Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I haven't seen a thread about this yet, so here goes.

We all know that tournaments have always tweaked 40k to better fit the tournament setting - new missions, objectives, etc. With 6e there are a lot of things that have more variety, or introduce new concepts. Dakka has a fair few Tournament Organisers on here, so what do they see being allowed in tournaments?

- Would you use the current missions or keep with your own?
- Keep the rulebook minor objectives?
- Allies?
- Fortifications?
- Randomised water features/mysterious terrain?

There's a lot of people (me included) who think that 40k 6e is generally going to be a more complex and slower game than 5e - will you change tournament army sizes to accommodate this, or play less games?

I'm good buddies with the TO for my FLGS. I think the current thought is to start out with playing out of the book, and see how things go.

so, book missions, fortifications, allies, all that. But our tournaments are small affairs.

I think larger events will do their own missions, if only because playing short edges is very tough in a GT setting, logistically.

2.5 hours, minimal changes since we are the first 6th Edition GT, with already 220 registrations and those spiking since the announcement that we'd do 6th.

Probably no "large" fortifications, but keeping at least Aegis so people aren't prevented from buying at least the one AA gun (Same # basically as every other fortification).

Missions will have to be fitted into tournaments, but we'll probably incorporate some of the components, including possibly/probably the secondary breaker as a breaker for us after the primaries.

Still a work in progress.

Probably no randomized terrain features, since we aren't in a position to suddenly ensure every board has the same quantity and location of features that can be mysterious, but we'll probably leave mysterious objectives in. They aren't very impactful on the game in test so far anyway.

Lots of work to do, little time for us to do it.=

ArbitorIan wrote:So, I haven't seen a thread about this yet, so here goes.

We all know that tournaments have always tweaked 40k to better fit the tournament setting - new missions, objectives, etc. With 6e there are a lot of things that have more variety, or introduce new concepts. Dakka has a fair few Tournament Organisers on here, so what do they see being allowed in tournaments?

- Would you use the current missions or keep with your own?
- Keep the rulebook minor objectives?
- Allies?
- Fortifications?
- Randomised water features/mysterious terrain?

There's a lot of people (me included) who think that 40k 6e is generally going to be a more complex and slower game than 5e - will you change tournament army sizes to accommodate this, or play less games?

Everything except mysterious terrain. Fortresses of Redemption will probably be banned because it will be difficult to place them on correctly-configured tables, but Bastions and Aegis Lines will be permitted. Also, we won't be running 2000 point games for some time, and when we do they will likely be "1999+-1" games or simply 2000 point games without double force organization charts in effect. If the rulebook missions prove to be unreasonable or unbalanced, we'll switch them, but the Kill the Warlord and Linebreaker secondary objectives will nearly certainly be retained. The First Blood objective is still undecided. We need to run more tests. It looks like the first player will nearly always claim this objective, but this might change as lists evolve, and it does serve to mitigate the current advantage given to players who go second.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, also. The short table edges deployment will have to be removed at some events. It simply isn't physically viable with the way tables are often configured.

So here are a few thoughts on what we can do to make it better for tournaments

No mysterious terrain

No Random Objectives

No Fortifications (No reasonable way to incorporate a Skyshield or Fortress into tournament play, I guess you could limit it to aegis defense lines and Single Bastions, but that seems like a $$$ tax to play in the event more than a thematic addition to a fighting force.)

You chose your warlord trait, it goes printed on your list. Same trait for your warlord makes it viable for in depth strategies.

I have 2 ideas for psycic powers:
1. Select from the lists – Rolling powers you cant use and getting shafted with the basic power is game breaking, not balanced and not competitive.
2. Select powers and pay points for them Equal to their spot X Warp charge. Examples:
Crush is 1 on the list so its 1 point, and its Warp charge is 1. 1X1 = 1 its a 1 point spell.
Hallucination is 6 on the list and 2 Warp charges 6X2 = 12. 12 point spell (which still makes this monster of a power under costed. You could take the base powers for free.

Psycher levels and masteries need to be clearly defined and listed in the tournament pack before hand.
There is too much confusion as to what does what at this point. Mark of Tzeentch in Chaos Space Marines? I think that will be a solid discussion for the council to decide. As long as there is clarity, it can be useful.

Missions, that varies from TO to TO...

Clearly defined and edited list of what constitutes a Upgrade leader, specifically, when Nobz/ Wolfguard form their own unit, they can LoS each other. (Are paladins in the appendix? If so add them to the list of no LoS) I think this should be removed, as they are no longer leaders of a squad, but in a squad of people that are similar.


Those are my first impressions after having played a few games, but I think its a good start.

How are you getting round the problem of player's fortifications must be placed before any other terrain?

There is a huge msssive imbalance with the objective missions that can have an odd number of objectives ('Crusade' & 'Big Guns Never Tire') in that players get to place the objectives AFTER they've chosen sides and deployed terrain. Now that objectives can be placed within 6" of a table edge that means especially in Hammer & Anvil deployment (the short table edge deployment) the player who gets lucky enough to place the first objective has a MASSIVE advantage of having an etxtra objective deep on their side of the table.

Even the 6 objective mission 'The Scourging' suffesr from this problem becasue the different objective values are randomly determined, so it is entirely possible for one player to end up with both the '4' point objective and one of the '3' point objectives deep on their side of the table immediately giving them a huge advantage.

As MVBrandt suggested, I do not think these rules are fit for tournaments for this reason. Can a player overcome the deficit presented by these situations and still win? Of course, but the mission is still inherently imbalanced and therefore not right for a tournament.

If you DO want to use some of these missions, a Dakka user 'Dok' suggested a very simple fix that helps out quite a bit:

For any mission where you get an odd number of objectives, the very first one placed must go into the very center of the table (or as close as humanly possible given the position of the terrain). After that the rest of the objectives would be placed as normal per the rulebook.


I'd also suggest that for 'The Scourging', I suggest this: Take the '4' point objective and the '1' objective out of the pool of objective markers, mix them up and then hand one back to each player (without knowing which objective is which). These markers must be placed first and must be deployed somewhere along the 'center line of the table (based on the deployment type chosen for the game), but otherwise are deployed as normal.

Both players then each get one '3' objective marker and one '2' objective marker and mix them up without looking at their values. They then proceed to place these objectives as described in the rulebook (remaining 12" away from the other objectives already placed).



As for whether or not to allow the Mysterious Objectives rules, while I normally ahbor randomness, it does seem like if you're using Warlord rules, that you need to include the rules for Mysterious Objectives as well, because I think the two are written to kind of play off each other...and also the Mysterious Objectives are anotehr way that 'Skyfire' gets added into the game.

I'm not fond of the exploding mysterious objective since it seems to be a bigger penalty for non-MEQ armies. The others seem alright.

MVBrandt wrote:2.5 hours, minimal changes since we are the first 6th Edition GT, with already 220 registrations and those spiking since the announcement that we'd do 6th.

You're the second 6th edition GT. The first is the Golden Throne GT in San Jose August 4-5.

We're doing 1500pts, 2 hours and 15 minutes per round.

robpace wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:2.5 hours, minimal changes since we are the first 6th Edition GT, with already 220 registrations and those spiking since the announcement that we'd do 6th.

You're the second 6th edition GT. The first is the Golden Throne GT in San Jose August 4-5.

We're doing 1500pts, 2 hours and 15 minutes per round.

Sweet dude! No offense meant by getting my metrics wrong, and good luck. I'll be eyeballing all the lessons learned I can.

MVBrandt wrote:

Sweet dude! No offense meant by getting my metrics wrong, and good luck. I'll be eyeballing all the lessons learned I can.

None taken! I think sixth edition is going to provide some incredibly fun gaming. Things have become much more cinematic.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:words words words

These strike me as sweeping and unnecessary changes, and honestly the types of thing that we really want to AVOID in the new edition. At this point it's basically houserulehammer and not representative of the way the game is actually played under most contexts. In particular, the psychic power changes are basically complete rewrites, allowing selected Warlord traits is very unbalanced, and removing mysterious objectives is not necessary. Since 2/3 of the results on the mysterious objective table are positive, this table encourages players to move out onto the area.

Realistically, the goal of TOs should be to run events that are competitive and fun while also being as close to "mainline" 40k as possible. Obviously, some things will have to change-- fortifications deploy after other terrain instead of before it, for instance-- but making huge overhauls should be avoided.

No one has said anything about allies, something I'm very interested in.

Polonius wrote:I'm good buddies with the TO for my FLGS. I think the current thought is to start out with playing out of the book, and see how things go.

so, book missions, fortifications, allies, all that. But our tournaments are small affairs.

I think larger events will do their own missions, if only because playing short edges is very tough in a GT setting, logistically.

This is what my TO friend is doing too, and we too are a smaller affair.

The only real issue in all honesty is Epidemius with plague mariens is just silly....
=/

We have never banned a unit in our tournies before. But Epidemius in a CSM might just be the unit to push that line. We're going to allow for know and see how things play out.

We have a 6th ed primer in about 10days. 2000 pt, no allies, only 1 FOC. Terrain is fixed, so no Bastions and such. Missions are special to tournament, with primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives. There are also several extra judges for rules look ups.

I'm surprised nobody is talking about Fateweaver with Oblits and Terminators. Just as broken if not more so them Epidemus IMHO.

That is the main reason I am unlikely to go to any tournament which allows allies.

Also, I noticed that nobody has mentioned the change to the Open List format of 5th. The 6ed book says you are required to show you opponent your list AFTER the game, but sharing lists pre-game is only done if both persons agree. So are tournaments going to do hidden lists or open lists?

-Jeff

Sinjin wrote:
Also, I noticed that nobody has mentioned the change to the Open List format of 5th. The 6ed book says you are required to show you opponent your list AFTER the game, but sharing lists pre-game is only done if both persons agree. So are tournaments going to do hidden lists or open lists?

-Jeff

If your army is 100% WYSIWYG, it doesn't matter you can't see the list. If you attempt to try to not tell someone what a particular unit is or what is in a particular transport, then the game ends. I am not sure what 'hidden' lists accomplishes or how it is even possible in a game. Nothing allows you to keep transport contents hidden or put shoota boyz on the table and say 'AH HAAAAAAAA they were sluggas all along!'

Marzillius wrote:No one has said anything about allies, something I'm very interested in.

The guys at frontline gaming said on their podcast that they were going to push for allies in all major GTs. I don't think allies will go away, as they open up broken combos (Not that there aren't any already in codexs. Oh wait...), but more importantly they diversify the armies you would see on the table and allow for some very fluffy armies.

I could see Warlord powers and random objectives going away and fortifications severely limited, but that is it.

nkelsch wrote:

Sinjin wrote:
Also, I noticed that nobody has mentioned the change to the Open List format of 5th. The 6ed book says you are required to show you opponent your list AFTER the game, but sharing lists pre-game is only done if both persons agree. So are tournaments going to do hidden lists or open lists?

-Jeff

If your army is 100% WYSIWYG, it doesn't matter you can't see the list. If you attempt to try to not tell someone what a particular unit is or what is in a particular transport, then the game ends. I am not sure what 'hidden' lists accomplishes or how it is even possible in a game. Nothing allows you to keep transport contents hidden or put shoota boyz on the table and say 'AH HAAAAAAAA they were sluggas all along!'

That doesn't mean I have to tell you what psychic powers I am taking, if my unit has some form of grenades, purchased abilities, psychic hoods, what is in reserve( I can just say I have stuff in reserve I don't have to tell you what it is), all that and more.

Will double FOC's be allowed for games at 2000 points?

Will allys be allowed?

Smitty0305 wrote:Will double FOC's be allowed for games at 2000 points?

Will allys be allowed?

I am thinking that 2000 will be one FOC and Allies will be allowed.

Happygrunt wrote:

Smitty0305 wrote:Will double FOC's be allowed for games at 2000 points?

Will allys be allowed?

I am thinking that 2000 will be one FOC and Allies will be allowed.

I think that makes alot of sense.

Allys bring alot of balance to the game (minus a few broken combinations).
Double FOC makes the game entirely spam based, either bring 8 heavy supports or go home.

I'll be allowing allies in some manner (Possibly no desperate allies), no random terrain, no fortifications (Maybe in future in some limited fashion), modified missions as tournaments rarely use stock missions anyhow. I'm debating on warlord powers as some of the abilities are so much better than others and I don't like pre-game randomness hurting a player.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:
I have 2 ideas for psycic powers:
1. Select from the lists – Rolling powers you cant use and getting shafted with the basic power is game breaking, not balanced and not competitive.
2. Select powers and pay points for them Equal to their spot X Warp charge. Examples:
Crush is 1 on the list so its 1 point, and its Warp charge is 1. 1X1 = 1 its a 1 point spell.
Hallucination is 6 on the list and 2 Warp charges 6X2 = 12. 12 point spell (which still makes this monster of a power under costed. You could take the base powers for free.

Psycher levels and masteries need to be clearly defined and listed in the tournament pack before hand.
There is too much confusion as to what does what at this point. Mark of Tzeentch in Chaos Space Marines? I think that will be a solid discussion for the council to decide. As long as there is clarity, it can be useful.

Fantasy has had the random magic powers for some time now. It isn't unbalanced, doesn't break the game and actually requires you to think on your feet rather than the point and click gameplay so many players have gotten used to. I disagree that random powers is bad. If anything, it helps to balance out the soon-to-be-seen Eldrad/Farseer in EVERY space marine list problem that will be occuring soon. Talk about not balanced and not competitive....

godswildcard wrote:

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:
I have 2 ideas for psycic powers:
1. Select from the lists – Rolling powers you cant use and getting shafted with the basic power is game breaking, not balanced and not competitive.
2. Select powers and pay points for them Equal to their spot X Warp charge. Examples:
Crush is 1 on the list so its 1 point, and its Warp charge is 1. 1X1 = 1 its a 1 point spell.
Hallucination is 6 on the list and 2 Warp charges 6X2 = 12. 12 point spell (which still makes this monster of a power under costed. You could take the base powers for free.

Psycher levels and masteries need to be clearly defined and listed in the tournament pack before hand.
There is too much confusion as to what does what at this point. Mark of Tzeentch in Chaos Space Marines? I think that will be a solid discussion for the council to decide. As long as there is clarity, it can be useful.

Fantasy has had the random magic powers for some time now. It isn't unbalanced, doesn't break the game and actually requires you to think on your feet rather than the point and click gameplay so many players have gotten used to. I disagree that random powers is bad. If anything, it helps to balance out the soon-to-be-seen Eldrad/Farseer in EVERY space marine list problem that will be occuring soon. Talk about not balanced and not competitive....

you do understand that if a space marine army brings a farseer, the space marine psykers are negatively effected by runes of warding. The Codex refers that runes of warding is taken by "enemies" and the ally part of the rulebook says models are refered to as "enemy". So I dont think we will be seing farseer spam.

Smitty0305 wrote:you do understand that if a space marine army brings a farseer, the space marine psykers are negatively effected by runes of warding. The Codex refers that runes of warding is taken by "enemies" and the ally part of the rulebook says models are refered to as "enemy". So I dont think we will be seing farseer spam.

The whole point of taking an allied Farseer is the psychic defense. He's a cheap spoiler character that strongly counters any enemy investment in psykers while providing some modest abilities of his own.

About allies: I think "desperate" allies have enough drawbacks built-in to allow them. Do any TOs really envision them being "too good" to allow? So far, all the good combinations I've seen have been Battle Brothers or Allies of Convenience.

For the Epidemius/Plague Marines, or Kairos/Oblits and Termies, it should be easy to make an additional ruling such as "Epidemius' special rules referring to 'followers' only benefits daemons" or the like, right?

I'm mostly just disallowing non-battle brothers as a means for testing out 6th with a little more restraint. If it goes well I'll probably open up other combinations.

Good idea about Kairos and Epidemius tho

Limiting allies to only Battle brothers puts the imperium at a huge advantage since they have multiple armies to ally with.

Clearly this edition is the non-tournament edition.

@thehod

I disagree. I outside of the purchasable terrain I feel like this one is going to be better for competitive play. It's certainly a boost to Xenos armies off the bat. And the Allies system is ridiculously hard to break outside of the daemon/chaos alliance because for some reason they didn't write it to affect only units from the same codex.