Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 What about imperial knight lists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted October 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 We didnt have an Ambassadorship for Imperial Knights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 I saw but I'm curious more on your take about including them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted October 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 It seems unlikely but we did allow it two years ago. No one took that slot then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 I honestly cannot believe that Imperial Knights or AdMech are less popular than Militarum Tempestus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonwinter Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 See well thanks for stating what you where trying to prove Ap. I would have agreed with you point if people where doing that. But no one was. In fact no one has since most people are going there to have a good time and not to smash people in to the earth. You could have made you point with just two WK giving people a little better chance of competing. I know you are a great player but there was no need to do this. Coming with a list that you know 90% of the players have no chance with doesn't make a point. Everyone knew that 3 WK where crazy. The ATC showed that already. There was no need to beat a dead horse. Sorry coming across a little cross. Not meaning to. I understand making a point on principle. Lets just say making a profit while making people feel bad is not effective or effective. It kind of rubs me wrong. I think your point would have been made better if you had given the prize money to the opponent that came the closest beating you. That would have, I feel, driven the point home better. Sorry. As for Alex and your list being the same it is not even close. Yours was based off of three WK, that was the core of your list. You had similar units after but that was all. Most people seeing his list would feel they had a chance. It wasn't unbeatable. Everyone knows that Eldar are really good. Everyone knows they will have a uphill fight even with some of the better Codex's out there. People looked at your list and felt pretty helpless. No one was wanting to face it. Even your opponent that killed two of the wraith knight had a sour taste after playing the list. Even though he did well by killing two of them there was nothing he could do really. IK are a different animal in that a lot of armies can handle. Some can't such as Tyranid but most of the others can to a large extent. I'm glad the are not in the Ambassador a pure army but I think letting one be used as a LoW would be ok for SM and others would be ok as it allows them to be used. One is manageable for all the armies in the game more then that not so much. The ITC is ok and the tournament used a lot of the rule modifications. But the ITC mission still need some work as the are too balanced now. They for me don't influence list building in anyway. MSU armies have no reasons to fear any of the mission now. I like the ITC and play them a lot. But it still need work on some things. Thank, LH for the fun tournament will be looking forward to next year. Hears to next years Tyranids, hoping the can balance out the Eldar power level with our own GC at a far point cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted October 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 I honestly cannot believe that Imperial Knights or AdMech are less popular than Militarum Tempestus. And yet... No one registered for Imperial Knights when it was available. Interesting yes? If memory serves, Gary Washington entertained the idea of playing Imperial Knights two years ago but ultimately could not. I think he ended up out of country that date or something like that. Other than him, we had no takers. This year it simply wasn't available. On the other hand we had two different Militarum Tempestus forces the past two years enter. I personally own such a force myself and really enjoy playing them. A lot of Kasrkin models can be found to form the force and many people have longed to see a way to play them more often, so I dunno. Maybe it is more popular than one thinks? Or maybe not. I'm no Farseer, so who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 And yet... No one registered for Imperial Knights when it was available. Interesting yes? Well, IK in 6th were very different from IK in 7th. Since you disallow allies of any sort as well as Forge World, a 6E IK list would simply have to throw 125pts in the garbage because there was no legal way to make a 2000pt list of them. Also, speaking purely from personal experience, I know half a dozen people who have 4+ Knights, but only one person that owns an entire army of Scions. I know that doesn't actually prove anything, but I think that even just the tournament presence of Knights over the past two years proves that there are plenty of people who own the army and like using it. And that's not even addressing AdMech and why they aren't allowed- they are a very popular faction for people these days. I get that you want to stick to perfect brackets of 16, but as more and more "minor" factions get released it's going to look harder and harder to justify giving the likes of Militarum Tempestus and Khorne Daemonkin slots, but not others. In fact no one has since most people are going there to have a good time and not to smash people in to the earth. You could have made you point with just two WK giving people a little better chance of competing. I know you are a great player but there was no need to do this. Coming with a list that you know 90% of the players have no chance with doesn't make a point. Everyone knew that 3 WK where crazy. The ATC showed that already. There was no need to beat a dead horse. Two things here- first off, if "everyone knew" that the list was broken and too powerful, why was it still legal? That certainly implies that at least one person didn't "know" that. Second of all, when I go to competitive tournaments, I bring the strongest list I can build under the rules of the tournament, even if I personally think that list has units in it that aren't fair. Part of being a strong tournament player is bringing a strong list, because writing lists is part of playing 40K. You wouldn't expect me to intentionally hamstring my play during a game by arbitrarily choosing not to move my units onto an objective, would you? So why would I arbitrarily hamstring myself by bringing anything but the strongest army that I legally could? The rules of the tournament should ideally be set up so that all players have an equal chance of competing. It is the job of the rules, not of the players, to try and ensure a level playing field- players are under no obligation to handicap themselves because of the choices their opponents make. Don't get me wrong- I don't enjoy stomping on players who have no chance. I would rather play a tough game against a good opponent with a list on par with my own. And in most of my games this weekend, that really wasn't the case- no offense meant to my opponents, but very rarely was I in any danger of actually losing the game. Matt's Sororitas, for example, simply did not have the kind of firepower needed to kill my Wraithknights- even if he had blasted every other unit I had from the table, the WK alone were all but guaranteed to seal the game by themselves. I don't think the list I bring should've been allowed- but I'm not the one who gets to decide how the tournament is run, LH is. There are more than a few things I might critique about the specifics of the tournament, but at the end of the day that's not my decision to make. If you don't like what the rules allow someone to do, you need to talk to the person writing the rules. I think your point would have been made better if you had given the prize money to the opponent that came the closest beating you. I'm gonna be real honest here: I'm not rich enough to just throw $200 in the garbage because someone else felt bad about how I got it. I agree that would have been a very nice and charitable thing to do (and one gentleman was, in fact, nice enough to do so for my friend, a fact for which she was quite grateful) but no one is getting mad at Alex for not donating his prize support to the runner-up in things. As for Alex and your list being the same it is not even close. Yours was based off of three WK, that was the core of your list. You had similar units after but that was all. Most people seeing his list would feel they had a chance. It wasn't unbeatable. Everyone knows that Eldar are really good. Everyone knows they will have a uphill fight even with some of the better Codex's out there. People looked at your list and felt pretty helpless. No one was wanting to face it. Even your opponent that killed two of the wraith knight had a sour taste after playing the list. Even though he did well by killing two of them there was nothing he could do really. Okay, but here's the thing- LH has created a format where the Eldar codex, which we both agree is easily the strongest book, can only be played by one person in each bracket. The fact that Alex's list was only mostly unfair rather than completely unfair does not really change that fact at all. Alex's list and mine shared about 70% of their components- and while that other 30% is hardly trivial and can really change how an army plays, at the end of the day our armies were still more alike than they were different. I get that playing my list felt harsh for people. Virtually no army in the game has the tools to handle three Wraithknights- even one Wraithknight is more than most armies can easily take on, especially when it has psychic support in the form of Invisibility, Fortune, etc. But again: blaming me for the rules of the tournament makes no sense. Several of the missions had clauses that could easily screw over particular armies in exceptionally unfair ways (such as Orks with the "lightning strike" effect in Mission #2)- but if you had been playing one of those missions, you hardly could have faulted your opponent for using that to their advantage. The Elvensword wasn't billed as a casual or narrative or other non-competitive event. I certainly wouldn't have brought a list like mine to OFCC or the likes, and when I played fluger the previous evening I used a different list because I knew that triple-WK wasn't going to be an interesting game for either of us. There are plenty of reasons to go to any tournament, including just to socialize or to see other people's armies or whatever. But I typically go to tournaments to try and take home the #1 spot, and within the context of the rules provided I brought the list I thought had the best chance of that. Whatever LH may say, I guarantee you that my having brought the triple-WK list will have a significant influence on how people (including him) look at the list construction rules. The two of us rarely see eye-to-eye on matters of balance and gameplay, but I think I can say I made a pretty indesputable case for why certain restrictions should exist. But as I'm sure you've seen from other parts of this thread, he's not obligated to take my advice, so I can realistically only change his opinion by virtue of getting enough other people to raise an outcry that he has no option to ignore them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted October 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 It's a useful conversation. The Elvensword Ambassadorial Tournament is a competitive tournament. Your list must prepare for every eventuality because you will not face the same list nor codex twice and the list of possibilities more or less includes the entire 40K universe. No small task for any Ambassador. Seans list was legal so criticism of the list itself is pointless, and him making a point with the list is equally pointless. It really is. He did what he thought he needed to, in order to win, as did everyone. If Sean was less than agreeable in how he presents the reality of his list and its intent, as a matter of sportsmanship, that's another matter. But criticism of the list itself diminishes what he accomplished and at the end of the day, his less than humble portrayal of his battles doesn't change the fact that he still had to go out there and execute, and he did. In a year when 5th Edition Blood angels dominated tournaments, an Astra Militarum Ambassador won. In a year in which Tau and Eldar dominated, the Tyranids won. A certain codex guarantees nothing in the Elvensword Arena. As I personally witnessed Abusepuppies games at various points, I can tell you that I saw two critical deployment errors by Abusepuppy opponents that probably would have made his opponents days much more fruitful (had they done otherwise). Part of being a winning Ambassador is taking advantage of those mistakes and Abusepuppy did, plus he played competently throughout. So congratulations on your victory Ambassador Abusepuppy. Now be a great Ambassador! I again reiterate that we had an Ambassador win with just one WraithKnight so I do not feel as if the argument was made on that end successfully by Abusepuppy. A 0-1 restriction did not stop a Capable and deserving Ambassador from winning. Nor did taking three guarantee it for Abusepuppy. As an example: the ork Ambassador was in prime position to upset the apple cart, and the Eldar Ambassador seized initiative. One roll of the die changed the outcome of that game dramatically. The other Eldar Ambassador would tell you so himself. If not for that, 30 Meganobs would have been charging him turn two with nowhere to go. I think the Orks had a serious shot at the finals this year and perhaps they will next year. I will institute the rule of 0-1 as I have in all my other tournaments. But not because of the results. I will do it so that more of the Codex will be on display, as has always been the intention. Balance in that way is important for this tournament. =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Bang Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 I don't think following the rules for a tournament's army construction is exploiting a loophole. I also think that although there is a social contract in friendly games to try to make things close and 'have a good game', competitive games are a different beast. You should be trying to bring your 'A game' in a competitive event because you're trying to win. Presumably, everyone else there is trying to do the same thing. If you don't bring your 'A game', you are gimping yourself and your chances of winning for no good reason. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 As AP already pointed out, we played a game at my house the night before the event and while I asked to play a tough list of his, he declined using his Ambassador list because he felt it was too much. The list he played me with was a strong, ITC list, so it wasn't like he was playing with a wimpy list, but he understands the social contract aspect. However, I totally agree that in a tournament, the social contract changes to bringing the best you can. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 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.'. As I mentioned earlier, folks have lots of different reasons for playing the game- and if you want to come to the tournament with a particular kind of list because that's what you enjoy and think is appropriate, that's totally fine. My friend Shaylynn has stuck with GK solidly since 5th edition- when they were great, when they were good, and when they were terrible. She likes the faction and likes playing them, and she came to the Elvensword because she wanted to rep a strong GK list. I could've easily lent her a Tau or Necron list that would've been far stronger, but I never offered because I knew she wasn't interested, and I can respect that. However, that's not how I approach the tournament. If you're looking to field a fluffy or thematic or individualized force, that's 100% cool- but expecting everyone else to conform to your personal beliefs about what the game should be isn't really fair. It's the same reason I don't give players list critiques unless they ask for it; not everyone is looking for that sort of thing, and imposing my beliefs about what their army "should" be is intrusive and rude. Your army is beautifully-painted, but I could point out a dozen different things that are "wrong" with it from a competitive perspective- just as I'm sure you could point out a wide variety of "mistakes" in mine from a painting, fluff, or casual perspective. The agreement to live-and-let-live is part of the tournament social contract, just as the casual play social contract tacitly asks that both players agree to bring lists that give the other a fair chance of winning. But a tournament player has no obligation to make their list any weaker than they want it to be, and a casual player has no obligation to play every person who asks for a game- the rules of etiquette are not the same between the two. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PumpkinHead Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 Sorry I had to run. Who got favorite opponent and paint? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 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. I've gotta call BS on this. If you're putting explicit restrictions on the game at all, that is also saying, implicitly but clearly, that those explicit restrictions are formalizing any and all "gentlemen's agreements" that otherwise might have been made regarding the power level or nature of the Game. Once formalized, explicit restrictions have been made, those are the bounds of the Game, and doing anything less than pushing the limit is entirely your choice to limit yourself, not any kind of social contract to be made with your Opponent. If there's something you think is game-breaking (maybe not even in terms of unbeatable, but in terms of making the game not fun), and you don't want to see it in a structured competitive environment, you need to make sure that formal Rules of that environment disallow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 I heart you guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Bang Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 Now, I see that as the fault of the people bringing lists that can't deal with LoW in an environment that explicitly allows them. They chose to bring the power level of their lists down below what was allowed, and so then they have to deal with the consequence of that choice. Not throwing shade here, I was in the same boat to an extent. In my last Game, I had to spend a bunch of time dancing around and trying to avoid a CorpseThief Claw that I had no real answer to once my big pack of Flesh Hounds was gone. If I had gone up against either of the Eldar lists, I would have had few options other than hoping that enough of my MaulerFiends could weather the ScatterLaser fire to hit home in a simultaneous charge, which is a long shot, to say the least. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Bang Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 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. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 Four. Necrons have the Obelisk and Tesseract Vault, and DK have the Lord of Skulls. Which Ed would have brought if I hadn't snaked the DK slot out from under him ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Bang Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Right, sorry, forgot those two. Still see very little impact to the meta with those dropped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Sorry I had to run. Who got favorite opponent and paint? IMPORTANT QUESTION! Favorite Opponent: Michael Corbett with his Space Wolves. Favorite Army was Josh Sands Blood Angels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 ...Which Ed would have brought if I hadn't snaked the DK slot out from under him ;) Early bird gets the worm. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 If you're gonna start banning things, why reinvent the wheel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Bang Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Not, just saying to consider not using Super heavies or Gargantuan. If you're gonna start banning things, why reinvent the wheel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.