Aaron Bang

That's where we fundamentally differ. You see, to most of the folks in this region, the highest award in a tournament is Best Sportsman, which is to say, you played 3-5 guys in a competitive environment and they all thought you were pretty cool afterwards.

I'm sorry--you're still not getting my point, and I apologize for not communicating it to you well. Again, nothing in my posts about social contracts, either. The only thing socially I've expressed is my opinion on taking them. Of course you are correct in saying what you are saying about ITC and the restricted listings and agree that it is the better way to handle things. Again, I think you are missing my point. At this point, I'm not sure if I can communicate with you the point I'm trying to make, except to ask what do you consider the top award of a 40K tournament?

I am doing no railing at all here. However I do, in fact, think that taking those LoW's does detract from your and Alex's victories, though, because the playing field was not even, sorry. I've said nothing about being cheesy or complained about the elder codex. The only point I'm making is that the playing field was not even, and because of that, the victory was lessened, in my opinion. You could have just as easily won without, I believe, and you wouldn't have had people wanting to slash your tires afterwards. Those are cool dice, by the way.

I never said that. I just suggested that the playing field be leveled, that's all. also, if you play any ITC format tournament, there is a list of banned units that is far longer. this is the first mention by me of banning.

Not, just saying to consider not using Super heavies or Gargantuan.

Right, sorry, forgot those two. Still see very little impact to the meta with those dropped.

There are only two codices that currently have a super heavy or gargantuan creature as a lord of war, though. The meta probably should have disallowed the two super heavies, imo, to level the playing field. It hardly would have hamstringed either the Orks or the Eldar without them. Incidentally, that still would have left both Eldar and Orks with LoW choices (Avatar and Ghazkhul), and would have saved Joe headache and having AP to have to look over his shoulder as he was taking his $200 worth of loot to his car. :)

Sean, you misunderstand my intent. I am not arguing your composition or legality. What I am saying is, that *you* chose to bring that list becuase you could. Trying to say that it wasn't your fault because it was allowed in the rules of the tournament is valid to a point, however *you* are the one that chose to bring it, so you, too, share the responsibility of using that list. It's a WAAC list, pure and simple. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the list you brought detracts from your victory and reputation as a good general because it was so WAAC, and I hope that the mutterings and nasty commentary that you were hearing from people after seeing and playing against your list might act as a personal lesson to you about playing that way in the future. I don't think in this case that it was just sour grapes, because I'd say at least 2/3rds of the armies there couldn't deal with even a single Superheavy or Gargantuan Creature, as evidenced by the top winning lists (so maybe the estimate should have been more like 100% of the armies couldn't deal with it?). As I said before, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

I'd like to add just one more thing to this. It has been suggested by Abusepuppy that his ability to field the 3 WK's is not his responsibility, but rather that of the rules of the game. There is some merit to this, however, there is also the idea of 'just because you can doesn't mean you should.'. In 4th edition, I played the Iron Warriors. I won with them. Over and over again, I won. I got to the point where my army was pretty much placed on the table and I would let it do it's thing. It's this way with the Elder, Tau, and Neurons now. There is no real strategy to it--your armies do what they do, they do it consistently, and they do it very well. Personally, and I hope that you take it this way, not as a criticism of your game play, I got bored with that style of play, which led me to choose an underpowered army as a challenge for 5th and 6th edition--Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum. This of course led me to the Militarum Tempests. Long story short, there is a challenge to those armies which do not have a "place on table, win game' approach, and I have found that my opponents have a much better experience too. Point is, it is not all on the tournament organizer or the rules to make sure that you have a list that isn't going to make people want to take you out back and beat the snot out of you in some shady back alley--you also have some slight responsibility to play competitively but not take away from your well deserved victory due to a rule loophole.

Agreed. Again, not sour grapes, and hats off to you and Alex, but I hope Joe takes that into account for the next one.

Not meaning any disrespect, but it seemed to give the eldar an edge. I certainly heard a couple other players mentioning it seemed a bit unfair. Might have made a house rule allowing a Lord of War choice for each army, on conversely disallowing lords altogether to level the playing field.

Were the two top eldar lists the only lists to have Super heavy/Gargantuan creatures? I can't recall seeing any others.

Yes, Bones and i have been discussing. I believe you the scions taken from formations will count as elites, and I'm pushing to have the Valkyries count as heavy support. Extra Taurox can be taken as Fast Attack per normal codex rules.

I guess what I'm saying is, what if my army does not include choices for heavies or elites? Also, how do allies play into this? Do just the faction choices count, not allied choices? That might mitigate my circumstances considerably.

Well, I am taking the most balanced list ever, because I have limited choices for 2000 points. So, what's the special rules for Militarum Tempestus?

Hey Bones, a bit concerned about the fourth mission's Primary Objectives. Here's why: the PO's are awarded by removing units with Battlefield Roles. You state that if there are no choices taken for a particular battlefield role, such as Heavy or Fast Attack, then the opponent automatically gets those points. Therein lies my concern--my army has no Heavy choices or Elite choices to take. Do I, then, automatically award my opponent 18 PO points for those two Battlefield roles, starting that game at a huge disadvantage?

How are Lords of War for Imperial forces allowed? For instance, can you take Imperial Knight detachments if you are not playing Imperial Knights, in a Forces of the Imperium army?