http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nWuzfQBRoN...gamescon-3.jpg
WARGamesCon returns in 2015 for a 7th year (can you believe it)?
More information can be found on the official website at http://www.wargamescon.com
Printable View
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nWuzfQBRoN...gamescon-3.jpg
WARGamesCon returns in 2015 for a 7th year (can you believe it)?
More information can be found on the official website at http://www.wargamescon.com
When you plan to post the WFB Rules?
Lol
As soon as the locals decide they want a tournament, from what I've heard.
It was pointed out to me today how bad the ITC faq is. I was fine with their army selection restrictions now that they've at least revised it, but they throw in some very arbitrary changes to the games rules in their FAQ. Unlike Adepticon, they also don't distinguish between stuff that is there to clarify ambiguity or RAW, and major parts of the game they just decided to change arbitrarily because they think it will help balance...so you can't tell what they just felt like changing and what they actually got wrong about the RAW. There are some nasty surprises in there that might really hurt some armies if they don't comb through the FAQ carefully before War Games Con.
Welcome to Reece Hammer.
Yeah I don't really want to comb. Tweet the deets on what you've found!
I talked to Frontline via their FB page and it turns out it's not their fault; they adopted the Adepticon 7th ed. FAQ which has a few holes in it (though IDK to what extent the Frontline people maybe had input on that FAQ).
I think there are a handful of things other people are looking at and are skeptical about, but I haven't really followed that; for me the thing that sticks out like a huge sore thumb is that the Adepticon FAQ has a component that is a mistake by RAW that is a huge blow to Daemon armies, which is the main thing I bring to a serious tournament and was what I had been practicing for WGC.
I originally thought this was some arbitrary stealth balance change that had been implemented by Frontline even though it contradicts the rulebook, but on the Adepticon FAQ it says: "Players should pay special attention to bullets that begin with, “For ease of tournament play, at this event...” These bullet s repr esent the most significant clarifications and in some instances direct changes to the existing rules." ...and this change doesn't have that qualify, so that means the Adepticon people just got the wrong rule.
The change in question is:
That's completely in contradiction to the Psychic Focus and Chaos Psychic Focus rules in the case of Chaos Daemon Psykers (though as everyone knows, CSM are forced in their codex to generate at least 1 roll on those tables). It's a huge kick in the gut to Chaos Daemon armies with summoning, and to an extent also to flying circus armies. This single-handily means I will probably not bother bringing the army I've spent the last few months practicing and finishing the sculpting/magnetizing on.Quote:
"A Psyker with a Mark of Chaos or a Daemon of a particular God cannot benefit from the general Psychic Focus rule."
I had thought this issue was settled within a week or two of 7th being released and people realizing that both rules apply to CDs, and no tournament I've been to in the last year in any 3 TX cities did it otherwise. So it was a real shock to see today that this was in the Adepticon FAQ.
Nick they saw you practicing and decided you were OP and banhammered your ass!
The ITC FAQ is like the old INAT FAQ with almost the same people on the council. As far as I know it is the only tournament FAQ out there.
Who doesn't like having ML2 psykers with 5 powers?
I'll have white cake.
No john, bad.
That ones deader than the price point on your OOP wraithlord
Yeah, that's about what I figured.
Besides that in any army's case I'm generally against incorrectly breaking the RAW when there's no "interpretation" to be made on rule that's unambiguous when read carefully, in practical game terms, it has a hugely detrimental effect if you're playing summoning with heralds and horrors (as I said, to the point of not even bothering to bring your best tournament army that you've been practicing and modeling).
By the RAW, the Heralds will get 3 roll on malefic on top of the summoning, which means much higher chances to get cursed earth and incursion, which are key (you are going to have a very hard time if you don't have some units that can cast these in addition to the primaris each turn). Not only do you get 1 less malefic power per herald under the FAQ change thanks to having to burn 1 for the summoning primaris, but you are less likely to get the powers you need on the 2 remaining powers because you have to give up one of the bad powers for Summoning which means you can roll that one a second time instead of re-rolling for the ones you need.
For horrors it's even worse - you only get 1 roll on malefic, so under the FAQ change to the focus powers, now they have to burn it up for the primaris. All of the sudden you never have horrors casting summoning + incursion or summoning + cursed earth anymore from those units, which is crippling. Overall an army that's already pretty dependent on chance for power generation and casting has way less access to generating two key powers, and will have less units capable of casting those spells. So that's the problem for Daemon players with changing the Psychic Focus rule.
This is a good point. The 6th edition mechanic for Horrors is just generally outdated for 7th Psyker rules, to the player's detriment....hey look I spent all the points on getting them to be 3 warp charges a turn. What's that, you only roll based on mastery? So just once? Hooray.
If only they had updated the CSM and CD books instead of starting in with all the Daemonkin stuff :-( we'll see if there's a Tzeentch book that improves things or not.
I didn't said it made the army "unplayable," I said it was crippling to the point of where I probably won't bother bringing it to a tournament even though under RAW it's my favorite and best-performing army. I've played with CD summoning psykers at a bunch of tournaments ranging from the first big one of 7th (WGC last year) to a big tournament two weeks ago, across three different cities under various metas with all the new stuff coming out every month. So I think I have more than even experience and practice to judge the extent of how much this impacts CD Psykers and competitiveness.
Any rules that stop you from putting more models on the table and maybe finish a game, Im all for that!
My problem with the faq in general is that it obviously is considering how to nerf/limit certain builds or tactics but not others. However, instead of just outright saying so, these generalized changes or interpretations are given. I assume this is in the spirit of appearing to be objective, but it isn't really. My opinion is if an event wants to specifically not allow certain things, they should just require early list submission and deny things they don't want, so it gets returned with a suggestion of what would meet approval. At least then there is honesty to the subjectivity. And people would say it requires too much work, but really it probably would be only about a minute or two for each list I would guess.
List submission is a terrible time sink. Yes, it may be only two minutes per list, but players end up submitting multiple lists, especially if you tell them you don't like something. Even if it is two minutes, that's almost 7 hours of work for 200 person tournament. It just isn't worth it.
I see the point, but at 200 participants paying $55 each, assuming a time valuation of 50 per hour, $350 out of 11000 is a small part of operational budget. Plus there are options to have evaluations done anonymously via the group of participants and setting a threshhold.
My main point was, the faq seems geared to prohibit only specific perceived abuses which is inherently subjective and arbitrary. I just take personal issue with the veneer of objectivity being used. I have no problem with subjective limitations if it reflects the will of the participating majority, but it should be explicit: we don't want XYZ to be able to do PQR etc. But LMN are ok.
I despise LMN!