Do you support GW's decision to ban SoC lists from GTs?

[Danceman]

how many of you complaining about this are actually regular tournament goers? and of many a year do you play compared to friendly games?

I´m not really complaining I just feel for those who got drawn into warhammer playing the Cult of Slaanesh list or any of the lists and planned to attend to GTs and other tournaments(I know alot of tournaments will enforce this rule).

[Langmann]

how many of you complaining about this are actually regular tournament goers? and of many a year do you play compared to friendly games?

Actually I don't agree with this line of thinking at all. For several reasons:

1. GW Told those people that the lists would be legal. I know several people who made SoC lists and did a lot of work making them look good specifically for tournaments. Then to be told that they couldn't use them is basically very close to what is called in the business world a 'Bait and Switch' - this is actually illegal.

2. Lots of people base their gaming upon what is legal in tournaments for their regular gaming. Lots of clubs do this as well because it essentially does set a standard of gaming.

3. Not everyone has a lot of money to be spending on armies. When they make a siginificant investment they expect to be able to use it for longer than a year.

4. Lots of other tournaments around here do base their rules on GW tournaments for the most part. Not everyone agrees with the WPS rules for tournaments (even though I think their composition rules were a stellar start towards fair gaming).

5. If they are trying to cut back on unfair lists then they should start with their army books. Saying you are glad not to be facing a SG list really doesn't mean anything because of the other legal cheesy lists that are available like the Flying Circus, the SAD, STanks, Herohammer, Dryad 40k list, Skink 40K lists etc.

6. Putting their SoC lists up on the Web Page would be an easy fix. Its not like I've never seen tons of people have downloads of rules FAQs in tournaments so what's the difference?

[Konrad von richtmark]

I can understand them banning lists like the sea patrol, the slayer army, or the daemonic legions. Those were either awkwardly balanced, or plain dull and pointless to play against.

It's a shame the Cult of Slaanesh got the shaft. While I wouldn't touch it myself with a long rod, it's a fluffy list I would be eager to play against.

Anyways, it's good to see that GW has shown it can admit to have made mistakes, something GW hasn't been particularly good at earlier.

[Xizor]

2. Lots of people base their gaming upon what is legal in tournaments for their regular gaming. Lots of clubs do this as well because it essentially does set a standard of gaming.

This is the best counter argument I have heard. Its very very true indeed, and for the most part I will only play with tournament "legal" armies as it is good practise. I also dont like playing "illegal" lists!

Maybe im just a hypocrit...I dunno. Id sure just be happier if SoC was kept Tournament legal.

Finally, im not suer what people have against the DL. Sure, there are some sick Tzeentch Flying Circus lists out there, but for the most part they are fun, interesting lists that are not broken at all. Also they tend to look pretty good as it is mostly people who are willing to put the time and effort into converting them who do the army.

Chris

[Bauglir]

I haven't played the Cult or any other SoC lists but i don't understand why they first officially bring the lists out saying you can use them like any other, and than ban them from their own official tournament. As for variety: of course, the lists added some diversity, but even without them the game and each army can still be quite diverse. I assume the magic items the druchii got with the CoS list are not affected by this, or are they?

[Konrad von richtmark]

Yeah, I'd like to know that too. That's the most disturbing part of it for me.

[Lord anathir]

I really think Games Workshop screwed up on tihs one. When SoC rolled around, they wanted people to buy all the SoC models. And to put down fears from the customers, they claimed that the lists will be totally legal after SoC.

Well...they opened their eyes and saw how unbalanced the tourney scene (and how retardedly un fun some lists were) had become because of lists like demonic legion and slayers (and sea patrol). So..they decided to ban them again. Thats unacceptable. Honestly, I really feel for the poor bloke who spent his savings on slayers. Not cool.

The one SoC list i actually like is the CoS one. Like the normal dark elf book, i wished the high elves got an awesome secondary list like that.

[Benji]

will the same apply to all the plastic plague monks you get with the battalion box in a years time when they decide lustria is not legal??

[Sha'a'alaar]

I think The Langmann has said what I would want to say.

Benji, I don't believe that the Lustria lists are GW tournament legal due to special characters.

cheers
Sha'a'alaar

[Xizor]

I don't believe that the Lustria lists are GW tournament legal due to special characters.

That is correct.

Also people really need to understand that the SoC lists havent been withdrawn from tournament play because they are deemed too good, unbalanced or anything like that.

[Philleehellphia]

Eh, sure CoP is a great list, but do you ever need to ban it from tournaments?

No, i'm not a CoP player, but how if someone happened to start a CoP army and that is all they have? GW goes and bans CoPand that player can't go to Tournaments anymore. That's plainly unfair. Sure, he could start up a DE force, or a Slaaneshi force, but that's completely different!

But..... if some tournaments ban Special Characters, then heck, go ahead and ban SoC lists.

[Crazy guy]

No, I also DON'T support this decision. GW, you messed yourself up on this one. I don't think anyone will ever again be able to *seriously* make an army under Campaign rules again after this feasco.

[Kreoss]

.they opened their eyes and saw how unbalanced the tourney scene (and how retardedly un fun some lists were) had become because of lists like demonic legion and slayers (and sea patrol). So..they decided to ban them again.

I would rather them give the lists a second go at balancing than banning them completely.

[Fr0]

I was going to comment on your post benji but I heavily agree with what langmann said.

One point I want to get in here is now that I'm sure that many TO's will follow this lead and not allow the list at their events, which will in turn affect us who don't attend nearly as many events as you nutcakes.

Fr0

[Jamesfazzolari]

I cannot say I agree with the "complete banning of lists from all tourneys".

I do however agree with the banning of all non-AB lists from the GTs. Generally, the non-Ab Lists are a little less balanced, and can be abused a little more easily. Furthermore, the vast amout of non-AB lists out there make prepearing for a GT more difficult than it should be.

That said, GW should not be removing lists from play that players have built armies for - many players only have CoP to play with for example, and their one army has now been rendered much less usable - hardly fair for someone who has spent time and money building an army.

I think GW would have been beter off simply saying that all lists outside an AB or campaign book were illegal, and making it known that all future supplement lists would also be illegal.

jfazz.

[Keledron]

Borrowing from langmans list of objections here's my take on it and why it has happened in the UK and some of the reasoning behind it.

1. GW Told those people that the lists would be legal. I know several people who made SoC lists and did a lot of work making them look good specifically for tournaments. Then to be told that they couldn't use them is basically very close to what is called in the business world a 'Bait and Switch' - this is actually illegal.

The lists are game legal you just can't use them at UK GW Grand Tournaments - the same applies to Special Characters and Dogs of War - whilst I don't particularly like the idea (I have 6 SoC list armies and all of the DOW units) I certainly don't see it as some form of underhanded selling technique.

2. Lots of people base their gaming upon what is legal in tournaments for their regular gaming. Lots of clubs do this as well because it essentially does set a standard of gaming.

This is a very valid point and one that may well influence non UK GW Grand Tournament organisers to alter thier restrictions alternatively they may well move in completely the opposite direction as many club members may have collections built on these lists. This is the decision my own club has taken where we have decided to be a little more prescriptive than in the past about which lists people can choose from but not taking the GW whole sale route of saying Army Book lists only..

3. Not everyone has a lot of money to be spending on armies. When they make a siginificant investment they expect to be able to use it for longer than a year.

Again this only comes into affect if you play at UK GW Grand Tournaments which comes in at about 0.01% of GW's customer base in the UK at best. If you don't play Tournaments it has absolutely no affect on you.

4. Lots of other tournaments around here do base their rules on GW tournaments for the most part. Not everyone agrees with the WPS rules for tournaments (even though I think their composition rules were a stellar start towards fair gaming).

Very true but the WPS events are very successful so it seems many tournament going players are willing to alter thier lists to fit with specific event restrictions if they really want to play in this environment. Tournament players are a lot more flexible than people sometimes think.

5. If they are trying to cut back on unfair lists then they should start with their army books. Saying you are glad not to be facing a SG list really doesn't mean anything because of the other legal cheesy lists that are available like the Flying Circus, the SAD, STanks, Herohammer, Dryad 40k list, Skink 40K lists etc.

As is pointed out elsewhere it is possible to construct lists akin to the Campaign specific ones (to use GW's new description of them) from the newer Army Books so expect more of this in the future inevitably lists will be possible that are somewhat less than ideal but a lot more effort is being put into the new Army Books to avoid the worst of this and given time I expect most of the currently unpopular options will get moderated, mind you I'm sure it will just throw up new "unfair" lists.

6. Putting their SoC lists up on the Web Page would be an easy fix. Its not like I've never seen tons of people have downloads of rules FAQs in tournaments so what's the difference?

I wouldn't be surprised if these lists become available on the net.

I'll assume you've seen Jervis Johnsons article from UK WD 315 but If not the general direction they are adopting is of making it easier for UK GT Players to get to grips with all of the options an opponent could take.

At present you need something in the region of 14 Army Books, 1 Main Rule Book, 1 Chronicles , 2 Annuals, 8 White Dwarves and 4 Campaign books and 40 odd pages of FAQ's and Erratta just to have all of the possibilities - this is utter madness in JJ's opinion and is mainly the reason why Brian Anderson has made the brave decision he has about the UK Grand Tournament.

It's an attempt at least to bring the UK GT back to being dependant more on player ability than of having a list no-one has ever faced or has any real experience of trying to play against.

[Keledron]

and making it known that all future supplement lists would also be illegal.

jfazz.

UK WD 315 indicates that this is exactly what they are doing here in the UK from this year onwards you will only be able to use Army Book lists.

Should make ity interesting to see what if anything they do about Chaos Dwarves and Dogs of War Army Books

[Langmann]

Borrowing from langmans list of objections here's my take on it and why it has happened in the UK and some of the reasoning behind it.

1. GW Told those people that the lists would be legal. I know several people who made SoC lists and did a lot of work making them look good specifically for tournaments. Then to be told that they couldn't use them is basically very close to what is called in the business world a 'Bait and Switch' - this is actually illegal.

The lists are game legal you just can't use them at UK GW Grand Tournaments - the same applies to Special Characters and Dogs of War - whilst I don't particularly like the idea (I have 6 SoC list armies and all of the DOW units) I certainly don't see it as some form of underhanded selling technique.

Sorry Kel, but you're way off. Think of it this way, its like a company selling a brand new production inkjet printer for cheap and then a year later saying - sorry but those ink cartidges of ours no longer work in that printer you bought. You now got to buy this new printer to use the ink cartidges.

Now things like that are expected to happen over time, but only a year and a bit later? That's what we call a "Bait and Switch".

So to go back to the printer comparison, the players who bought a SoC CoP list with a few chaos models and a few DE models now have to go and buy the rest of a Chaos or DE army to bring the rest of their models into a tournament game. Which means they have to buy more stuff - a Bait and Switch really.

With people generally following tournament rules in regular games this is eventually going to have an effect. Not only that but by saying that SoC are no longer allowed in the GT's is by essense saying they are cheese and unbalanced (which may be true, but I can say the same about the Bret book), and this will be perceived by players to mean they are broken and eventually they will become opponent optional - who wants to play against a list they preceive as broken? Not many.

Now I hear Jervis about the number of books, but:

a) Who even takes all the army books to a tournament (I have yet to see that), and who really reads all the army books? Only real serious tournament gamers have a good understanding of all the army books, and honestly a few more books isn't going to hurt them.

b) Don't make me laugh about the GTs trying to be made dependent upon player ability and that therefore the SoC list removal will help fix that. Removing the SoC lists is like a Dutch boy sticking his finger in a dike, the rest of the water is going to keep coming through the other holes. There are some pretty horrible lists which I have already mentioned that are army book legal. If their intention is to fix this problem removing the SoC lists isn't going to do much about it. If instead they had a giant fist that punched the idiots into unconciousness who bring say all Dryad lists then yeah that would fix something.

If GW wants to fix cheesey tournament play then its time they took a real good look at how they are making army books. It doesn't take a moron to pick out some of the real problematic things right from the start. For example I saw the Bret army book pre-production, saw the ability to take an all Flying Circus army and said right to Gav that this would be cheesy for sure and all he did was shrug but inside his head I'm sure he knew it too. Now I'm no genious, but I know that in a game where we base the core strength of the army upon ranked units, skirmishers that can bust ranked units are going to be a major problem. The ranked unit is supposed to be like the linebacker in football (the real game not that soccer thing ), the ranked unit is the meat and potatoes of the game. Giving a skimish unit a champ, banner, multiple high S attacks, great armour and ward saves is like giving a quarterback a machine gun.

I like GW, they've been good to me. But I'm no syncophant and I call things like they are.

[Underway]

I have a feeling that if you look at the new army books comming out in combination with the new 7th ed rules you will see a reduction of the worst offences AND an ability to have a large number of the SoC lists being chosen from the basic army books.

Chaos for sure will have a Deamonic Legion change when that new book comes out. Either way you can use most of the models now in a regular chaos Deamon list.

The VC book is being looked at soon and the rumours are a bigger focus on Bloodline specific lists aka: Von Carstein list like the SoC, Strigoi list with lotsa ghouls...

Dwarves allow for more slayers than before.

There already is an Eshin Appendix list.

LSG are basically a HE infantry army. One can easily use them with the basic HE rules, except the Merwyrm but no one uses that thing anyways.

Archaons horde- exactly the same as mortal chaos despite flayerkin (not a big expence) and the hellcannon (which can still be used as a DoW unit).

CoS - can easily be split into two different armies or in my case I can just retire the few models I have from chaos and sell them to my chaos playing friends...

Grimgors Ardboyz- the O&G book is comming out with or near the 7th ed release. How much you wanna bet that you can take an all orc force in there...

Erranty list - basically no different from the normal Brett list, except Knights Errant are 1+.

The worst excesses are clan eshin, slayers, Deamonic legion, CoS. Everything else can easily be converted with a few new or removed models. 4 armies basically lost for some serious rebalancing of a tournament scene. No biggie from my point of view.

[Langmann]

I have a feeling that if you look at the new army books comming out in combination with the new 7th ed rules you will see a reduction of the worst offences

Sorry I disagree. The Bret and WE lists are 'new' books and they still have this crappy skirmish swarm ability. Sure they can be beaten but you usually have to assemple a specific list - and this is not what people like to do. People like the idea that their all comer balanced list will have a good chance.

[Rork]

Archaons horde- exactly the same as mortal chaos despite flayerkin (not a big expence) and the hellcannon (which can still be used as a DoW unit).

The free command for infantry and the rejigging of chariots/chosen knights does mean you can take a slightly more infantry oriented list thanks to the discounts it gives.

[Darmort]

Should make ity interesting to see what if anything they do about Chaos Dwarves and Dogs of War Army Books

They'll still be legal. Gavin (or someone else, can't remember who) stated that they'd still be allowed, despite not having Army Books.
It's going to be interesting what happens to the White Dwarf though.


As to the Poll, I can't remember which I voted, but I'm half and half; by banning *all* the armies half of them have just become a bunch of Models that can't be used without being remodelled somewhat, while others are okay... that's the main problem I see with it; the models themselves.

[Eeeeron]

I don't support the decision partly because I can't see any logical reason for it and partly because they said the lists would be legal and continue to be useable after the event.

Langmann is doing a good job of providing a lot of reasons why they shouldn't be banned for eg other broken lists, yes some of the SoC lists were a little dodgy as has been mentioned there are much worse offenders.

What I particularly don't like is them saying that not everyone will have access to the lists. I'm sure pretty much everyone who competes in a tournament either has the chance to buy white dwarf or has access to the internet, if not just put a form in the back of the tournament sign up back asking participants if they need a copy of the rules for any non-AB list eg any from SoC and problem solved.

[The liger]

To me, it just seems silly. Surely, by keeping the SoC lists valid and readily available, GW could and would get more money. I suppose especially for the fact that players who start an army (say, Dark Elves) after buying an army, may well then move on to starting a CoP list, therefore buying some Slaaneshi products possibly etc, and therefore GW gets more money. I know that GW isn't totally based around money, and perhaps there are counter-arguments, but to me it seems a dumb move, that's just going to make GW pretty unpopular IMO, and is going to kill some interesting and fun lists.

[Eeeeron]

I know that GW isn't totally based around money

Given that it is a plc with shareholders, this statement is very debateable.