Allies poll - would loss of allies deter you from an event?

[Munkie]

I would still attend without allies, but I'd be unhappy about it. It makes DE virtually unplayable, which I'm against as they are my favorites.

[busbina]

If were going to start throwing stuff out can we start with allowing the old 'nid dex. I've been watching batreps with it. It just gets slaughtered. Or maybe allow 'nid players to use Escalation, not that the big bug is very good. I guess it might just be thought about more, there has to be something in it.

[JamesBeadle]

All games and all rules in them are optional. Bellying up to the table is optional. Being a good sport or a jerk is optional. I get that its important to hash out in a group event what will be used and what will not, the goal is to minimize conflict. However every time a game is played, even if its just assumed that the rules as written in a game of Sorry! will be used, is consentual. Arbitrarily deciding that escalation or stronghold is not 40K is meaningless. They are desinged to be played with the game, thus they are 40K. If you don't want to play with them, fine, but saying they are not 'meant' to be played with standard 40K games is an argument from silence.

[doc]

I think an event like OFCC would be the BEST place to allow everything, such as Stronghold Assault, Escalation, and Dataslates. As it is a more casual event I feel a lot of the "broken" combos will be frowned upon or downright disallowed after list review. These supplements are a blast if both parties want to simply have a good time. "Forge that narrative!"

I think the "allow it all and let the LRC/captains sort it out" argument is flawed.

 

Last year the LRC was pretty light, but it did come down on some nasty combos; then at the event itself a few comments were made, and overheard, along the lines of "my army was less of a sh#t ball than THAT army, wtf were the LRC doing?!"

 

THAT hurts the ideology of OFCC much more than the HoG putting restrictions in place. Players feeling aggrieved, on the day(s) make the atmosphere less than palatable, being hacked with the HoG (sorry guys, goes with the job!) - EVERYONE hacked off with the HoG - is much better.

[intrizic]

But do you really want to play against a revenant? If they were to allow lords of war i'd want two lists. One for lord of war games and one for not. With open gaming i'd want club challenge stuff to be more basic and maybe a structured Saturday night round robin you could sign up for to make sure all that brought that type of list could pay a game.

hehehe, while I wouldn't want to play against a revenant, you have to admit it would be cool as [big bad swear word] to see one on the table :D

[busbina]

I just say ban the shooty D. All other super heavies are cool with me. Id love to see stompas every where.

[VonVilkee]

I just say ban the shooty D. All other super heavies are cool with me. Id love to see stompas every where.

Personally I want to see other super heavies and d is good when targeting them. I've been seriously considering playtesting STR D templates as D under the hole (considered a precision hit) with the rest of the template as. Str 10 ap 1. Seems to eliminate allot of the full unit wipe and makes those other Str 6 ish huge templates ignoring cover more of a choice to consider.

[Alexi]

I will toss my 2 cents in. I personally have just begun playing with allies. Mainly for the fluff for my Marines. I just cant justify 2 chapter masters from the same detatchment. So I take a small "ally" detatchment of a different chapter, generally using Ultramarine rules, where my main is Imp. Fists.

 

Now, I could do my list pretty much without allies, so to me personally, what ever rules an event I was going to attend decided to lay down, fine. As long as I know far enough in advance, and it was enforced equally across the board. As for other supplements and such...again, what ever rules the event decided as long as I knew far enough in advance. Does that mean I would possibly get my face pummled? Probably. Am I ok with that? Yeah, as long as the guy doing the pounding wasnt bieng a douche about it, its a game. I am here to have fun. Trying to send a 1850 point small Marine unit army against a few Baneblades or the like would only cause me to think WAY outside the box as far as tactics go.

[Guest]

Nobody wants to face a Revanant... let's be real.

Two questions:

 

First, have I been warned in advance that the opponent can bring a revenant?

 

Second, is it an impressivly painted, giant FW model that looks amazing?

 

If the answer is yes to both, then it is in the spirit of the OFCC. I can enjoy a losing battle if my opponent has a great looking army and I knew in advance that this sort of thing could happen.

 

I would be very angry/upset coming to an event that surprised me with the inclusion of the revenant. I would also be very annoyed if the opponent had a really lacking paint job on an obviously cheap converted revenant. Maybe it's vanity, but losing miserably to an army that looks just thrown together is very unsatisfying.

 

As for killing the revenant, sure looks like it can be done on paper.

-Pax

 

PS: It would be perfectly reasonable for a TO to add a nerf to the Lords of War in the form of mission objectives, so long as this were known in advance. In example, you could award additional VP for the destruction of the enemy's LoW (in addition to the 1 per 3 HP lost). Perhaps 3 VP for a destroyed LoW. So, kiling a revenant (9 HP) would yield 6 VP, which would mean that merely holding an objective and killing the enemy revenant would likely be enough to win or tie. This wouldn't ban LoWs, but would make players reconsider bringing them and would make destroying them be part of list building. You could also remove the auto-lose with a wipe.

[VonVilkee]

Two questions:

 

First, have I been warned in advance that the opponent can bring a revenant?

 

Second, is it an impressivly painted, giant FW model that looks amazing?

 

If the answer is yes to both, then it is in the spirit of the OFCC. I can enjoy a losing battle if my opponent has a great looking army and I knew in advance that this sort of thing could happen.

 

I would be very angry/upset coming to an event that surprised me with the inclusion of the revenant. I would also be very annoyed if the opponent had a really lacking paint job on an obviously cheap converted revenant. Maybe it's vanity, but losing miserably to an army that looks just thrown together is very unsatisfying.

 

As for killing the revenant, sure looks like it can be done on paper.

-Pax

 

PS: It would be perfectly reasonable for a TO to add a nerf to the Lords of War in the form of mission objectives, so long as this were known in advance. In example, you could award additional VP for the destruction of the enemy's LoW (in addition to the 1 per 3 HP lost). Perhaps 3 VP for a destroyed LoW. So, kiling a revenant (9 HP) would yield 6 VP, which would mean that merely holding an objective and killing the enemy revenant would likely be enough to win or tie. This wouldn't ban LoWs, but would make players reconsider bringing them and would make destroying them be part of list building. You could also remove the auto-lose with a wipe.

Now there is an idea you don't auto lose to wipe against a lord of war

[intrizic]

There should be an award to the game that forges the hardest narrative :D or makes the best forging the narrative pun :D

Myself, I forge my narrative as frequently as possible and as hard as possible.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Remove tabled auto lose and earn vp each turn could make these super killy options out their today more fun to play against.

[VonVilkee]

However if VP are earned each turn my drop pods became the platinum standard!