INAT 4...2 very interesting and distubing things

[MajorSoB]

daboyzgt.wordpress.com/warhammer-40k/

By the way, I didnt write this but I do agree with it. To run a tournament in a way that conflicts with this mission statement would make us hypocrites. For the record, I have been called a lot of things but I will not be called a hypocrite.

[chumbalaya]

Jun 29, 2010 3:30:15 GMT -5 Iron Warrior said:

No and I suppose you agree that every unit in a codex, though legal (no kidding thier in the codex, no need to say this) is fair and has a justified point cost...just becase GW says so. To think that is rather niave of you.

Not all, but most. There is no uber unit that breaks the game, we'd have known about that by now. Older books have units that are inherently better in 5th ed, but that comes from being written for an outdated ruleset. The more recent Codices have a wide variety of viable units and builds. Just because something looks good on paper doesn't mean it is going to be as useful on the tabletop. Player skill trumps lists any day anyway. This whole mentality you've got about SCs is a relic of 3rd and 4th, get with the times bud.

Certain unique characters are not over powered like the ones you mention and im am certain many players would not mind seeing them played. Some characters are grossly over powered or under costed like other units in the game. One takes these SCs to gain a certain advantage thier other HQs dont provide. In some instances this advantage can be game deciding pr play a big factor in the games they play. Some players will build around the characters special rules and advantages while this may be ideal and even considered clever or smart, it may be game turning or breaking depending on the characters chosen. 2 such chosen SCs well...lets say it doesnt make much for a fun game.

Which characters? There are a lot of useful force multipliers, but they all have their costs and downsides. Somebody who pays 200+ points for a 3 wound IC should expect some kind of return. Of course some SCs provide advantages other HQs don't, otherwise they wouldn't be options. How is it any more game deciding than, say, fielding an entire mechanized army or tripling up on your Heavy Support? 2 SCs brings in diminishing returns quickly. Spend 500 points on 2 single models, then you won't have much of an army for them to support.

You do not need a SC to make an army. It is not a requirement, the force org does not say 1+ SCs.

Deathwing, Ravenwing, Loganwing, Bloodwing. Care to try again?

Lets even steer this a little back on topic. I Dont care who are or how good you think you are as a player, Snickrot and Ghazkul running rampant in your back lines is not something many player can deal with. I personally, if I were on the "council" for the INAT would have taken a better look at that ruling. I find it grossly misworded and misinterprested. That one sounds like it either slipped past them or allowed to be approved by an apathetic vote. My opinion.

And they won't learn unless they face it rather than cry and try to nerf/ban it. It's legal, it's in the rules, it's something you should prepare for. Like others have said before, mech up and stay mobile or wrap your army in protective sacrificial units to eat any charges and kill the overpriced Boyz unit.

I would like to point out, no one ever said that EVERY special Character is overpowered. Lets keep the "blanket statements" to a minimum pls and thanks. Unless we make a list saying what charas are allowed and not allowed (which is assinine) The only way to limit or rein in the use of the powerful or under costed SCs out there is to limit the number.

So, the only way to limit a few is to screw them all? Isn't that a blanket statement/action right there? How do you know they are undercosted? I trust GW a hell of a lot more than I trust any one person or group of people trying to "fix" the game by twisting it to fit their own biases.

Also remember and take this into consideration. The number one complaint last year was the appearance of all the SCs out there. I dont think SCs were taken into much consideration last year when comp was concerned. Im not sure as I didnt judge it last year. We are trying to improve on this based on our feedback we recived last year. Why would you think we are hobbling to anyone when we are just trying to make better our commitment to improve our tournament each year. The alternative to limiting the number of SCs would be large point loss per SC used. I would suspect seeing either one of those implemented. *cough*

Then I'm embarrassed for those people. Whine and cry, it's way easier than becoming a better player.

Limiting options cuts back on the variety of armies you'll see. If SCs take a hit just because they're SCs, then I see no reason to bring Deathwing or Ravenwing, an already underpowered, fluff bunny army. Though I'd consider Loganwing and Bloodwing competitive as any other army out there, they take it in the shorts right off the bat for no good reason other than somebody is scared of Vulkan. That's weak.

[Iron Warrior]

Simple solution for you Chumby, dont come to the GT if you dont like it. The tournament is not for everyone to like. We realise that there are those that will not be pleased no matter what is done, you apparently stand among those few.

Im not going to discuss this with you becuase there are too many "what if" scenarios and "If this Then that" statments. You have your opinion, and thats all it is, and I have mine which happens to coecide with DaBoyz who are running the tournament.

How about trying to step out of your comfort zone my friend and try new things before you go and knock it? (that sounds familar doesnt it?) You make this huge fuss over a single SC selection, its really laughable that you seem unable to cope with using only one SC. I see some SCs as a crutch, I can use the regular list without any SCs and still end up beating my opponent, why cant you? Not that it much matters, all the torunaments you said you were going to you have never shown up to. So why should I concern myself with someone that to me seems just to complain for the sake of complaining and more than likely will not show? *shurgs* I dont think I should.

Perhaps we should put this, DaBoyz Philosphy on the front page of the GT packet becuase im a getting tired of explaining this again and again to people who seem to not get it.
daboyzgt.wordpress.com/warhammer-40k/

[chumbalaya]

Make me a Deathwing, Loganwing, or Bloodwing army without a SC and get back to me. I'm fine not using them, but I have to in order to make my army work. Have to, it's required. Required. No option. Thanks for playing.

[Garou24]

Jun 29, 2010 13:27:32 GMT -5 chumbalaya said:

Make me a Deathwing, Loganwing, or Bloodwing army without a SC and get back to me. I'm fine not using them, but I have to in order to make my army work. Have to, it's required. Required. No option. Thanks for playing.

You can bring a SC for your loganwing army. They GT event managers were just discussing limiting it to one SC. Not two. Either way its been stated from the beginning that the GT will have comp and painting and might limit SCs. This is bases on popular demand from players at last years GT. So obviously most of the GT player feel its needed. Not all, but most. You can't please all, but we try to please most. Chumbalya you known this from the beginning. Please accept the fact this is the way the GT will be run. After reading your posts and a couple others I know myself and a couple other players are planning on attending just the apocalypse game if we attend the GT at all. I like the way the GTs have been run in the past and don't want to have to deal with this drama or deal with players complaining durning games or afterwards over why they didn't win etc. Blah blah.

By complaining and arguing with the GT planets and other players you putting yourself in a bad light and adding negativity to the GT event. This is supposed to be a fun event. I know from reading your posts I would not want to play a game against you at the GT. So maybe accept the rules of the GT and focus on creating an army that will work well in the GT guidelines. Because all the arguing and comments being thrown around on the boards are only hurting. Not helping.

[chumbalaya]

No negativity here, only constructive criticism and discussion. If you interpret any disagreement as negative, then going to a GT is the least of your problems. If you want to avoid an entire event because I dissent with you over the interwebs, then you haven't met me IRL. Seriously, I don't bite, I just have strong feelings on this matter.

I want to go to the GT, I'm part of this community just like you. I'll have my say and back it up because it needs to be said. You can't please everyone, but spitefully trying to hurt people's chances is not cool. Even worse is inadvertently hurting somebody else because they don't fit in your personal view of things. There's a lot more to the hobby than just crashing two short bus armies into each other and giving out participation awards. You can have competition without the expense of sportsmanship and fun, you can rewards smart play and list building in addition to painting and converting skill or fluff-fu. Just look at Nova, it's got something for every aspect of the hobby.

Even if SCs only get a slap on the wrist compwise, how is that justified for every SC out there? I'll dredge up Deathwing again, how do they get an automatic comp hit? Because they're forced to field a mediocre IC and handicap themselves with a subpar Codex and fewer options? Even if somebody wants to field 2 SCs, what of it? It's the same as fielding 2 Land Raiders or 2 big units of Nobs, lots of points sunk into a few models that can be countered by good play and balanced armies. Isn't sinking 500 points into 2 ICs punishment enough?

There are no imbalances that need fixing, any attempt to do so ends up making things worse. Don't think about Space Wolves and IG, think about Dark Angels and Daemon Hunters. Any restrictions you place hurt the older armies more than any, simple because they don't have the sheer array of options available to get around things. Make any comp restrictions and IG, SM, SW, BA and Tyranids can work around it easily. Think of the older, more limited armies, and how badly they get hurt by even the most basic restrictions.

[Timbo]

Jun 29, 2010 15:01:10 GMT -5 Garou24 said:

After reading your posts and a couple others I know myself and a couple other players are planning on attending just the apocalypse game if we attend the GT at all. I like the way the GTs have been run in the past and don't want to have to deal with this drama or deal with players complaining durning games or afterwards over why they didn't win etc. Blah blah.

Don't take the arguments of a few individuals to represent the feelings of everyone running/playing in the GT. I've played at most of the tournaments in the Rochester area over the past year, and I've never once encountered the negative aspects you speak about. It's mostly just internet blabbering, and I'm sure the GT itself is going to be a blast. Don't be deterred by folks arguing in circles on the internet.

Jun 29, 2010 15:01:10 GMT -5 Garou24 said:

By complaining and arguing with the GT planets and other players you putting yourself in a bad light and adding negativity to the GT event.

I agree with this. Excessive arguing in a public forum that is linked to the GT website reflects poorly on the event.

Jun 29, 2010 15:01:10 GMT -5 Garou24 said:

I know from reading your posts I would not want to play a game against you at the GT.

I have actually played against him in real life, and I had absolutely no troubles. In fact, our game was a ton of fun. Everyone's making mountains out of mole hills here.

[Ranger Dude]

Jun 29, 2010 16:34:45 GMT -5 Timbo said:

Everyone's making mountains out of mole hills here.

Which, unfortunately, seems to be a constant on the net.

Chumba, you seem to think the organizers are making these decisions purely to screw some people over. The fact is that they have chosen to run an event in the format that they, and most of the people attending, prefer. IT may not be the same as other tournaments, but that is sort of the point. Being different gives us a draw that other tournaments don't have. It also gives variety to the challenges you can face by allowing tournament goers to be able to enjoy many different tournament formats. You disagree with the philosophy, and we all get it. But at this point you are repeating the same arguments ad nauseum and it is getting old. You've made your point. It's been heard, and the decision has been made despite it. Move on to something else.

No offense intended. I'll happily face you across a table if I can ever get away from the family for a time. This is true of anyone.

[Horst]

chumbalaya, your mistaken if you think there is a strict immutable comp rubric. It states what the judges may remove points for.... keyword is MAY remove points for. Just because the rubric states they may remove 1 or 2 points for a special character doesn't mean they will. In fact, its their judgment call on the character in question.

so, if the character is belial of the deathwing, then no comp hit would be taken for choosing him, so long as your army is deathwing and not just a single unit of deathwing taken with other troops + grey knight terminators, or a mixed jumble like that. If your fielding vulkan, in a list with alot of bikers / speeders (sallies fluff says their homeworld has high gravity, so bikers / speeders aren't really used because of that), then yes, your taking a comp hit. If your fielding vulkan, in a list with lots of veterans, armor, and meltas / flamers (I.E., a fluffy salamanders list), and your fluff is stated that your either a salamanders army or a salamanders based chapter, then your probably NOT taking a very large comp hit, if any at all.

If your taking eldrad in your list, and you have nothing but wraithguard as troops, then d**n right your taking a comp hit. If you have eldrad in a guardian heavy ulthwe list, then fine, your not taking a very big comp hit, if any at all, because thats where he's supposed to be. I know you can rationalize anything, or say the special character is representing someone from your craftworld, but I see that as a cop-out excuse to power game, and so do many people from this group. If you want to use a named character, either use him in the army he's named to, or don't use him at all. None of this "counts-as" bs. It was a mistake on GW's part to write that anywhere, and its a mistake we are correcting here and now, with our tournament.

The characters that actually change what you can have as troops (warbosses, logan, SM captains, mekboys, Kantor to an extent, belial, samiel, and death company for dreads... I think thats all) are all sufficiently vague or generic that you can field them in a variety of armies, without having to resort to the counts-as cop-out, so that isn't a valid argument as to why you need special characters, or the counts-as rules.