galahad911

So you would rather play with a broken rule set and not even attempt to make things better for no other reason than they were the original author? It seems exceptionally silly to me to just accept things only taking 1 wound in 36, or not being able to target them at all, or fighting 20-30 D weapons just because they wrote them. GW is bad at writing rules. The first step to fixing a problem is realizing there is one. And the 2+ reroll change, and the invisibility change, and the D weapon change affect everyone too. You won't give any specifics beyond those that I asked for so those have to be the ones that are the issue. It's not like there are armies that are not having those changes applied to them.

Wait, so you've seen what GW has been doing with their "rules" over the last couple years and you're going to stand on their being the only ones good enough to write them? And completely ignore the point that the *completely* arbitrary comp that is put on the event is quite literally the exact same concept with the only difference being that ITC actually tells you what's not okay, whereas what causes people to complain about "beardy" lists is wildly different from person to person. What exactly is the difference between the rules changes made for this particular format and the rules changes to army construction you place on people so that you won't call them names like "cheesy asshat filthmongers"?

I'm looking at Mont'Ka right now, it doesn't say that. It's a PDF that I can't cut and paste, but it says what you have there word for word except it says "instead of the Signature Systems..." Did they update the digital FSE codex and not say anything? Because that's a crazy big change that is contradicted in the very recent Mont'Ka book.

That's a non answer. You have a personal issue with the concept but have no real specific things you can point to and say that's the problem. If you think getting rid of 2+ rerolls and changing Invisibility made the game worse then I can't think you and I are even playing the same game. I know I don't want to fight things that only fail 1 save in 36 or just can't be targeted or hurt by anything respectively. I know I don't want to play games where the D chart hasn't been changed and Eldar armies *easily* bring 20 D weapons and obliterate my army in 2 shooting phases. Beyond those I can't think I one actual rule change that strongly and adversely affected any particular army, hence why I'm looking for what the problem is. What's particularly humorous to me is that imposing "rules" on players to avoid "beardy" lists is changing the rules of the game in exactly the same way and the changes in this format. They've just been itemized so everyone knows what they are, rather than the line moving from one person's opinion of what's cheesy to the next. Thanks anyway though. I wish I were surprised.

I don't so much want to clutter up this thread, but this didn't get answered as far as I saw and I am genuinely interested. If you and/or Alex wouldn't mind starting another thread, in the 40k forum maybe, I would appreciate it. I am honestly trying to understand your point of view here. Not trying to pick an argument or anything like that.

Did something somewhere change and make it so Farsight models can take the Special Equipment from the Empire book? I know for sure that before you couldn't make a buffmander with a FSE guy because you didn't have access to the CnC node or the MSSS as a Farsight Enclaves guy.

I keep seeing things like this said by you guys on this board. What rulings, *specifically* are "Encouraging beardy players and lists"? What changes *specifically* make the game more complicated? Because I am simply not seeing either of those things. I can understand not wanting to keep up with changes, but that certainly has little to nothing to do with cheese or complicatedness, and everything to do with either not caring enough, or not motivated enough, to read some words on a website. Lastly, hoping that players will decide to lower the "power ceiling" on their own is nothing short of naive. What you, or anyone else, thinks is beardy is completely arbitrary. Looking down on others and calling them names like "cheesy asshat filthmongers" because they don't see the game in the same way you do really makes you, not you specifically but a general "you" attributed to the people making these statements, look you like the [Clown].

What rulings specifically in their FAQ bother you so much that you would refuse to go to an event this important to the region? What has got you all worked up?

How exactly do you enforce not being a cheesemonger? Acting like a person who may have a different interpretation of a rule to your own is automatically a person who is trying to get one over on you is incredibly short sighted and really comes off badly. Having to call judges for the many, MANY rules that are read differently by different people gets really out of hand when you get into running event beyond the local level.

You'll get to play 3 games, even if you lose them all. :D

You can take the HQ guy that has an upgrade to a stompa and it's far less than that. I want to say in the neighborhood of 500 something points or there abouts.

List 2 without a doubt

Question: In the Space Marine formation Librarius Conclave, the rules say that the non nominated librarians cannot manifest until the end of the psychic phase. Does that mean that they cannot manifest powers in that phase at all or is there a space in time where they regain their powers to manifest before the phase actually ends? There is a paragraph on pg. 17 of the BRB that refers to beginning and end of phases. Do the rules in this paragraph allow these librarians manifest at the end of the phase? Answer: No they do not manifest that turn There we go. I hate trying to cut paste with my phone.

So I just today got an email in response to this from Frankie from FLG. I'm doing this with my phone, and I can cut/paste later, but his answer is that the other librarians do not manifest that turn. Do with that whatever you want.

I'll just leave this here... http://www.pcgamer.com/playing-fallout-4-without-ever-leaving-sanctuary/?utm_content=bufferbd193&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer_pcgfb

Come on guys! No one has said anything about how it went as far as who won, and what lists were played or anything. Get on the ball here!

Don't get me wrong, just among friends, what's the harm? And you can ask the guy running it if you happen to find yourself at a tournament or event or whatever. What's the worst they can say?

Way to not address anything but those 7 words. If I'm soooo very obtuse, then answer the question I posed, enlighten me. Of course you won't, because then you'd just look like an ass who wants to call someone slow and not back it up when you get called out for it. Here it is again jackass. If I'm so very obtuse, then answer the questions posed. No one is talking about people getting angry enough at the ITC to get out the pitchforks but you. But yet you responded to MrMoreTanks' post like he did, and when I asked WTF are you talking about, you called me slow. So tell me, who else was talking about that? Are you just talking to yourself? Because no one else has even suggested that anyone is getting that upset about these rulings. And, again, what in the post you quoted prompted you to talk about how you voted on that rule? Because, again, you called me slow, so I'm really wanting to know what I missed. Because it sure looks like he was talking about how he, and what he thinks to be the majority of the players who have rules go against them, does when a rule goes the other way, adapt to overcome. So I asked you why you just, seemingly arbitrarily, decided to throw out there that you voted with the majority, and you call me slow. You know, instead of being an [Clown], you could just answer the question. And lastly, this is why your suggestion does not hold water. If you only do rulings on things that are not contentious, which if you get a super majority the question by definition is not contentious, then there is no point in doing the FAQ in the first place. Answering all the questions we already agree on, and never answering anything we don't agree on because you will never get some arbitrary margin of victory defeats the purpose of doing it in the first place. FFS, it's been said several times, and not just by me. So even though you have been commenting without actually reading my posts, you should have seen it when the other people said the same damn thing. Not that you've said anything at all in response to this issue. I guess it's just to much to ask that you to actually address the content of a post, when it's so much easier to call someone slow and act like you're oh so much smarter than the guy you're insulting.

He wants there to be a super majority for the result of the vote to be enacted. Despite the fact that several people have pointed out that if that was the way they did it, there would never be any resolution to votes that are even mildly debated, because if that much of the overall community agreed in the first place, there would be no contention about how to play it. So we would have a FAQ with answers that everyone already agreed upon before the question was asked, and we would vote ad infinitum on the things that actually need to be answered, never getting the margin of victory he seems to think we should have to answer any question. But since he just wants TOs to rule on stuff by their whim, and for there to be no uniformly accepted way for the tournament community at large to play disputed rules, that would fit his agenda.

He didn't say anything about people with pitchforks. But you did earlier... Are you talking to yourself? He was saying that he didn't think 49% of the people were angry. He's saying of the people who voted the other way, it is highly unlikely that anywhere close to 49% of them are actually angry about it going the other way. He wasn't talking at all about a grab your pitchfork, let's throw down the Lord situation. That's only you talking about that. What made you feel like you needed to say, for like the 4th or 5th time, that this vote didn't go against you? What in his post prompted that comment? That was the source of my confusion. What was said that would prompt that response? I can't see how what you thought of that particular rule had any relevance to his having had votes go against him, and his adapting to overcome, and that the majority of players do the same. Lastly, it's really easy to be obtuse when you're reacting to someone who's talking to themselves and throwing out random "I didn't vote that way" comments that have nothing at all to do with the post they quoted.

How...? What? Just one vote? What are you talking about? How does that response pertain to the post you quoted?? He didn't say anything at all about how you voted. WTF are you reading? He says that it's unrealistic to think that 49% of the people who had votes go against them got angry about the results, and then spoke about himself, and how he responds to a vote not going his way and his opinion that that is the way the majority of those people respond. What the hell does any of that have to do with how you voted?

You cannot possibly be reading what I actually wrote, and coming up with this response. You can't be that slow. I said in the second part that I brought up the painting as AN EXAMPLE of you wanting to know how something in being handled before you go to an event and that that is just the same as someone wanting to know how a rule is going to be handled going into an event, and to show that it can and does affect whether or not someone goes to said event. Acting like you have earlier in this thread that anyone showing up to a tournament and having a ruling sprung on them and that having a negative effect on their enjoyment of the event is a munchkin, or relying on shenanigans is BS. I've never had that happen to me, and I still found it insulting that you would make that kind of generalization. I wrote that it was the same as your painting thing, and it is. I never said you based attendance on ITC, and acting like I did makes me believe that you didn't actually read what was written and then acted like my post made no sense. You know you might want to read a post before saying things like that.Here's what I said even, you can see it again. I only use this example because you, yourself have said on several occasions that this issue has discouraged you from going to events in much the same was as you say others have said that they did or did not want to attend an event based on what ITC rulings are going to be in effect at an event. "example" "much the same as others" So saying I said you do anything in relation to ITC... Yeah, you really didn't read what I wrote. Awesome. Great job! You absolutely did say, in this thread, that people are only voting in their own self interests, and when someone questioned it, you said some sarcastic crap about people being saints. Hyperbole much? You've also made that statement in other threads. Acting like the votes are pointless because people only vote in their own armies interest. Acting like you haven't taken that stand on more than one occasion is disingenuous at best, and a flat out lie at worst. If the Tau opponents outnumbering Tau players was the only reason the coordinated fire result came out the way it did, like you just said, then why did the experimental rules vote go the way it did? Why did the Stormsurge vote go the way it did? Why did the Blood Angles formations get voted to allow first turn charges in the vote before if it's purely self interest driving votes? I can assure you that BA players are incredibly outnumbered, but the vote passed by a HUGE margin. Or the DA characters that buy bikes getting the Ravenwing rule vote, again a HUGE margin, when again there aren't enough DA players to really act like it was only DA players that voted that way. The votes have proven, time and again, that the community in general is voting for the health of the game. I would venture to guess that the vote on coordinated firepower had FAR more to do with how effing nuts it would be for buffmander to work on your whole hunter cadre than it had to do with, "Well I don't play Tau, so eff those guys!" No, explaining your point in this thread doesn't mean you hate ITC, but the whole of your bitching about ITC posts sure does. You've gone on and on, at length, in multiple threads about how you hate ITC, and their rulings are terrible, and the votes are rigged, etc etc etc. Acting like you don't post that way, again, disingenuous at best, and acting like you're oh so innocent in this post is just plain ridiculous. And yet, you still dodge the question that I, and at least 2 other people have asked you... If you have to have a super majority to get a ruling, then no rules that are actually contentious will ever get ruled on, as if there was that much of a majority ruling on the question, IT WOULDN'T BE CONTENTIOUS! So what you're actually saying is that you just want to go back to TOs at individual events making rulings on everything. If that's what we're doing, then what is the point in doing an ITC FAQ at all? Needing that much of a margin means nothing get ruled on and we're back to square one. Of course, with your ITC hate, I guess that's great for you! Obviously the vast majority of the tournament going community as a whole does not agree with you on that and would rather know how things are going to be done before they plan to go.

So, if you did things your way, any truly contentious question would never get an answer across the whole event series. If that's what you want, then what is the point in doing it in the first place? No truly contentious question is going to have a wide margin, because it's contentious!

If paint doesn't affect gameplay and doesn't follow this discussion, then why would you yourself allow paint scores to discourage your attendance? It is the same damn thing. You have several events. Half of the events make paint scores rule you out of the running as described by yourself, the other half does not. But with each individual TO making a decision on this particular point, you don't know which events you don't want to go to because of your feeling of being a donor, as described by yourself. Getting a decision on this particular issue with a vote, even if it's by a 50.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% margin, then you know before entries are paid, before armies are painted to a sub standard level, before travel and hotel rooms are booked. You get your answer and can plan accordingly for roughly 3-4 months time rather than having a different answer in every other event you go to because the vote was split 50/50. I only use this example because you, yourself have said on several occasions that this issue has discouraged you from going to events in much the same was as you say others have said that they did or did not want to attend an event based on what ITC rulings are going to be in effect at an event. For the third time, it very much looks like you have predetermined that anything ITC does is bad, regardless of how they do it. They could do anything at all, and you would poo-poo it because it came from them. You seemingly base your reasons on things that are demonstrably false, for instance saying that votes are cast purely in the voter's best interest and not for the health of the game. When in fact, there has been multiple times that a vote has gone in favor of making armies stronger that certainly don't have the player base for it have only been people who play those armies to have voted for those buffs. It makes you appear petty.

So you'd rather not know if painting is going to rule you out until you get there and talk to the guy running it? That's seems contrary to your other posts about that, and is much the same situation. Really, what this comes down to is that you don't like ITC. It doesn't matter what they do, or why. If they do anything at all, you don't like it. That's entirely your prerogative, but like I said in the post you largely ignored, it makes you appear petty. If you're cool with that, then more power to you I guess.