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.

My suggested solution for all of the bickering about the new 40K expansions, Forge World and anything else that has flipped our 40K world on its head. I propose the implementation of Formats. Much like how Magic The Gathering does it (i.e. Standard, Limited etc...).


Warhammer 40,000 - Formats

Codex 40K* - Armies can be selected only from a Codex and/or Codex: Supplement.

Expanded FOC 40K* - Armies can be selected from a Codex, Codex: Supplement, Spearhead, Escalation, Stronghold Assault and/or any publication that adds to the standard Force Organization Chart laid out in the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook.

Open 40K* - Armies can be selected from a Codex, Codex: Supplement, Dataslates and/or Imperial Armour; adhereing to the standard Force Organization Chart laid out in the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook.

Apocalypse - Let all Hell break loose!

*Can include rules and gameplay from one or more of the following publications: Planetstrike, Cities of Death, Death from the Skie and Battle Missions.

 oni wrote:

Codex 40K* - Armies can be selected only from a Codex and/or Codex: Supplement.

This option would also include escalation and stronghold assault since they're supplements.

 oni wrote:


Codex 40K* - Armies can be selected only from a Codex
.

I think is better this way. Two books: the Rulebook and your Codex. That´s all.

If you add Supplements, then add them all.

Codex 40k does seem like the best idea, my thoughts on stronghold and escalation, are that they should only be played when there is at least one of those expansions on each side.

I don't much care for Codex 40k.... but I'd say its best to keep it at:
Codex 40k
Open 40k It seems illogical for one of them to permit forgeworld superheavies, codex supplements, and all that but not let you bring in IA which is really just another codex supplement (and in certain cases is something like Armoured Battle Group which is the same as the Black Legion, Iyanden, etc)

deviantduck wrote:

 oni wrote:

Codex 40K* - Armies can be selected only from a Codex and/or Codex: Supplement.

This option would also include escalation and stronghold assault since they're supplements.

da001 wrote:

 oni wrote:


Codex 40K* - Armies can be selected only from a Codex
.

I think is better this way. Two books: the Rulebook and your Codex. That´s all.

If you add Supplements, then add them all.

Guys, the key phrase was "Codex: Supplements". See the colon in there? I didn't want to exclude things like Black Legion, Sentinels of Terra, etc... , but this all just in the idea phase right now.

It depends on what are you aiming to, I guess. But then I am missing a format, the most important one in my opinion. The basic one. The standard.

We can call it: "Basic 40K: the codex". One faction, one book (or many, if you play marines).

Imagine you are trying to convince someone to join the game. How many books does he need? Two? Or two plus nobody knows how many? What would be best?

Also, quality. The quality of most supplements is awful. The Codexes have a lot of effort put into them (with the exceptions of AA and Inquisition). They look great, and they are nice to read. Eye-candies. "Basic" shouldn´t include supplements of any kind.

Just my opinion, of course. But if you are willing to add a full book for a single company of a single chapter of a single faction, why not add everything else?

But a lot of the broken/vague rules in the BRB are fixed via supplement instead of faq or errata.

 deviantduck wrote:
But a lot of the broken/vague rules in the BRB are fixed via supplement instead of faq or errata.

Proof?

40k Classic. no supplements or expansions

new 40k supplements and expansions and 40k forge world.

mountain dew. all hell breaks loose. bring on the Apoc.

 deviantduck wrote:
But a lot of the broken/vague rules in the BRB are fixed via supplement instead of faq or errata.

Could you give us an example?

The Black Legion supplement didn´t fix anything. It just gave us four Heldrakes instead of three. It made it far worse.
The Farsight supplement didn´t fix anything. It just gave us four Riptides instead of three. It made it far worse.
The Iyanden supplement had nothing to fix, but it focused on the Wraithknight, which was bad. It clearly aimed at making things worse.
The Fist´s supplement aimed at the Centurions. See a trend? The worse unit balance-wise, the "pay to win" unit that people who like the background or who do not play the faction hate. That´s what the supplements aim for: they are money-grabbers, game-breakers.

In my opinion, of course. I am curious about what rules did the supplements fix.

 oni wrote:

deviantduck wrote:

 oni wrote:

Codex 40K* - Armies can be selected only from a Codex and/or Codex: Supplement.

This option would also include escalation and stronghold assault since they're supplements.

da001 wrote:

 oni wrote:


Codex 40K* - Armies can be selected only from a Codex
.

I think is better this way. Two books: the Rulebook and your Codex. That´s all.

If you add Supplements, then add them all.

Guys, the key phrase was "Codex: Supplements". See the colon in there? I didn't want to exclude things like Black Legion, Sentinels of Terra, etc... , but this all just in the idea phase right now.

Then why ban my Armoured Battle Group or Red Scorpions? Are they not arguably just as much a Codex: supplement? And that's why I argue it best to just divide them into 3 segments. Your just codex and rulebook, your supplementary books (if you really want to you can make another that is to keep escalation and the sorts out of the segment that has supplements and IA), and then Apocalypse where you just have fun blowing stuff up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 da001 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
But a lot of the broken/vague rules in the BRB are fixed via supplement instead of faq or errata.

Could you give us an example?

The Black Legion supplement didn´t fix anything. It just gave us four Heldrakes instead of three. It made it far worse.
The Farsight supplement didn´t fix anything. It just gave us four Riptides instead of three. It made it far worse.
The Iyanden supplement had nothing to fix, but it focused on the Wraithknight, which was bad. It clearly aimed at making things worse.
The Fist´s supplement aimed at the Centurions. See a trend? The worse unit balance-wise, the "pay to win" unit that people who like the background or who do not play the faction hate. That´s what the supplements aim for: they are money-grabbers, game-breakers.

In my opinion, of course. I am curious about what rules did the supplements fix.

I'm not trying to disagree, but what of the Iron Warriors one?

Iron Warriors??? You are dreaming, brother. The sons of the mighty Perturabo are low in the love of the GW´s writers nowadays.

Iron Hands. I was told that the fluff was abysmal, that they had ignored everything written about the Chapter in the last 25+ years and turned them into a 100% codex-compliant Chapter. People gave me quotes proving that many things written there clearly go against the previous background, so I am ignoring this one.

But I haven´t read it, so I cannot give you an opinion.

 da001 wrote:
Iron Warriors??? You are dreaming, brother. The sons of the mighty Perturabo are low in the love of the GW´s writers nowadays.

Iron Hands. I was told that the fluff was abysmal, that they had ignored everything written about the Chapter in the last 25+ years and turned them into a 100% codex-compliant Chapter. People gave me quotes proving that many things written there clearly go against the previous background, so I am ignoring this one.

But I haven´t read it, so I cannot give you an opinion.

Derp. Apologies. Always liked the Iron Warriors so I said them instead of the hands wait the what? I was more curious of people's claims of the crunch (I wasn't planning on getting it. Had a hunch the fluff would be pretty bad. The faction is so treated on the wayside it's a joke). On Iron Warrios, let's be honest, GW doesn't particularly havem uch love of chaos to begin with

I like the idea of Codex 40k.

Why is my Armored Battlegroup only allowed in the Open 40k? What if I wanted to play Armored Battlegroup without being forced to plan for a Revenant Titan?

I'd definitely support the implementation of Formats, provided that all the formats were getting some face time in my local community.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is my Armored Battlegroup only allowed in the Open 40k? What if I wanted to play Armored Battlegroup without being forced to plan for a Revenant Titan?

I made some adjustments to my original post. This is all still a work in progress and hopefully it will catch on. Thank you for the input.

Where oh where does my Elysian army fit in?

 oni wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is my Armored Battlegroup only allowed in the Open 40k? What if I wanted to play Armored Battlegroup without being forced to plan for a Revenant Titan?

I made some adjustments to my original post. This is all still a work in progress and hopefully it will catch on. Thank you for the input.

Forgive me, but what I believe he is (and the individual above me Elysian) is arguing that.... DKoK siege, DKoK assault, Elysian, and Armored Battlegroups are all IA. They are much like the codex: supplements bar a few special rules and reorganizations here and there. With your current rules, the only way such individuals would b e allowed to play with them was at the same level as pretty much everything else thus denying them of the chance of using their own unique armies.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 oni wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is my Armored Battlegroup only allowed in the Open 40k? What if I wanted to play Armored Battlegroup without being forced to plan for a Revenant Titan?

I made some adjustments to my original post. This is all still a work in progress and hopefully it will catch on. Thank you for the input.

Forgive me, but what I believe he is (and the individual above me Elysian) is arguing that.... DKoK siege, DKoK assault, Elysian, and Armored Battlegroups are all IA. They are much like the codex: supplements bar a few special rules and reorganizations here and there. With your current rules, the only way such individuals would b e allowed to play with them was at the same level as pretty much everything else thus denying them of the chance of using their own unique armies.

Copy/Paste got me on the original post and Open 40K had wrongfully included Escalation and Stronghold Assault. Open 40K was changed to read...

"Open 40K* - Armies can be selected from a Codex, Codex: Supplement, Dataslates and/or Imperial Armour; adhering to the standard Force Organization Chart laid out in the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook."

This, in my opinion, puts them on par. IA books are not an army Codex nor a Codex: Supplement despite how one may perceive them. IA books are Expansions, they even say so on the cover. Before we all descend into the banal IA "legality" arguments, the whole intention of 40K Formats is to create separate, but structured play environments. Ones that can include such things as DKoK and Elysian's while also having formats that are limited to just Codex armies - Let me play 40K how I want to play 40K and let the IA players play 40K how they want to play 40K; formats is exactly how this can be accomplished.

Rather than have me hanged for my suggestions and opinions on how I think the formats should be structured, chip in, make a suggestion of your own to help set the precedent on how YOU want to play 40K.

Edit: I thought I should clarify that I'm trying to speak in general not attack anyone nor do I take offense to anyone's comments.

Leave tournament and league rules to TO and everyday games to personal agreement on what play and what not.

Setting aditional formats is useless when TO already makes their own rules.

 oni wrote:
My suggested solution for all of the bickering about the new 40K expansions, Forge World and anything else that has flipped our 40K world on its head. I propose the implementation of Formats. Much like how Magic The Gathering does it (i.e. Standard, Limited etc...).


Warhammer 40,000 - Formats

Codex 40K* - Armies can be selected only from a Codex and/or Codex: Supplement.

Expanded FOC 40K* - Armies can be selected from a Codex, Codex: Supplement, Spearhead, Escalation, Stronghold Assault and/or any publication that adds to the standard Force Organization Chart laid out in the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook.

Open 40K* - Armies can be selected from a Codex, Codex: Supplement, Dataslates and/or Imperial Armour; adhereing to the standard Force Organization Chart laid out in the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook.

Apocalypse - Let all Hell break loose!

*Can include rules and gameplay from one or more of the following publications: Planetstrike, Cities of Death, Death from the Skie and Battle Missions.

I like this idea. +1, needs work and would suggest simplifying:

Standard - Rulebook/Codex

Unlimited - As above+Expansions/Forgeworld/Supplments/Dataslates....etc

 L0rdF1end wrote:

 oni wrote:
*snip*

I like this idea. +1, needs work and would suggest simplifying:

Standard - Rulebook/Codex

Unlimited - As above+Expansions/Forgeworld/Supplments/Dataslates....etc

The problem with this is that it unfairly punishes people running fluffy armies using the supplements and Imperial Armour lists. These aren't in any way individually broken (some people object to riptide spam due to 'self-allying;and such, if you want to limit that make every non-troops choice 0-2 or whatever or just disallow allying a vraint of a list to that list) and add great ways to run a fluffy, competent but not overpowered variant army. Look at the Renegades and Heretics list, it's basically Guard with random leadership, many of the fancy toys taken away and some chaosy flavour thrown in. Or the Dark Harvest Necron list, they give up a lot in exchange for Flayed Ones as Troops. Not in any way broken, fluffy as hell and great fun on the tabletop. There is no concievable reason to limit the use of these armies just because the books containing them don't say 'codex' on the front. I like the overall idea of this a lot, but my proposal for a two-format system is slightly different:

Standard - You may draw an army from codices, supplements, Imperial Armour books (can excluded Armoured Battlegroup and Elysian Drop Troops here if you really think they're too good, I don't) and the fortifications listed in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook using the standard force organisation chart in the 40k rulebook, without selections from Escalation or Stronghold Assault.

Expanded - You may draw an army from codices, supplements, Imperial Armour books and Dataslates, including choices from Escalation and Stronghold Assault.

Simple, easy and it covers all the bases you want to cover without being needlessly restrictive. Individual tournaments may of course choose to make additional bans on top of that, but I think it's important to include Forge World by default if there's any hope of the resistance to it lessening comprehensively. It is easy for a tournament to say "Standard Format, No Forge World units" so I don't think there's any need to put the ban in there by default. You could also add a third "Limited" format where only codices are allowed if you wished.

 da001 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
But a lot of the broken/vague rules in the BRB are fixed via supplement instead of faq or errata.

Could you give us an example?

Yeah, I mean it's possible this happened once or twice, but I can't think of an example of this happening since like 1991 when the Warhammer 40K Companion adjusted the stats for a few types of units like Space Marines to account for the way the game had evolved since the original release of Rogue Trader.

The best way to create different tournament formats is to get rid of the absurd assumption that the brand name (GW/FW/GW Digital/Citadel/whatever) a set of rules was published under and separate them by how the rules actually function. To create a "basic" and "open" set of rules you do it by which detachments are legal:

Basic 40k: single primary detachment only. You can make that detachment using whatever source(s) you want, but you can't add additional detachments. So you could take IG with FW units, a Farsight Tau army, etc, but no allies/superheavies/inquisitors/etc. And I guess if you want you could add a single fortification, but I'd limit it to the single-piece ones and not the multi-part "units" of fortifications or massive fortifications.

Expanded 40k: detachments as described in the 6th edition rulebook. One primary detachment, one (simple) fortification, one allied detachment. Again, use any sources you want within that limit. Potentially consider replacing the allies matrix with "everyone is allies of convenience with everyone" to avoid the most annoying combos and to stop excluding Tyranids.

Open 40k: everything is legal. Want to bring a Reaver titan and a couple tactical squads as your army? Have fun. Want to bring IG primary with a Malcador lord of war, Eldar allies, an inquisitor, a Tau Broadside/Riptide formation and a marine Stormraven/Stormtalon formation? Great, just make sure you bought legal copies of all those books.

This is getting too complex again.
It needs to be simple so anyone can instantly understand what the format supports.

A baseline should be set like so:

Standard - Rulebook/Codex

Unlimited - As above+Expansions/Forgeworld/Supplments/Dataslates....etc


TO's can then mix and match as they please.
For example...

Standard plus Forgeworld.

Unlimited minus Escalation.

 L0rdF1end wrote:

Standard - Rulebook/Codex

 Desubot wrote:
40k Classic. no supplements or expansions

Some people proposing to add "Basic: Rulebook + Codex". In my opinion, this is the most important format, the basic one.

thisisnotaseriousaccount wrote:

The problem with this is that it unfairly punishes people running fluffy armies using the supplements and Imperial Armour lists. These aren't in any way individually broken (some people object to riptide spam due to 'self-allying;and such, if you want to limit that make every non-troops choice 0-2 or whatever or just disallow allying a vraint of a list to that list) and add great ways to run a fluffy, competent but not overpowered variant army. Look at the Renegades and Heretics list, (...)

I love these armies. But this is not the question.

It is not about being overpowered or not, is about having a "basic" format that you can push forward to a newcomer. One single book is neat. Saying to a newcomer that he can face units taken from scores of different sources makes things awfully complicated.

Supplements and IA, like FW, Planetstrike and what not, are fun for experienced players. But a hell if you want it "simple".

UlrikDecado wrote:Leave tournament and league rules to TO and everyday games to personal agreement on what play and what not.
Setting aditional formats is useless when TO already makes their own rules.

Agreed.
Besides, the BRB p.108 already kind of establishes two formats - codices, and everything else - though it differs between them solely by making one the suggested approach and the other an alternate option. Ultimately it still comes down to the opponent agreeing to what you bring to the table, or what the event organiser or local club decreed as a requirement to any participants, as it has always been.

Not a bad idea but I fear it only switches around what's op. It doesn't make any difference to me if it's D up the ass, a bunch of anime monstrous creatures or an unkillable unit of daemons. You'd need a lot of comp rules and adjustments to units to make things work.

It always was this way too. I remember playing in a tournament that gave you points for having multiple differently set up units and roughly half of your army troops - yeah that was so fun with Necrons, let's have 11, 12, 13 and so on strong warrior squads, meanwhile the Alaitoc army makes it so my army doesn't come to play anyway so what exactly was so much better?