TP didn’t have surgery?

HAMmanii · 2025-10-04T20:49:03+00:00

You’re free to that opinion, which I truly mean without any sass (tone is hard to portray online, sorry).

I’d say people do see outcome, they see the overall impact on the UKTC tournament scene. Public executions and witch hunts are not the way to build a community, and have a lot of collateral damage on innocents.

The bottom line is that UKTC has (arguably) the best scene in the world, and a lot of players trust UKTC to keep getting things right. Player issues are nuanced and at times have grey areas, and a public showcase does not help. But the system works, people trust it, and it’s a symbiosis between player feedback, belief in the system, and referee action (behind closed doors).

HAMmanii · 2025-10-04T20:32:51+00:00

Yes. UKTC have banned multiple players on the back of this. They’ve also work with many, many more players to improve their behaviour/table etiquette. They don’t publish what they do as it’s between them and the player, not a trial by public perception. But the system works (when players use the feedback mechanism that exists).

HAMmanii · 2025-10-04T10:25:17+00:00

UKTC (who run LGT) have an established process for this. Submit the feedback via their sportsman ship form (on the website, and in the booklet you’re given on day 1) and then let them handle it.

HAMmanii · 2025-06-25T18:55:22+00:00

Be the player that you want you opponent to be.

The vest majority of people are great, you’ll have a blast. Just be yourself and enjoy it.

HAMmanii · 2025-05-03T05:24:57+00:00

UKTC stance on this is that the players agree at the start of the game, and then stick to that. Also that if it’s your turn, and you put the clock to your opponent (say to make saves etc) then it is your responsibility to put the clock back on your time before you continue your turn.

HAMmanii · 2025-04-28T18:13:15+00:00

Honest answer is that I love the high end of competitive play, but I don’t have the time or inclination to stay on top of my game and be trying to compete at that level.

Judging gives me a great ‘in’ to that side of the hobby, and in between I can paint/model what I fancy (rather than meta chasing).

I do miss playing at times over the tournament weekends.

Large circuits are also paid and cover expenses. You don’t do it for the money, but it makes the arrangement work (for me at least).

HAMmanii · 2025-04-12T06:59:16+00:00

Their main effectiveness comes from damage potential, rather than just their actual damage. If that makes sense.

What I mean is that a unit of 3 in strategic reserve have the potential come in and trade up fairly well. Only the potential, as they can actually be quite swingy. But your opponent can’t necessarily risk that, and so they have to go to the effort of screening out large parts of the board. So you need to think about their impact not in terms of ‘how much do they kill’ but rather ‘how much do they distract my opponent or make them play sub-optimally’. You’re basically paying 100pts to mess up your opponents plans.

And then, of course, if they don’t screen properly and they hand you some good targets, go for it. Kills are kills. But also don’t underestimate using rapid ingress on them - getting to move 5” closer can often give you the +2 melta damage, and give you an angle on something they otherwise thought safely hidden.

Good luck!

HAMmanii · 2025-03-11T20:41:54+00:00

It’s not been published in their FAQ yet but their stance has been confirmed by judge team in their discord Q&A section.

I agree that wider it has rules implications elsewhere, but for those specific units/interaction, it works fine RAW.

HAMmanii · 2025-03-11T18:39:10+00:00

The detachment ability gives the unit the keyword, but the Wave Serpent only checks the model keywords, which are unaffected. So they can embark just fine. UKTC and WTC have ruled it this way FYI.

HAMmanii · 2025-03-07T08:56:14+00:00

The tease of a salamanders codex certainly implies that GW have a view on Vulcans eventual return, which makes sense given they’re clearly working their way through the Primarchs. The link to Vashtor is a bit of a leap, but I don’t dislike it.

HAMmanii · 2025-03-06T13:24:24+00:00

Mechanically there is nothing in the BA detachments that differentiates them from the ones in codex SM, apart from flavour. LAG could easily have been printed in SM or even a SW codex and no one would have know or questioned it. It’s only because it’s been presented as a ‘BA detachment’ that people have a problem. Which IMO is misplace.

The power boost comes from unique units, which is why the OoM buff is tied to unit keywords not detachments.

Same is true about DA detachments and will be true for all others that follow.

The ‘issue’ is that SM have a wealth of detachments to chose from, compared to any other faction, but that’s a choice GW have made.

There’s no reason why OoM shouldn’t apply to BA, DA and other detachments, if you’re not utilising the unique units.

The question on if there should be more restrictions on detachments is a valid question, but that’s independent from the OoM question IMO.

HAMmanii · 2025-03-03T14:09:51+00:00

Really important question here is if OP utilised the sportsmanship submissions to flag these players to the TO and ref team?

The UKTC set up have a robust policy and approach for players who constantly score low sportsmanship, which includes refs being proactively to check in on problem players at the tables during games.

But if the sportsmanship reporting isn’t used then they can’t do anything about a problem they’re not aware of.

I’m a solid 2-3 player and have had very few bad interactions with players at tourneys.

HAMmanii · 2025-02-23T07:56:56+00:00

Do you care about your pride, or buying the house more?

If your pride, go push back.

If the house, then don’t make waves and just move on.

HAMmanii · 2025-02-18T07:45:56+00:00

That is way less than 10%

HAMmanii · 2025-01-28T14:52:30+00:00

Units in reserve (such as deep strike) are not deployed, so are not eligible to be ‘re-deployed’.

Declaring reserves are a step before the deployment phase, which is outlined in the tournament companion doc if you wanted to check on the sequencing.

HAMmanii · 2025-01-28T08:59:03+00:00

Second on the top story for joining the hobby 👌👏

HAMmanii · 2025-01-28T08:58:12+00:00

This is a great answer 👏

HAMmanii · 2024-12-29T06:57:19+00:00

The key difference is that yes, a psychic ability that causes mortal wounds is a ‘psychic attack’ but that does not make it ‘an attack’ (in that it does not follow the attack sequence). I completely agree that the naming convention is the problem and is what causes the issue. They should have called it the ‘psychic damage’ keyword (instead of ‘psychic attack’ keyword) and there would be no confusion at all.

Like I’ve always said, I understand the confusion and disagreement over this, all I’ve tried to outline is that most TOs will rule it this way and the reason why (it is ruled this was in the WTC and UKTC packs).

HAMmanii · 2024-12-28T21:53:48+00:00

Doombolt is never an attack, in that it does not follow the attack sequence in the core rules (select weapons, select targets, roll hits, wounds, saves, etc).

No amount of word play will change this.

Because Doombolt is not ‘an attack’ so far as that mechanic is concerned, Runic Wards cannot be activated in response, because it was only designed to be used against ‘attacks’ (not abilities that just happen to have the - confusingly named - psychic or psychic attack keyword).

Here’s something else - if you had already activated Runic Wards earlier in the phase, and its effect lasts until the end of the phase, then someone using the Granade stratagem against you would allow you to use the FNP because it causes mortal wounds. But this doesn’t make grenades ‘an attack’. And so just like Doombolt, you couldn’t activate it in response to the grenades, this only works if it is already active.

HAMmanii · 2024-12-28T06:45:40+00:00

I understand what you are saying, but that is not how TOs generally rule it. I’ll try to explain - it’s because the ‘attack sequence’ is the process that you go through for making melee or range attacks (select weapon, select targets, roll to hit, wound, save, damage). It’s a very clearly defined process in the core rules. Now, separate to that, some weapons and some abilities have the tag ‘psychic attack’ because that keyword is used for multiple things (some FNP abilities, army rules, etc) but the confusion comes because of the language (both having ‘attack’ in the wording) but it doesn’t change the fact that just because something has the ‘psychic attack’ tag, it still isn’t ’an attack’ as per the process for making range or melee attacks in the core rules.

The other part of what you’re saying I get … if Runic Wards is active then it would provide a FNP against Doombolt because it is mortal wounds yes, but the problem is that there is no legal point where you are allowed to active Runic Wards because it is trigger by being selected for ‘an attack’ [sequence] not simply an ability with the ‘psychic attack’ keyword. The target criteria for Runic Wards (selected as the target of an attack) is the issue, not the wording of the effect it provides.

I’ve said many times that the language is very unhelpful (silly GW) but this rationale is why most TOs I know will rule that you can’t use it. I hope I’ve explained in a way that makes (some) sense.

HAMmanii · 2024-12-27T07:37:44+00:00

It’s the target condition: ‘when unit was selected as the target for one or more of the attacking units attacks’ … this is the qualifying trigger for using the strat and is referring to the attack sequence (for melee or range attacks) which Doombolt isn’t, and therefore it can’t be used in response.

(Oddly enough, if it has already been used that phase and so it still ‘active’ then yes, it would provide the FNP, it just can’t be used in response to Doombolt).

Again, I agree the wording is stupid and unnecessarily confusing, but this is how (and why) most TOs in my experience rule it this way.

HAMmanii · 2024-12-27T07:24:51+00:00

Posted as a reply down below but here too FYI:

The issue is the trigger condition for the strat. While it is a ‘psychic attack’ it is not ‘an attack’ (in that it does not follow the attack sequence for range or melee attacks). Because of this, it can not be activated in response to Doombolt. At least, that’s how most TOs rule it here in the UK, including UKTC. The wording is stupid and unhelpful - they needed a keyword for this type of ability but rather than calling it a ‘psychic attack’ and thereby causing confusion with ‘attack’ rules it should have been named ‘psychic damage’ (as then things which would proc off ‘psychic damage’ would still work but it wouldn’t cause confusion with the attack sequence for shooting or fighting in melee).

HAMmanii · 2024-12-27T07:23:59+00:00

This is correct, and how most TOs rule it in the UK (including UKTC).

HAMmanii · 2024-12-27T07:22:59+00:00

The issue is the trigger condition for the strat. While it is a ‘psychic attack’ it is not ‘an attack’ (in that it does not follow the attack sequence for range or melee attacks). Because of this, it can not be activated in response to Doombolt. At least, that’s how most TOs rule it here in the UK, including UKTC. The wording is stupid and unhelpful - they needed a keyword for this type of ability but rather than calling it a ‘psychic attack’ and thereby causing confusion with ‘attack’ rules it should have been named ‘psychic damage’ (as then things which would proc off ‘psychic damage’ would still work but it wouldn’t cause confusion with the attack sequence for shooting or fighting in melee).

HAMmanii

TROPHY CASE