Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Jamie Ferguson

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Jamie Ferguson last won the day on January 2 2017

Jamie Ferguson had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

64 Celestant-Prime

About Jamie Ferguson

  • Rank
    Judicator

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've been giving a lot of thought to list building over the last while with a focus not on what's really good but more what the list needs. Some thoughts, please add the benefit of your experiences. This is geared towards competitive play. From an efficiency point of view, vulkites do most jobs as well or better than hearthguard. Unless taking Lords of the lodge, they're probably not worth it. Aurics are vulnerable but with the addition of a runesmiter they offer something that the list does not otherwise have, the ability to alpha strike key pieces. Bubble wrapping with chaff is easy for most factions and there are lists (Kroak or gaunt summoner on a balewind vortex spring to mind) that are becoming more common and need to be dealt with quickly. Nothing else in the list that I can see can take down these sorts of guys quickly enough. On paper, hearthguard look much better but perhaps they just offer more of what we already have? I can't make my mind up about magmadroths. One is an easy target giving skyfires some easy target identification, 3 sound like they'll do some work together but the points may be more effective elsewhere. I think if you take multiples you'll need a big unit of poleaxes in Lords of the lodge to deal with big nasties such as stardrakes. A maxed out Warrior kinband looks like a solid choice, efficient and useful but I don't know if it's worth 90 points for the benefits, the choices look strong enough alone. We obviously can't have a full warrior kinband, tunnelling aurics, multiple magmadroths and lords of the lodge in one list. These seem to be our main tools. My questions is, which of these do you feel like you're missing the most when you don't have them in your list?
  2. I agree, this thread is surely at its end. I started it because I felt people were being disenfranchised without due consideration. All that seems to be happening is that those disenfranchised players are now being dismissed as irrelevant for numerous reasons or worse, ridiculed. Whatever helps people sleep at night I guess. Harm is being done to players people don't care about and are not traditionally vocal on forums like this or twitter. Because people don't care about them, it's ok to dismiss them as not 'real' gamers or whatever. I'm not talking about folks who take the latest TK 'filth', I'm talking of people who want to run wanderers, duardin, empire or brets with half a chance of a decent game. Disenfranchising them is ok if it makes events better for the top 10% who don't like to see TK in events? I'd say that's simply not fair. Play your own game, start your own event, do your own thing. These are comments that are unhelpful at best and spiteful at worst. If these players want to take part in the tournament scene, very often their only gaming opportunity is hours away from their homes and voting with their feet would mean not playing at all. Sadly, rather than help to alleviate that harm, this thread I started is clearly doing more harm than good to a community that is clearly divided on this issue. if I can make one request, after asking mods to close this thread down, please don't make fun of or ridicule people just because you don't agree with them. I've seen too much of that. Mods, if you're listening, surely this thread has run its course and has little left to contribute before more people get upset.
  3. Same boat for me, I've elves, dwarfs and empire lists that struggle without compendium. I don't tend to use them as I'm favouring my Sylvaneth. I started this thread as I had a philosophical issue and because I personally know people (and by extension a community) who will be negatively affected by this if it becomes a trend.
  4. It's because an independent tournament, the 'SCGT' (considered the biggest and one of the best events on the calendar. Certainly the most influential) has decided to ban compendium. Not GW.
  5. Very good post. I'll admit I'm biased as I agree with the premise and conclusion but that does not take away from the quality of the post.
  6. Aww, come on that's not very charitable. The vast majority of posts on here have just been people with a viewpoint, some passionate, respectfully having a discussion. Ridicule is not fair or helpful. Surely the whole point of this forum is to have a 'forum' for discussion. Ive been pleased to read well considered posts on every side of the discussion on this thread. I've not changed my viewpoint but I'm enlightened as to the views of others and I respect (most) of their opinions.
  7. So Dan has explained his choice on twitter, which was pretty much what I was hoping for. I think this choice stands to hurt players who didn't need to be hurt. I still don't see any reason why there's any need to be ahead of the curve or to preempt what may be seen as inevitable. I'd far rather that the compendium armies were allowed to fade away naturally and ideally be given time to be replaced - thus stopping people from being disenfranchised. I'm all for inclusion and making things open to as many as possible. I'm pleased to see that at the time of writing, Mings poll suggests that a majority feel the same. All that said, Dan's call is to run the event he'd like to attend and give what he sees is the best overall experience. You can't really argue with that. While I don't agree with his call I completely respect it and thank him for being clear. (Which he didn't have to be)
  8. Me actually. But I don't think for a second that my decision will have any impact on the success of the event, nor should it.
  9. That wasn't my intention. Tell me where I went wrong and misled you please?
  10. I get that you're asking for perspective and context. I appreciate that. Unfortunately we're now at 3 events announcing they've taken this line and as I've said, many others historically follow this lead, it's happening already. Due to an accident of geography I live in Aberdeen so few of the 20+ events you mention are realistic options for me. The ones that are have tended to follow SCGT or Facehammer or Blood and Glory. To coin a phrase, when podcasters sneeze, the gaming world catches a cold. You know folks from Aberdeen do travel to some events down south (a bunch came to your Alliance) so we do try and get involved to the best of our abilities but the majority of our events are in Scotland where there are still a number of players who, not for competitive advantage run compendium lists. They may not even have alternate lists or just be considering returning to the still sparse Scottish gaming scene. For these reasons, it is a big deal. Round here, voting with your feet means not supporting Scottish events that need all the bodies they can get and Scotland too follows the podcasters lead. The purpose of this thread was simply to ask, who really gains by excluding compendium armies? I think Rob said it best on twitter. (Though he makes it clear these are his personal opinions and not necessarily GW company line)
  11. I doubt anyone really expects an update for compendium warscrolls. That's not the issue. Youre right, it is an SCGT issue but as I said in my original post, like it or not, where they go others historically follow. Already two other large tournaments have declared they're doing the same and still no one has given a reason for compendium scrolls being banned. These podcasters have the soapbox and they use it. Generally they serve the community well. I really don't get why this call is being made and who is served by not letting people play the way they want to if it hurts no one else. Hopefully they'll justify their decision but I understand they have no obligation to do so. They are aware that what they do has a huge impact on the scene though and is likely to be felt across the gaming world.
  12. Yes, you can use them in open/narrative play. The issue is that I personally know a number of players who enjoy the tournament scene who also happen to play compendium armies. What you're essentially saying is that you can't go to tournaments unless you have an up to date competitive army. Does your tournament experience depend on people with old armies not turning up? If not, then why should their experience depend on your arbitrary decision that their army is currently out of date when there are available points and rules for them. I like to play newer armies myself, I just don't see who is served by excluding older armies that are not going to be competing for podiums due to low power levels anyway. Isn't that just elitist or is there another reason to exclude these armies? As you say, they'll fade out eventually, hopefully to be replaced. Why push them out now and upset people when there's no real need?
  13. Totally hear what you're saying but I come to different conclusions. From a competitive standpoint, competitive games are unlikely to be affected by hobby players bringing Brett's (an example) as they'll be at the bottom tables. That's their choice. Does it hurt anyone, I don't believe so, does it make them happy, probably. If they're not happy they can always pick up a new army. Again, their choice. For a new player who likes the Brett models, simply explaining the difficulty in collecting/modelling/playing them will enable them to make their own mind up. Again, their, informed, choice. Does it hurt anyone else if they fall in love with chivalrous knights? I don't think so. If you think being unsupported is an issue, tell them. They decide. Your 'it's dead' approach is just really telling everyone else to play your way and making decisions for them, or not allowing them to make decisions. If you introduce 20 new players to the game and they all lean towards Brett's (unlikely, they and all compendium forces hardly proliferate) then explaining the issues will probably just cause 19 of them to change their mind and choose stormcast. The 20th player? Probably just wants to push horsies across the table and, informed as they were about their chance of winning, just wants a cool game on the bottom tables with like minded people. Sure, dropping compendium makes things simpler for competitive gamers who are aware of the latest meta, but is that enough of a reason?
×
×
  • Create New...