A Day on Krynn VII: 3rd Biannual Tournament

[RARE CHOICE GAMES]

I agree 100% with John B. on the issues brought up. Congrats on winning.

First, as to banning Lash of Submission from tournaments... I think banning anything that GW hasn't banned is a bad idea. I certainly do not want to take this thread off-topic and fire up a debate about the over-poweredness of Lash Princes. Call it broken, unbalanced, or overpowered, but Games Workshop clearly doesn't think Lash of Submission needs to be nerfed or banned. If GW did intend to ban or nerf Lash, they would've done so in the most recent Chaos FAQ... and they didn't. My best guess as to why GW did not eliminate or nerf Lash is that the Lash's most-commonly-used host, the winged demon prince, is far from invincible at T5 3+/5+. Interestingly enough, I think a far stronger argument could be made for banning off-codex units (white dwarf, forgeworld chapter approved, etc.) from tournaments since they weren't play-tested and taken into account when an army's codex was originally being planned and balanced. But to be honest, I'd prefer to see nothing that has GW's stamp of approval banned from tournaments. More options = more fun, so why take away options?

I agree with him completely on this one. He is paying money to be in a competitive tournament. That would be like entering a basketball tournament and being told you couldnt dunk cause you were taller than your opponent and that would be unfair. GW allows these things so why should it be limited. So what if it hard to deal with thats the point of the tournament...to play competitive games against experienced opponents. Just my two cents.

Second, as to adding "fluff" scores to tournaments... I think that's a bad idea, too. Things like painting, theme, backstory, etc. are very important parts of the hobby, but should have no impact on deciding the results of a *tournament* because they are completely and utterly subjective. That said, I'd have no disagreement whatsoever with paying a higher entry fee to support awarding a "best army" prize (in addition to the prizes for 1st, 2nd, 3rd) which could awarded based solely on things like army composition, army theme, army backstory, and army painting.

YES!!! Fluff scores should never be mixed with playing scores. Your ability to paint does not make you better or crappier at the game. Seperate prizes for these categories are fine but they should never be allowed to pick winners for the actual tournament.

Finally, as to comments about the fluff and theme of my particular CSM army, I disagree with the proposition that it should "score low on any composition score because it contradicts fluff and theme." Chaos purists would note that each of my troops units conformed to their chosen deity's sacred number (8 for khorne, 7 for nurgle). Does that make mine the fluffiest chaos army ever created? Of course not. But whereas in the last edition that would've earned me free aspiring champion upgrades, in the current edition adhering to the gods' "sacred numbers" serves no in-game purpose than a nod to Chaos fluff, of which I've been a long-time fan. As for mixing gods in a chaos army, while the previous CSM codex prohibited mixing cult troops, GW has intentionally abandoned such strictures in the current edition. Furthermore, both the current CSM codex and Chaos Daemons codex are rife with examples of the forces of the various chaos gods coming together for the common good bad. While my CSM army was indeed designed to be competitive and versatile, it certainly hasn't abandoned the Chaos fluff to meet those ends.

Fluffy armies are great. Most of my armies are fluffy. Fluff has no importance in a tournament...AT ALL. If it is legal to use than use it. I am not sure if his CSM army is fluffy or not...its a tournament so I wouldnt give a shiza. He has paid to participate in an event that wins prizes so he can field whatever he wants as long as it is legal according to the codexes. He shouldnt be made to feel bad because he has an army that is hard to beat...thats literally the point of the tournament to make hard to beat armies so you can win prizes.

Once again John B. I dont know you but Congrats on the win and keep fielding those lashes.

[Andrew]

I totally agree with your points as well. Thanks for the compliments and ideas; our club always welcomes them!

I had a thought. What about holding a tournament dedicated solely to fluff? Each of our tournaments has had a theme in the past; fluff is as good of a theme as any. It can be like everyone HAS to make the absolute most fluffy lists as dictated by various GW fluff, from 3rd edition on (since that's the most grounded fluff). I know too much fluff for every army than is healthy, so I could give good feedback. ooo! Everyone can have their lists online, everyone gets to see each others, etc. Obviously more planning is needed, but I think that'd be fun! Now if only we could get store John to let us have beer downstairs, it'd practically be like playing poker or something, since everyone is on equal footing. Or I don't know what I'm thinking, but whatev. Yea.

[siriq]

wow i agree with everyone else, fluff shouldnt be taken into account, dont ban units that arent official banned.

Its hard to make a balanced list to take on every list out there, if you read the forums and have an idea of what popular lists are, it should be on the player to take that into account during the list creation. This is called meta gaming. My eldar army has problems against hordes, do i complain sure to an extent. Should it be banned no, and that shouldnt be suggested. If i think frizzel is going to be there then yes ill make a list to take on orcs with rear flanking protection, but i would suffer against marines and alike armies. its all part of the tourney experience.

I personally believe that this thread has no more use and should be subsequently locked.

as for a fluff based tourney i dont like the idea, and if it happens its only should be casual with no prize.