[anathema]

I have been playing for over 20 years with a reasonable rate of success. I have had my eyes opened by some seasoned Tournament Vets who have shown me a new way of looking at lists and composing armies, and what the victory conditions in a tournament actually mean.

What you're actually talking about is how to play the missions well and write good tournament lists that take the metagame into account. That sort of thing should never be in the rulespack as its what you learn yourself and what seperates good players from great players.

For example, should the rulebook tell you to hide that unit with 2 models left for the rest of the game so that you only give away half points for it? No, thats the kind of thing you must work out for yourself or from seeing others doing it to you.

Looking at the rulepack tells you that you only really need to get a minor win if you read between the lines. In a close game every VP counts so playing accordingly will help you win. However it doesn't need to say that in black and white in the pack.

Looking at last years heat results tells you that you need 4 wins to be certain of qualifying. Thats all publicly available data that you can use to work out what you need to do.

 

[Elric of Melnibone]

The whole point of the GT is to find the best player -

Sorry but I am going to disagree with you here. I think the GT is to find the best General. I use the word General instead of Player as the General designs his army and then plays it.

The only way I can think of deciding the best player is to give everyone the same army..which of course would not work. Also how would you allow for the vauguaries of the Dice

The object of the excercise is to win the Trophy...so the Player who designs his army, and plays it across 6 games and comes out on top deserves it.

one trick pony armies or the cut and paste army of doom....

Malchek

Whether all gamers like it or not there armies that are inherently 'better' (or whatever word you like) and there always will be, but these armies do not play themselves. Yes you can get a head start but it will not get you to the finishing line first unless you can play it.

I do agree with you that the 0-1-3 system (or variation) is the best system
and I think this was shown last year as there was more variety of armies qualifiying from the heats

 

[Prophaniti]

I'm sure torgoch is about to post it, so I won't steal his thunder, but answering questions that have been submitted for an FAQ would be a good start. They have some interesting answers for the ones that have been answered as it is. :roll:

 

[jigplums]

agreed there, i sometimes think they use the roll a dice technique for answering the questions for the faq's as they can be pretty obscure and defy both logic and the rules as written.

 

[torgoch]

Yeah, it's not exactly encouraging is it?

The FAQ is last years FAQ with a few new entries...

If anyone who contributed to the original thread feels in any way concerned about this, then i'd suggest emailing them about it.

Things like the 1" rule, the board edges issue and do emmbarked troops count as scoring issue have not been addressed.

 

[jigplums]

[email protected]

for those who want to pm
Which should be EVERYONE whos going

 

[Ultima]

Things like the 1" rule, the board edges issue and do emmbarked troops count as scoring issue have not been addressed.

The one inch rule i agree with. However, I don't understand the confusion about embarked troops. Troops are scoring, whether they are in a vehicle or not is irrelevent. The rulebook says that non-vehicle units (unless their special rules state otherwise) are scoring unless they are below 50%, destroyed, off the table or falling back. Therefore, embarked troops are scoring.

 

[torgoch]

Not so simple. Try searching on dakka's YMDC forum - I'm sure the debate is in there somewhere.

 

[anathema]

The non-scoring issue arose from a player convincing the referee at this years final that as Farseers count as 'off the table' and so cannot cast psychic powers when embarked on a transport (as per the rulebook FAQ), all troops in transports also count as being off the table and so cannot hold objectives.

This is balls, but as the refs gave it last time, it needs clarifying that they won't do it again otherwise it will screw a lot of people over.

 

[Ultima]

The ref gave it? Unbelievable! That certainly does need clarifying then sadly..

 

[Ultima]

The ref gave it? Unbelievable! That certainly does need clarifying then sadly..

 

[torgoch]

Its the way they worded the rulebook FAQ.

 

[anathema]

Thing is this is now contradicted by the new Chaos codex as Icons in transports can be used to summon in daemons, hence the unit must be on the table. So IMO these 2 pieces of indirect supporting evidence (neither of which are directly relevant to all transported models) cancel each other out and you're left with the common sense answer.

 

[Ultima]

annoyingly, the new chaos dex isnt in use for heat 1. Meaning i have to put up with the stupid clarification. ugh.

 

[torgoch]

People of a certain disposition would just claim that is an exception to the general rule of not being on the table.

 

[anathema]

And I'd tell them that the Farseer not being on the table is irrelevant to the general rule that an infantry unit over half is a scoring unit and only applies to casting psychic powers while in a transport. In fact all it strictly clarifies is that a Farseer in a transport doesn't count as being on the table, nothing else. That's fine as its non-scoring anyway.

 

[MarzM]

How to make GT better?

Stop getting drunk Numpties to write the FAQ! I dont know what they were on at the time, but i want some!

MarzM

 

[martin4696]

i think just going back to the old old system, i dont get why they changed it in the first place it was fine just take out all the painting and army theme bit and its grovy IMO,

martin

 

[dakari-mane]

i think just going back to the old old system, i dont get why they changed it in the first place it was fine just take out all the painting and army theme bit and its grovy IMO,

:fuck: to that idea. The old system rewarded only a very few armies. The new system actually makes other armies more viable (i.e. armies that take a battering but still win)

 

[anathema]

Agreed, I think they've found a decent half-way house with this. All armies can get wins, not all armies can win big except in exceptional circumstances. Players should be rewarded for winning by whatever amount, with the margin of victory being a tie-breaker not a deciding factor IMO.