grey areas *don't include* people don't like it. Grey areas are when multiple rules conflict and there's always an arse looking for advantage. You rule before and then rule that way throughout. The 2+ rerollable thing is "I don't like it." Tough crap, deal with it. Others opinion, of course, vary.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2015, 10:48:53 PM by The GrimSqueaker »
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Online Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2015, 11:24:37 PM »
Personally I would use the word "broken" than "strong", but this will digress from the point of the original post. As soon as you start changing ANY rule from those written by GW then someone will be pissed because it affects them negatively, even if you are doing it for the majority of the other players. Or because you feel this is how the majority of the players would prefer it. And if you are doing it for the majority then I would argue there would be more non Eldar players than Eldar players, so this would therefore be "fair" in practice.

Note: I picked 50 % at random. I have no idea what may or may not be construed as "fair", but I think everyone agrees that the WK is far too under pointed.
But where do you draw the line at what is and is not broken?  Are a unit of 5 Wraithguard on their own with no bonuses considered broken?  They have an effective threat range of 18", which isn't that great on a 6x4 table.  What about 5 foot slogging D-scythes? 

Your definition of broken may seriously differ from someone else's.  But does that mean that you, as a tournament organizer, has the right to change the game to such an extent simply because you believe something is too strong?

You are right in that requiring a Battle-forged list is amending the rules.  But it is also setting a standard on how the army lists are to be built.  The majority of people play a Battle-forged list anyway.  A tournament requiring lists to at least be Battle-forge is starting everyone on the same playing field, it isn't changing a core mechanic of the game.

I don't change the D weapon table, but I limit it to 1 D weapon armed model per army.
And you don't have an issue with the fact that you are picking a codex and saying "You can't take these 3 units, this 1 character, and this unit can only have one model in it"?  Or that you are telling another codex that they are restricted to a single model?

If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2015, 11:52:27 PM »
Kind of ... , man. You asked what people thought, and you're getting an opinion that you don't agree with.

For what it's worth, WG in practice have a 6" transport move, 6" deployment, 12" Gun Range = 24" range. If you swing a Scout move, you can add more onto your first turn move.

If you don't like the conditions, don't go.

Forcing battleforged is EXACTLY changing a core rule of the game. It doesn't matter that most people would play that way anyhow. It does deny viable strategies that aren't available in any other way. Honestly, Imperial Guard has no reason to take a Battleforged army at all, right now. Whoopee! My Guardsmen / Chimera have ObSec. Oh, wait, 5 Tactical Marines are also within 3". Bang! beslubber! They're dead. :(

So if we're going down the route of no-one can fairly change the game just because they don't like it blah-blah-blah... then renege your hypocrisy. Unbound isn't broken in light of the free rules that Formations grant. Embrace the multi-codex amphetamine parrot-fest that 7th has become, and love the Unbound, too. Something about blasts hitting different levels... new edition... stuck in old ways... get used to it... something like that.

Forcing a time limit changes the game. I can't play 500 Conscripts plus a CCS in a Land Raider... for Kurov's Aquila. Preferred Enemy for everyone! ;)

Imperial Knights, as a codex, is bullamphetamine parrot. No-one should be forced to play against a whole army of them, but that's allowed and unbound isn't? Seriously? No legs. Falling down.

Quote
But does that mean that you, as a tournament organizer, has the right to change the game to such an extent simply because you believe something is too strong?

It's the TO's prerogative to change the rules however he damned well pleases. They're his points to award, his prizes [the Human "he", not to gender discriminate] his shop, his sand box, his choice. If people don't like it, they won't go to the tournament.


But don't gripe that there are changes that you don't like, but that there are also changes that you agree with. I'd personally like to see a no-holds barred tournament without time limits. Really see what happens when people go all out with 500 conscripts, that sort of thing. Litterally flooding the board with models. Roll a d12 for mission type [1-6 Eternal, 7-12 Maelstrom] and just give'er amphetamine parrot! What could be a more true test of a general, then fighting battles the way they're meant to be, straight out of the book?
« Last Edit: July 30, 2015, 11:56:15 PM by Spectral Arbor »

Online Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2015, 12:24:11 AM »
Kind of ... , man. You asked what people thought, and you're getting an opinion that you don't agree with.
I'm sorry, I thought forums were a place for discussions.

Forcing battleforged is EXACTLY changing a core rule of the game. It doesn't matter that most people would play that way anyhow. It does deny viable strategies that aren't available in any other way. Honestly, Imperial Guard has no reason to take a Battleforged army at all, right now. Whoopee! My Guardsmen / Chimera have ObSec. Oh, wait, 5 Tactical Marines are also within 3". Bang! beslubber! They're dead. :(
I am inclined to disagree with you on both points here.  The first being that requiring Battle-forged is changing a core rule.  There are two options available in the rule book on how to construct an army, which the tournament is requiring that you follow one of them.  Having played in an tournament that allows Unbound lists, I can say that they do bring out the lists that are completely ridiculous.  Ever played whack-a-mole with an 1850 Tau list that is nothing but single model Crisis suit units?

Also, with the codexes that are coming out now, a lot of the formations and detachments do not have ObSec.  Harlequins and Mechanicus don't have it; Necrons and Eldar lose it if they want to play their Decurion style or focus on formations, only getting ObSec if they downgrade to a CAD; Marines and Dark Angels only get it on a Demi-company if they want to play their formations.

So if we're going down the route of no-one can fairly change the game just because they don't like it blah-blah-blah... then renege your hypocrisy. Unbound isn't broken in light of the free rules that Formations grant. Embrace the multi-codex amphetamine parrot-fest that 7th has become, and love the Unbound, too. Something about blasts hitting different levels... new edition... stuck in old ways... get used to it... something like that.
You're right, Unbound is not broken.  Never said it was.  But for the sake of simplicity for a tournament, requiring players to follow a single set of rules for constructing an army is helpful to both the other players as well as the organizer.

I don't feel it is a hypocritical to be on board with requiring Battle-forged while being against changing what a reroll is.  Requiring battle forged is not going to force people to reference a different chart that is not in a rule book to find out what their D-weapons do, and it isn't going to remove the strength value from their attacks either.  That is what I mean by changing the core rules.  You can play the game the exact same way in a battle forged only tournament as you can in one that allows unbound lists. 

When tournaments start modifying mechanics to the game, then you can't properly prepare for the tournament.  If I swing by the LGS on the weekend and get a pick up game against someone I've never met before who plays Eldar, do you not think that they would baulk at the idea that I want them to play with nerfed D-weapons?  Or if it is someone that just started playing in 7th that their blast weapons don't actually hit everyone under the template?


Imperial Knights, as a codex, is bullamphetamine parrot. No-one should be forced to play against a whole army of them, but that's allowed and unbound isn't? Seriously? No legs. Falling down.
Having been on both sides of the table against a list of all Imperial Knights, I can confidently say that the army isn't as hard to play against as people make it out to be.  In an 1850 list, if they go pure knights, they have 5 models tops.  Focusing firing to drop the knights in a systematic fashion is the best way to kill them.  But also remember that we are playing an objective based game, which means they can't be everywhere and claiming every objective.  But baiting and pinning them in combat, you can sweep in and claim the objectives.  Sure, you will take more damage than he did, but you will win the game.

It's the TO's prerogative to change the rules however he damned well pleases. They're his points to award, his prizes [the Human "he", not to gender discriminate] his shop, his sand box, his choice. If people don't like it, they won't go to the tournament.
And that is what it really comes down to:  their tournament, their rules.  I've voiced my opinion to the organizer, and there is a good possibility that I will voice my opinion further by not attending a tournament that I have gone to semi-annually for 8 years.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Dangerousdave0042

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Country: gb
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
  • Armies: Imperial Guard, Blood Angels and Tyranids
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2015, 01:35:05 AM »
Kind of hammering a dead fish but
But where do you draw the line at what is and is not broken?
Exactly. Ban one thing, and the next level down will become the new broken. If someone desperately wants to win and bring a WAAC list, they'll bring the best WAAC list possible in the constraints you have given them.

I was at BAO 2015 and out of the five games I only faced one list that I would describe at WAAC. When I said I was playing Nids I got the "oh no five Flyrants response" to which I responded "I refuse to be that person - I have one Flyrant in my list".

At the end of the day, do what you think is right and what you feel will work for your local meta in any changes to the rules. It's the people that make broken lists and they'll do it to the absolute limit of the boundaries you set if they are that way inclined. There is no way you can cover every possible scenario of WAAC list building across every codex or every combination of codexes - so maybe the answer is don't try? Some will bring fluffy lists. Some will bring competitive lists. Some will try to bring the most WAAC list they can achieve.

The "change" to the 2+ re-rollable save has never been an issue as our group knows that it's kind of off-limits to go there in our games, but I changed the rule so that if someone wanted to try it out, or somethings just happened to stack to make it so then it was "covered".

Slightly off topic, but I wouldn't say no to getting rid of all re-rolls. Re-rolling a 5+ is fine (but why not just make it a 4+ then - the odds are similar), but it's where you get 3+ re-rolling 1s or 2+ re-rolls that the benefits get exponential. I would rather use (eg) D10s, and the roll is improved by 1 or 2, but could never be better than 2+, so there is always at least, no matter how many bonuses you get, a 10% chance of failing as there are no rerolls allowed.
Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2015, 08:11:01 PM »
I guess my point is that making the game reasonable is good. Yes, that means that one person decides what that"reasonable" is, but given the other option, I think you're in just fine territory.

If you want to play 99% by the rules, but find that 98% is unacceptable, that's your call. I guess I don't see much difference between what you've expressed as "good for the tournament" and what's "not ok, because it changes the game too much."

Online Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2015, 08:22:43 PM »
Now let's add a bit of a spin to things.  I was talking with some of the guys at my LGS, including one of the original organizers of this tournament.  He mentioned that his recommendation to the current group of guys running thigns was to send an email out to past participants and do a poll to find out people's opinions, or to arrange a group of guys that are up on their rules to find out what they think.

Would you guys think that is an acceptable approach, or would you still go with the organizer making the call on his own?
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2015, 08:29:45 PM »
Listen to opinions and options, but there still has to be a final arbitrator else your tourny rules will look like founding of the League of Nations.
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Tournaments changing rules - your thoughts?
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2015, 08:42:17 PM »
Yes, much better to have the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

I'm always in favour of gathering the opinions of those involved. In highschool... holy amphetamine parrot that's half a lifetime ago! I used to love DM'ing, and part of that was always about making sure a group with widely varying tastes in RPG's could have a good time.

I'd say the same applies to running a tournament. The only trouble with a small group of people "confronting" individuals for their opinions is that a group of people are intimidating to voice contrary opinions to. So one-on-oneing would be a better way to go, to get real opinions. Also best to phrase the questions as neutrally as possible.

"Don't you hate this nerf to D?" isn't very neutral. "What do you think of the changes proposed to D weapons?" is much less loaded. It lets them answer without being partisan.

So yeah. If you can get the opinions of everyone involved, or at least a respected senate of the elders, that would be best. But it's not my tournament, so my opinion matters as much as the wall's. If the guy running it is open to input, polling the people is a good start. But if he says, "beslubberya, I do what I want!" it's his prerogative.

If there's a large group, with widely varied tastes, he might not be able to come up with something that everyone will like, in which case taking a poll is just going to piss people off. "Why'd he ask if we're just gonna get this amphetamine parrot-show of a rules package, anyway?"

I was recently watching an episode of TED in which the presenter explained that people without a choice often can synthesize happiness in the situation they're in, where as people with choice tend to dwell on what could be better. This might be one of those situations where acceptance leads to happiness. Not that I'm much of one to talk about accepting something you're unhappy with... but I'm told by experts that it's a better way to live. :)

 


Powered by EzPortal