Closest Single bed:
The only hotel close (.4 miles away) that has rooms for under $150 is the Four Points San Jose for $119 for a single king bed (no double beds available)
http://www.fourpointssanjosedowntown.com/
Will you accept people camping outside the store for tickets But I look forward to seeing how you guys handle 7th edition. LVO was the first major after Formations. LOW and Stronghold, and now you guys are first for 7th
I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what you guys decide to go with. For one, our local group tends to use the Frontline rules as a basis for our own events. For another, I have a budget to plan out and need to finish designing an army list I can finish converting and painting in time! The specific FOC modifications that you use will weigh heavily on what I end up needing to work on.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Will you accept people camping outside the store for tickets But I look forward to seeing how you guys handle 7th edition. LVO was the first major after Formations. LOW and Stronghold, and now you guys are first for 7th
That would be Texas Games Con being the first major 7th edition tournament at the end of June,.
I do not think that having a poll is the best way to sort out the issues that 7th edition has with tournaments.
It is only a week and a half and most people are afraid of what is out there without seeing it in action.
For an example if I am playing Tau I would love a cap on psychic powers. I want to limit the other armies ability to get things like ignore cover, and twin linking when all I have to do is take wargear tjhat can't be stopped.
If I was playing Eldar I want a ban on invisibility. I have fortune that does the same thing, so why have other armies that can stop my deathstars?
If I am not playing Demons, I want a cap on summoning. That way they have another nerf to keep the one to their FMC company.
His responses in there are hilariously biased. He doesn't want LOW because he can't deal well with them, while in the same breath defends summoning/psychic phase which most oppose for that exact same reason.
Hopefully they post the overall results. Kind of crappy that they poll previous attendees and don't have a public poll. Doesn't attract new players when they have no say.
Nah, it's not customers, as I've bought a mat, my rule books (6th and 7th) and a few odds and ends from them before. I'd bet it's past attendees and a 40k email group of some sort.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @red corsair, I'm betting they want to get this formatted as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. The sooner we can get a bandage on tournament format, the sooner we'll stop bleeding away gamers.
From an organizer's point of view, announcing and populating the BAO in less than 2 months will largely draw return gamers, so it makes sense for the format to be oriented in part around previous attendees. Also, public internet type polls invite the opinion of people who are in a lot of ways the opposite of customers (i.e., there are a ton of people who post loud opinion in these major threads yet never attend any of the big events regardless of format). That said, even I was on the poll so I'm not sure it's just previous attendees as far as that concern goes.
Several big events are coming up; the first for 7th will be WGC and ATC. It's almost entertaining that Reece and I are pulling up the proverbial rear with 2 and 3 months respectively. Everyone's just trying to do their best to get their formats and restrictions and allowances set to run fun events.
MVBrandt wrote: From an organizer's point of view, announcing and populating the BAO in less than 2 months will largely draw return gamers, so it makes sense for the format to be oriented in part around previous attendees. Also, public internet type polls invite the opinion of people who are in a lot of ways the opposite of customers (i.e., there are a ton of people who post loud opinion in these major threads yet never attend any of the big events regardless of format). That said, even I was on the poll so I'm not sure it's just previous attendees as far as that concern goes.
Several big events are coming up; the first for 7th will be WGC and ATC. It's almost entertaining that Reece and I are pulling up the proverbial rear with 2 and 3 months respectively. Everyone's just trying to do their best to get their formats and restrictions and allowances set to run fun events.
You want a public poll? Haha, no way, have you read the BoLS comments, hahaha? That is internet 40K, and a lot of those opinions do nothing but skew results.
We poll people that are going to come to the event. Anyone that hits me up and says they want to go, I shoot them an email.
And I don't want LoW because I can't deal with them? Lolz, bro, I practice against Frankie, the Greatest 40K Player in the Universe, and you think I can't handle LoW? You even 40K, bro?!?! And just because it sometimes gets missed, I am being sarcastic, here.
But yeah, my ability to deal with LoW has nothing to do with that, I wanted to give a fair warning to what people were saying they wanted in the game. You can interpret that how you want to, though, of course.
@Thread
Yeah, it went to our customers and former attendees. Trying to cast the net wide with people that actually interact with us and our events in some way.
@Reece I wasn't addressing you in my first paragraph. I was referring to the guys responses to your poll on his blog http://daemons40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/my-responses-to-bao-poll.html. I understand everyone will tilt their responses toward their own gain, so i thought it was ironic.
I actually think its a really objective poll, and I think you did a good job hitting the major concerns without making it too cluttered.
And I don't even bother reading anything on BoLS, so take that as you will.
I am on the fence whether or not to attend myself as I have real issues getting weekends off, I didn't realize you were sending the poll to interested parties or ticket purchases. Thats good to know!
Red Corsair from what i understand Reece hosts great events so if you can get the time off i suggest stepping on the side of going to the LVO regardless of the polling results.
Unfortunatly LVO is a west coast event and im on the east..
zedsdead wrote: Red Corsair from what i understand Reece hosts great events so if you can get the time off i suggest stepping on the side of going to the LVO regardless of the polling results.
Unfortunatly LVO is a west coast event and im on the east..
Yea I live in central Maine hahaha
So if I go I really hope to have a blast, Your right though, I might wait for the LVO so I can get a break from the chill of winter, as I am hoping they run it in Feb again. I am still tempted to go to the BAO though, it's one heck of a journey though!
I didn't receive a poll and I've been drunk at both last year's BAO and the LVO in February!
Err. I *played* at both events. Yeah, that's it.
... where's the delete button?
That said, Reece, I'd be happy to give my two cents to help you with some player data. A PM here or my e-mail, which you should have from either event ... and a recent painting commission question.
As long as the TO is removing himself from the equation and focusing on what is best for the participants than it should be a good tournament. I believe that TOs are more concern about their tournaments being successful than putting their imprint on the 40k tournament scene.
If I was in a TOs situation I would make as few rule changes as possible but focus mainly on match ups. If certain things are truly to op eventually they will be matched up with another op list and, the faster the TO can bracket those list together the better.
There is a difference between auto win list and tier 1 list. You will never be able to control tier 1 list and any attempt to stop them will water down the experience and prestige of the tournament. The problem is that people that play tier 1 list beat the auto win list all the time while others cannot that is why bracketing is more important than rule changes.
Doh! Sorry dude, I misunderstood your post. I regret my snakry remark now! Haha
@zedsdead
Thanks for the vote of confidence, much appreciated.
@cko
You are 100% correct. We don't want to change anything, but feel it is needed at times. At the end of the day, we do what the attendees want. The event must be fiscally successful to remain viable. That overrides all other concerns in the final accounting.
@Reece- Don't sweat it man, I was lazy and didn't use quotes and looking back it was easy to misinterpret. I imagine you catch way to much idiotic flak so I understood where said snarkiness was coming from. Still seeing if I can get the time and make the arrangements as of now. Excited where the results come out either way!
Wow....I doupt my vote would have counted. But I am sad to see that Malefic AND LOW are popular.
I mean. I will do santic to lower Invulnerables for deamons.....
I have to say this, feast of blades changed their format(Warlords cant recieve extra victory points from challenges) because they changed scoring.
Fantasy bans models(No Teclis) and powers or whole trees.
Hell WARMACHINE changed their steamroller format because it was determined the second player is at an inherent disadvantage. the game championed for being the greatest tournament game changed its rules for competitive play.
We as 40k players need to not be so scared.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, do something FOB do, reward fast players. Both those who played the game and make it to the bottom of 5 extra points. You want to stop Malefic, that is how you do it.
Well, whatever happens you might want to hold off on making a decision about what you are going to do until the end of June.
That way you can see what happens at Texas Games Con and you will still have a month before your event.
There is a lot of fear out there about what is new with 7th edition and I am more afraid of what it did to the old. Six wave serpents, or Space Marines with 18 objective secured units are much scarier than summoned demons or psychic powers.
Blackmoor wrote: Well, whatever happens you might want to hold off on making a decision about what you are going to do until the end of June.
That way you can see what happens at Texas Games Con and you will still have a month before your event.
There is a lot of fear out there about what is new with 7th edition and I am more afraid of what it did to the old. Six wave serpents, or Space Marines with 18 objective secured units are much scarier than summoned demons or psychic powers.
Fear not, for there will be no changes to the Psychic Phase. The BAO public have voted.
Glad to see the overall view of most people is to acutally try 7th ed, I have been saying all along that daemon factories arent OMG broken but a pain to play against. As Reece said time limits will be a issue but as TO there are way to combat that.
It's interesting how the vote came out on allying with yourself. I do have to wonder if it's because the most popular codexes;
a. Already can by raw in the their supplements (outside of Eldar)
b. Have access to BB's.
The armies that get hit hardest by this are the ones without BB's which consequently also have the least number of Allies of Convenience as well. And I'm not sure it's cool if you're limiting detachments for everyone not to be on the same playing field ally wise. Bear in mind the only reason they wrote it into the rulebook that way is likely because the actual Battle Forge rulings allow multiple CAD's and spamming allied choices allows you to limit the troop requirements quite heavily.
Armies that can't ally with themselves and don't have BB's:
-Tyranids -Necrons -Orks
The list for armies with BB's that can't self ally is a little bigger:
-Space Wolves -Dark Angels -Blood Angels -Grey Knights -Sisters -Dark Eldar -Daemons -Imperial Knights -Eldar (which people were allowing to self ally anyway)
And let's be realistic here. The Marine books basically can self ally since they can allie with codex space marines. And GK can self-ally with the non MEQ portion of their book.
Armies hit hardest by not allying with themselves are the one with extremely limited AoC and no BB. Do Orks and Nids need the hit? Are Necrons so OP they should basically have to only play with 1 force org?
When 25% of the armies can self ally already (and arguably the most popular codexes in the game) and are just benefitting from getting supplements why are we hurting the non-sm, non-eldar/tau players?
Honestly, I'd still hold off on the detachment/allied issue till the Ork book is out and you can take a look at a book formatted for 7th.
Anywho Glad to see the results. Surprised by the Lord of War, in a happy way. Maybe a second poll for Lord of War with a more specific answer to "If Lords of War are legal would you want unrestricted, restricted, or don't care" might be in order before making a final decision on it.
Also glad to see people willing to try the 7th edition psychic phase as written to start. Even if it was by a slim majority
I would've loved to see "1 CAD and ally with yourself" as an option in the CAD poll (or a separate poll still mentioning CADs).
Will you be allowing dataslates? I did not see that listed anywhere. I'm assuming you will, if it takes the place of an allies slot? That would at least throw tyranids a bone, since they have no one to ally with, since the poll is in favor of banning CtA allies (which I agree with, but tyranids need Someone to ally with ).
I'm still not sure why people are so against CtA. Most CtA aren't any crazier fluffwise than SW/GK or DA/Inq being battle brother. And honestly you can find a fluff justification for ANYTHING in 40k. And rulewise the limitation on deployment are rather severe, especially when deployment can and does win games. But that's a whole other topic
That's fair Hulk- but what I'm saying is, if you ban CtA allies, you deprive tyranids of any allies, so they need something (dataslate in the ally slot, or allying with themselves) in its place, since their only ally options are (justifiably, imo) disallowed.
I think Reece and Company are already on board for formations based on the comments on the actual post by him so I wouldn't worry that far. I just don't think the formations are that excellent with the rule shifts in 7th. Which means Nids are back to using less force orgs than most other players. Though the Living Artillery one is pretty good.
Yeah, Living Artillery is the one I want to use (and have since before 7th, but was waiting to build it to make sure it's still at least somewhat viable- good to hear that it is!).
Pray tell on these broken combinations using CtA. Genuinely interested as most everything I've heard from people regarding CtA is fluff based, not game based.
I would also be curious what the "Broken" combinations are.
Thematically, I am not as accepting of the critiques. We just came out of an edition where Space Marine Heroes were somehow super inspirational to the point of removing all fear from Tau fire caste combatants and kroot.
Frankly I want to see someone ally Knight Titans with Tyranid and model them up as sweet-ass Biotitans. Or I want to see the Zoanthrope Council of allied Eldar.
Blackmoor wrote: Well, whatever happens you might want to hold off on making a decision about what you are going to do until the end of June.
They're already cutting it close with less than two months to sell tickets and convince people to travel out here to play. I'd guess Frontline will want to get this squared away and start selling tickets ASAP.
Blackmoor wrote: Well, whatever happens you might want to hold off on making a decision about what you are going to do until the end of June.
They're already cutting it close with less than two months to sell tickets and convince people to travel out here to play. I'd guess Frontline will want to get this squared away and start selling tickets ASAP.
Reece and I are basically in the same boat, from extensive talks together. We aren't the first big events for 7th edition, but we're both in a couple months and need to give attendees a chance to acquire, paint, etc., any changes to their armies. Waiting until July for NOVA would be a detrimental exhaustion of time for attendees. It would be nearly lethal for BAO.
Hulksmash wrote: Pray tell on these broken combinations using CtA. Genuinely interested as most everything I've heard from people regarding CtA is fluff based, not game based.
Tyranids and eldar to boost malefic summoning is very fluffy. Which Black Library novel was that again ?
Hulksmash wrote: Pray tell on these broken combinations using CtA. Genuinely interested as most everything I've heard from people regarding CtA is fluff based, not game based.
Tyranids and eldar to boost malefic summoning is very fluffy. Which Black Library novel was that again ?
Eldar Malefic summoning isn't very good. The summoned Daemons are "Come the Apocalypse," none of them gain Objective Secured (they are not part of any detachment), and the summoning units are inactive at other activities. You would be better off just allying in Daemons, if all you wanted to do was summon models into the game that the Tyranid player cannot get any of his swarms or FMC safely near.
Also, one could easily and readily model up the Eldar Farseer as a Doom of Mal'antai or a Malanthrope type model. The Rule of Cool will always be the primary one when it comes to fluff, and creativity in modeling is as or more important than creativity in competitive list building. Come the Apocalypse, however, encourages both.
Hulksmash wrote: Pray tell on these broken combinations using CtA. Genuinely interested as most everything I've heard from people regarding CtA is fluff based, not game based.
Tyranids and eldar to boost malefic summoning is very fluffy. Which Black Library novel was that again ?
Eldar Malefic summoning isn't very good. The summoned Daemons are "Come the Apocalypse," none of them gain Objective Secured (they are not part of any detachment), and the summoning units are inactive at other activities. You would be better off just allying in Daemons, if all you wanted to do was summon models into the game that the Tyranid player cannot get any of his swarms or FMC safely near.
Also, one could easily and readily model up the Eldar Farseer as a Doom of Mal'antai or a Malanthrope type model. The Rule of Cool will always be the primary one when it comes to fluff, and creativity in modeling is as or more important than creativity in competitive list building. Come the Apocalypse, however, encourages both.
There is a reason why GW dropped Doom from the Tyranid codex...
And once again Tyranids take it in the pooper. I know being able to ally with yourself can cause some spam issues, but several books are specifically designed with it in mind (Tau FS, Iyanden, Vanilla Marines) and for Nids its the only real option, outside of CTA allies. They also have a horrifically bad Lords of War selection, compared to other books. Assuming it ends up being allowed, I would expect every nid player there (all two of them, hello Janth) to run the Garg formation.
I think the warp charge thing and summon factories are a non issue, mostly because any one doing that is not going to have time to get a complete game in, so they are really hurting themselves just as much as those they play. Rest of the results look like a pretty good starting point for the next edition GTs.
The results are nonsensical. Invisible Beaststars are just fine. Invisible Revenants are just fine. How is that any worse than allowing two CAD?
Weren't we all sick of that sort of thing? Everyone was complaining about deathstar 40k like five weeks ago. It was the major reason the game is losing players. That didn't go away. If I might make a few modest suggestions to keep things less crazy.
Invisibility – Invisible Draigowing is slow and gets ignored. Invisible Flesh Hounds get tarpitted by a walker. Invisible beaststar/seer council is unstoppable. Invisible Knight Titan also very tough to stop.
Solution: You may not cast invisibility (or fortune why not?) on a unit with hit and run, or a super heavy. You can have your unkillable unit, but it comes with a weakness. Cry me a river, Eldar players. You’ll just have to make do with your Wraithknights, Warp Spiders, objective secured Wave Serpents, and everything else in your book that totally rocks.
Summoning: In my games against Blackmoor, I’ve found it isn’t actually very good. In the interest of speeding up the game, allow players to summon any two units with Summoning/Incursion/Possesion/Sacrifice per turn, maximum.
Big bad unkillable death stars – Everyone hates them because they are no fun. Allow only one IC to join any unit at any time. Death stars go bye bye.
Multiple CAD- Who gives a rip about six Heldrakes or six Riptides anymore? That army is going to lose hard. What the hell are those armies going to do against six Wave Serpents, which is totally legal under one CAD? The abuses come from stacking USR’s into a mega unit. Allow this so every Tyranid army isn’t Skyblight, please.
Psychic Phase- It is not necessary to cap warp charge dice. You get off fewer powers now than before as it is. You want to make it even harder?
Lords of War- Please, no. Do you know how hard it is for a Daemon or Nid player to kill even one Knight Titan now?
Wouldn't it be interesting to see how many people weren't just against X, but would also see X as a dealbreaker? Especially since the results were so close in some of the categories.
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't powers which are not attacks specifically not work on superheavies/gargantuans? Or did they dump that in 7th? If so, then invisible giant things are not an issue. Invisible seer councils might be more difficult, but with the force org limits, getting invisibility is not a sure bet in the first place.
Phazael wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but don't powers which are not attacks specifically not work on superheavies/gargantuans? Or did they dump that in 7th? If so, then invisible giant things are not an issue. Invisible seer councils might be more difficult, but with the force org limits, getting invisibility is not a sure bet in the first place.
They dumped it actually in 6th. Yes, super-heavies/gargants can be affected by psychic powers just like everyone else.
Phazael wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but don't powers which are not attacks specifically not work on superheavies/gargantuans? Or did they dump that in 7th? If so, then invisible giant things are not an issue. Invisible seer councils might be more difficult, but with the force org limits, getting invisibility is not a sure bet in the first place.
Fortune wasn't a sure bet in 6th, but beaststars and seer councils scraped by somehow.
We've made our choices on how to proceed. I am writing it all up now.
We will have a single championship event and a non-competitive event per usual. Most of the poll results will be implemented.
We are using FW, yes, as always.
We are allowing Formations yes, as we have been. And yeah, Living Artillery is a good one! I run my Nids that way.
The sky will not fall, and while Invisible Beastpacks will be pretty gnarly, my money says an MSU scoring army wins it all.
Thanks to everyone for their feedback, we look forward to another fun BAO! The new venue is pretty fantastic =)
Tickets will be up for sale shortly (they are in the web cart now, if anyone wants to grab one before seeing all of the mission parameters), those tables are just for illustration purposes, they won't be there when we are playing, and no cash bar at the event, no.
#1. Everyone wants to play with more points. They want to take all of their toys, and not make any hard choices of what to leave behind. We saw that in 5th edition when the points level crept up to 2000, and the resistance that the community had to lowering it in 6th edition when games where not finishing. Players do not connect the cause and effect of more points=more games not finishing. The reason why is that if your game does not end on time you blame it on the fact that you were playing against or with a horde army, you were slow played, the games started late, there were a lot of arguments etc, but not on the point level. It is like when people want more services from the government and they do not know why there taxes keep going up.
#2. Invisibility is no worse than Fortune, the only difference is that more than one army can get it. Fortune was responsible for 6th editions great sins of Seer Councils and Beast Stars. Now you can counter those 2 builds with an invisible unit of your own and you now have protection from Deathstars. Also 7th edition is not the edition of deathstars, but of MSU. Invisibility is not that great on an MSU army because you just attack the rest of the army, and if you have it on a deathstar, that unit can only kill one unit a turn, so it is not that big of a deal.
Right now the only problem I have with 7th edition is that jacked-up FOC. If you put limits on that, then a lot of other problems go away.
1.) I agree. But, we are going to go with what people want this time around and see how it goes. We have a plan for a way to keep games at least aware of the schedule.
2.) I disagree, but, we're going with the poll and we will see how it actually turns out. I think that with the more random nature of getting powers off, that you may be right. We shall soon see =)
3.) We are going with the Poll on the way to structure your army, 1 CAD comprised of a single faction (which includes data slates and supplements), 1 Ally that is not the main faction per the book. I agree that this will cut down on a lot of crazy.
Awesome, see you there, buddy! Going to be a lot of fun. It's nice to get this whole business of format behind us, now we're just pumped for a fun tournament!
If you were to nerf invisibility, then the way I would do it is to limit it to infantry only (not jump). It would kill it for Lords of War and the Jetseers, plus it would stuff its use in a number of mobile combos. I think the main thing people hate about that power is when it is applied to something that moves to fast to avoid or stop. Limiting it to infantry would make it almost exclusively a defensive power for foot troops, which I think most would find an acceptable use. Its the flying rape trains that people hate.
My 2 cents, anyhow. I agree entirely with Alan's points, after dorking around with Iyanden and nids in the new edition.
Is the BAO exclusively 40k this year or is there a Fantasy event as well?
Wow, looks really good. If I could swing a trip to SoCal this year I totally would.
I do have one question for you though...
1 Combined Arms Detachment (C.A.D.) which can be comprised of a single faction, chosen from any of those shown in the BRB (pg.118). This detachment can be drawn from multiple sources, such as a codex, supplement of the parent codex, data slate of the parent codex or Forge World unit of the parent codex. Note, unlike in the past, we are not allowing Forge World army lists this year as many of them have not yet been updated for 7th edition.
For example, you could take Tau as your primary faction and in the confines of your Combined Arms Detachment you could have units from the Tau Codex, Farsight Supplement, a Tau data slate and Tau Forge World units, but must abide by the limits of a single Force Organization Chart (ie. no more than 2 H.Q., 3 Elites, etc.).
- See more at: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/06/10/bay-area-open-2014-warhammer-40000-championships-format/#sthash.jsn41Won.dpuf
How is this supposed to actually work. For instance you list Farsight Enclave as an example, but the FE Supplement is riddled with langue that talks about a Farsight Enclaves Detatchment per the FAQ. For instance "Any character in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment that may select Signature Systems may not select from those listed in Codex: Tau Empire, but may instead select from the Signature Systems of the Farsight Enclaves...." Or Divergent Destiny, 'A Farsight Enclaves Detachment cannot include Aun'Va or Commander Shadowsun." Or under Battlesuit Spearhead, "In a Farsight Enclaves Detachment, all XV8 Crisis Teams are troops choices instead of elites choices. However, when choosing a Farsight Enclave's Detachment, you must include at least one XV8 Crisis Team consisting of three models(not including Drones)." Or "When choosing a Farsight Enclaves Detachment with Commander Farsight as its Warlord, you may Farsight's Command Team instead...."
Is the CAD a "Farsight Enclave's Detatchment?" How is someone able to have units from both when the Supplement precludes anything from the Codex: Tau Empire. Mainly the Signature systems are the problem here, or the requirements of Bonding Knives on everything if you want Crisis Troops. So, you wanted to take the Command Team or Crisis Troops you wouldn't be able to take any Tau Empire Signature Systems or would be required to take Bonding Knives on everything etc.
The trouble is not actually all that complex. It just sounds wrong at face from a pre-7th p.o.v. If a character in the detachment includes signature systems or items from Farsight Enclaves, it cannot also have them from Codex: Tau (unless of course they have them by default a la the special characters).
It's a subtle but important distinction made by the new BRB. They clearly identify that multiple codices are inclusive within Faction, and then describe Combined Arms Detachments as being explicitly built from FACTION, not Codex. So, you can effectively mix and match.
The restrictions in the FE dex don't actually create a problem if you follow the RAW chain here. If you include FE in your Detachment, you cannot also include Aun'Va or Shadowsun. If you include XV8 troops or any other selection from the FE dex, you need to have a 3-man bonding knife Crisis Unit, or your list is illegal. Yada yada.
MVBrandt wrote: The trouble is not actually all that complex. It just sounds wrong at face from a pre-7th p.o.v. If a character in the detachment includes signature systems or items from Farsight Enclaves, it cannot also have them from Codex: Tau (unless of course they have them by default a la the special characters).
It's a subtle but important distinction made by the new BRB. They clearly identify that multiple codices are inclusive within Faction, and then describe Combined Arms Detachments as being explicitly built from FACTION, not Codex. So, you can effectively mix and match.
The restrictions in the FE dex don't actually create a problem if you follow the RAW chain here. If you include FE in your Detachment, you cannot also include Aun'Va or Shadowsun. If you include XV8 troops or any other selection from the FE dex, you need to have a 3-man bonding knife Crisis Unit, or your list is illegal. Yada yada.
So these would be legal armies under a single CAD?
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
or
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
Elites
TE: Crisis(No Bonding Required)
FE: Riptide with Talisman
TE or FE: Riptide
Basically any mixed or matched units from Codex: Tau Empire or Farsight Enclave so long as each individual unit fulfills its requirements ie Farsight as Warlord for O'Vesa, One unit of three Crisis with Bonding as troops, etc.
But, doesn't that make Divergent Destiny Errata "A Farsight Enclave Detachment cannot include Aun'Va or Commander Shadowsun." completely unnecessary and pointless despite all Errata including the same language. Just take Shadowsun form Codex: Tau Empire and avoid the Restriction?
I guess my biggest problem is trying to rectify the 7th Edition FAQ's wording and restrictions based off of "a Farsight Enclaves Detatment". All Erratas use that langue and imply limits, but as you've explained the CAD Faction requirements they just don't apply?
MVBrandt wrote: The trouble is not actually all that complex. It just sounds wrong at face from a pre-7th p.o.v. If a character in the detachment includes signature systems or items from Farsight Enclaves, it cannot also have them from Codex: Tau (unless of course they have them by default a la the special characters).
It's a subtle but important distinction made by the new BRB. They clearly identify that multiple codices are inclusive within Faction, and then describe Combined Arms Detachments as being explicitly built from FACTION, not Codex. So, you can effectively mix and match.
The restrictions in the FE dex don't actually create a problem if you follow the RAW chain here. If you include FE in your Detachment, you cannot also include Aun'Va or Shadowsun. If you include XV8 troops or any other selection from the FE dex, you need to have a 3-man bonding knife Crisis Unit, or your list is illegal. Yada yada.
So these would be legal armies under a single CAD?
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
or
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
Elites
TE: Crisis(No Bonding Required)
FE: Riptide with Talisman
TE or FE: Riptide
Basically any mixed or matched units from Codex: Tau Empire or Farsight Enclave so long as each individual unit fulfills its requirements ie Farsight as Warlord for O'Vesa, One unit of three Crisis with Bonding as troops, etc.
But, doesn't that make Divergent Destiny Errata "A Farsight Enclave Detachment cannot include Aun'Va or Commander Shadowsun." completely unnecessary and pointless despite all Errata including the same language. Just take Shadowsun form Codex: Tau Empire and avoid the Restriction?
I guess my biggest problem is trying to rectify the 7th Edition FAQ's wording and restrictions based off of "a Farsight Enclaves Detatment". All Erratas use that langue and imply limits, but as you've explained the CAD Faction requirements they just don't apply?
Effectively a yes to that; if the point is to imply some kind of advantage to be found, however, I'm not sure that one sells it very effectively (i.o.w., the list is not especially remarkable or potent). You would still not be able to take Aun'va or Shadowsun however, because you definitely have a FE detachment (and also a TE detachment).
Man, counting dataslates as part of the normal FOC kind of keeps tyranids without any allies, though, right? No chance tyranids could take a dataslate (extra slots) instead of an ally?
--------------------
Regardless of the above, I've changed my mind about allowing allying with yourself. I'm a big fan of armies being 1 CAD and 1 SEPARATE ally, and not being allowed to ally with themselves (as I'd been wondering about before).
Means I'll only face 3 Annihilation Barges instead of 4 if they could ally with themselves
Scary, 5 Annihilation Barge (2 CAD format) bat rep by jy2 here:
Still, would love to see tyranids thrown a bone of some kind... since right now they're the only one with no extra slots from allying, since you're disallowing CtA allies. Seems a reasonable cause to give them some sort of ally route?
MVBrandt wrote: The trouble is not actually all that complex. It just sounds wrong at face from a pre-7th p.o.v. If a character in the detachment includes signature systems or items from Farsight Enclaves, it cannot also have them from Codex: Tau (unless of course they have them by default a la the special characters).
It's a subtle but important distinction made by the new BRB. They clearly identify that multiple codices are inclusive within Faction, and then describe Combined Arms Detachments as being explicitly built from FACTION, not Codex. So, you can effectively mix and match.
The restrictions in the FE dex don't actually create a problem if you follow the RAW chain here. If you include FE in your Detachment, you cannot also include Aun'Va or Shadowsun. If you include XV8 troops or any other selection from the FE dex, you need to have a 3-man bonding knife Crisis Unit, or your list is illegal. Yada yada.
So these would be legal armies under a single CAD?
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
or
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
Elites
TE: Crisis(No Bonding Required)
FE: Riptide with Talisman
TE or FE: Riptide
Basically any mixed or matched units from Codex: Tau Empire or Farsight Enclave so long as each individual unit fulfills its requirements ie Farsight as Warlord for O'Vesa, One unit of three Crisis with Bonding as troops, etc.
But, doesn't that make Divergent Destiny Errata "A Farsight Enclave Detachment cannot include Aun'Va or Commander Shadowsun." completely unnecessary and pointless despite all Errata including the same language. Just take Shadowsun form Codex: Tau Empire and avoid the Restriction?
I guess my biggest problem is trying to rectify the 7th Edition FAQ's wording and restrictions based off of "a Farsight Enclaves Detatment". All Erratas use that langue and imply limits, but as you've explained the CAD Faction requirements they just don't apply?
Effectively a yes to that; if the point is to imply some kind of advantage to be found, however, I'm not sure that one sells it very effectively (i.o.w., the list is not especially remarkable or potent). You would still not be able to take Aun'va or Shadowsun however, because you definitely have a FE detachment (and also a TE detachment).
I was trying to give two extreme sample lists, one was completely FE with only the TE Buffcommander. The other mixed and matched as much as possible. It could have easily have been
So we can have multiple detachments, and FED and a TED inside of one CAD?
There are definite advantages, mainly being able to take the best of both books without paying much of the 6th Edition taxes.
For instance: the ability to include a Codex: Tau Empire BuffCommander without any troops etc. So instead of allying in 6th, you just get to include one outright. Or, you have the ability to include Crisis as Troops so long as one unit is three strong and you pay the Bonding Knife tax, 3pts. Or field Firewarriors, Pathfinders, Broadsides in a TE army without Bonding Knives. Or an ECPA Riptide in a normal C:TE army.
I guess if this is how most tournaments are going to be ruled as BAO and NOVA are two of the big boys, I want to make sure people aren't going to cry foul if I combine FE and TE in one CAD as it will now be impossible to combine them with a CAD +AD.
Edit: And if this is derailing this thread, a PM response will suffice. Thank you for your responses.
MVBrandt wrote: The trouble is not actually all that complex. It just sounds wrong at face from a pre-7th p.o.v. If a character in the detachment includes signature systems or items from Farsight Enclaves, it cannot also have them from Codex: Tau (unless of course they have them by default a la the special characters).
It's a subtle but important distinction made by the new BRB. They clearly identify that multiple codices are inclusive within Faction, and then describe Combined Arms Detachments as being explicitly built from FACTION, not Codex. So, you can effectively mix and match.
The restrictions in the FE dex don't actually create a problem if you follow the RAW chain here. If you include FE in your Detachment, you cannot also include Aun'Va or Shadowsun. If you include XV8 troops or any other selection from the FE dex, you need to have a 3-man bonding knife Crisis Unit, or your list is illegal. Yada yada.
So these would be legal armies under a single CAD?
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
or
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
Elites
TE: Crisis(No Bonding Required)
FE: Riptide with Talisman
TE or FE: Riptide
Basically any mixed or matched units from Codex: Tau Empire or Farsight Enclave so long as each individual unit fulfills its requirements ie Farsight as Warlord for O'Vesa, One unit of three Crisis with Bonding as troops, etc.
But, doesn't that make Divergent Destiny Errata "A Farsight Enclave Detachment cannot include Aun'Va or Commander Shadowsun." completely unnecessary and pointless despite all Errata including the same language. Just take Shadowsun form Codex: Tau Empire and avoid the Restriction?
I guess my biggest problem is trying to rectify the 7th Edition FAQ's wording and restrictions based off of "a Farsight Enclaves Detatment". All Erratas use that langue and imply limits, but as you've explained the CAD Faction requirements they just don't apply?
Effectively a yes to that; if the point is to imply some kind of advantage to be found, however, I'm not sure that one sells it very effectively (i.o.w., the list is not especially remarkable or potent). You would still not be able to take Aun'va or Shadowsun however, because you definitely have a FE detachment (and also a TE detachment).
I was trying to give two extreme sample lists, one was completely FE with only the TE Buffcommander. The other mixed and matched as much as possible. It could have easily have been
So we can have multiple detachments, and FED and a TED inside of one CAD?
There are definite advantages, mainly being able to take the best of both books without paying much of the 6th Edition taxes.
For instance: the ability to include a Codex: Tau Empire BuffCommander without any troops etc. So instead of allying in 6th, you just get to include one outright. Or, you have the ability to include Crisis as Troops so long as one unit is three strong and you pay the Bonding Knife tax, 3pts. Or field Firewarriors, Pathfinders, Broadsides in a TE army without Bonding Knives. Or an ECPA Riptide in a normal C:TE army.
I guess if this is how most tournaments are going to be ruled as BAO and NOVA are two of the big boys, I want to make sure people aren't going to cry foul if I combine FE and TE in one CAD as it will now be impossible to combine them with a CAD +AD.
Edit: And if this is derailing this thread, a PM response will suffice. Thank you for your responses.
I'm not "ruling" for BAO just for the record. I just know Reece and I talked about this at length, and it's something we see eye to eye on as far as the letter of the rules are concerned. This also is the only clear way for FE and TE units to be in the same army, since you are no longer allowed to ally them in (I suppose you could do it in a multiple-CAD scenario, or with the TE Formation as your 2nd Detachment to a FECAD if this wasn't legal).
Realistically, you're actually losing some of the options you'd have had in the past. Remember that previously you were acquiring those same HQ choices anyway, and paying the same crisis tax anyway. Now, however, you cannot get your fourth Skyray or fourth Riptide or whatever else was what you really wanted to do (again, barring the use of formations).
Your comment about Tyranids came up several times in frontline's discussion of the poll results. More than one person commented on the Nids being exclusively pinched by the results. Reecius did comment on it:
"I understand what you’re saying but making special allowances almost always causes more probles than it solves. And, skyblights not the only one. I use living artillery and it’s really good."
I think Nids could have been given something to attempt to level the playing field, but them's the breaks.
Nids get Formations as an ally, which gives them more options, but yes, they do get the short end of the stick in regards to ally options. However, they still have a lot going for them. A lot of the formations are much better this edition than they were, people are just fixated on Skyblight.
@MVBrandt
Thanks for the assist there, and yeah, we talked about the way the CAD works at length. And thanks for working through a lot of this stuff with me, it was a big help. 7th ed has some subtle, but significant changes.
See you at NOVA, buddy! Can't wait to go and play.
@Thread
Once you get your head around it, you have WAY more freedom in list building now than you did, but, with some more limitations on how much of everything you can take.
I actually like it a lot. I think now players can build what they want but within some fairly reasonable limitations.
As 7th unfolds and more armies get more supplements/formations/etc. this disparity we see right now will dissipate.
I'm not "ruling" for BAO just for the record. I just know Reece and I talked about this at length, and it's something we see eye to eye on as far as the letter of the rules are concerned. This also is the only clear way for FE and TE units to be in the same army, since you are no longer allowed to ally them in (I suppose you could do it in a multiple-CAD scenario, or with the TE Formation as your 2nd Detachment to a FECAD if this wasn't legal).
Realistically, you're actually losing some of the options you'd have had in the past. Remember that previously you were acquiring those same HQ choices anyway, and paying the same crisis tax anyway. Now, however, you cannot get your fourth Skyray or fourth Riptide or whatever else was what you really wanted to do (again, barring the use of formations).
I understand you aren't ruling for the BAO, but I can't go to the BAO and am seriously considering the NOVA. I am also very interested in how this plays out for general tournaments as the BAO and NOVA to influence how many local TOs and even GTs rule things.
I agree, it allows you to ignore some requirements but eliminates getting a 4th Slot for Riptides, or Skyrays. Though Quadtide is still doable with O'Vesa the true O'VesaStar is dead. Overall its a win, less Spam potential though still boosts the power of C:TE by granting access to things like an ECPA Riptide or Crisis Troops without much cost or no cost ie the HQ/Troop Tax of an allied detatchment or 2nd CAD.
I'm basically interested to still have access to a BuffCommander in my FE army. I wasn't running Quadtide or Quad Skyrays so the FOC limitations don't affect me personally. I like the ruling, but still get hung up on the language of the FEFAQ etc. as it is a 7th edition Errata that seems to make no sense.
Just out of curiosity, why was the Malcador Infernus banned specifically? Not that I imagine too many people have one, but it seems like an odd exception. Was it just anything with a big, cover-save ignoring template/blast banned?
RiTides wrote: Man, counting dataslates as part of the normal FOC kind of keeps tyranids without any allies, though, right? No chance tyranids could take a dataslate (extra slots) instead of an ally?
--------------------
Regardless of the above, I've changed my mind about allowing allying with yourself. I'm a big fan of armies being 1 CAD and 1 SEPARATE ally, and not being allowed to ally with themselves (as I'd been wondering about before).
Means I'll only face 3 Annihilation Barges instead of 4 if they could ally with themselves
Scary, 5 Annihilation Barge (2 CAD format) bat rep by jy2 here:
Still, would love to see tyranids thrown a bone of some kind... since right now they're the only one with no extra slots from allying, since you're disallowing CtA allies. Seems a reasonable cause to give them some sort of ally route?
Tyranids can still take dataslate formations.
When Reece was talking about dataslates as part of the normal FOC, he is talking about dataslate characters such as Be'lakor or Cypher. Otherwise, you can't even take Skyblight at all as it consists of 1 HQ and 6 FA's.
Reecius wrote: Nids get Formations as an ally, which gives them more options, but yes, they do get the short end of the stick in regards to ally options. However, they still have a lot going for them. A lot of the formations are much better this edition than they were, people are just fixated on Skyblight.
jy2 wrote: Tyranids can still take dataslate formations.
When Reece was talking about dataslates as part of the normal FOC, he is talking about dataslate characters such as Be'lakor or Cypher. Otherwise, you can't even take Skyblight at all as it consists of 1 HQ and 6 FA's.
Sweet! However, the wording below confused me, emphasis mine:
For example, you could take Tau as your primary faction and in the confines of your Combined Arms Detachment you could have units from the Tau Codex, Farsight Supplement, a Tau data slate and Tau Forge World units, but must abide by the limits of a single Force Organization Chart (ie. no more than 2 H.Q., 3 Elites, etc.).
Apparently this doesn't apply to formations and only dataslate characters (the needing to fit in one FOC part). So, it might be worth clarifying that wording? If I was confused, another attendee might be, as I still don't know how you could tell it wouldn't apply to formations jy2 (which would, as you say, invalidate Skyblight... which doesn't matter to me since I want to take a Living Artillery Node, but still ).
How does this affect one-per-detachment units? I'm thinking specifically of the Eldar Crimson Hunter Exarch. Can I take one from C: Eldar and one from C: Iyanden? Or just the one regardless?
Reecius wrote: Yeah, Formations are different than Data Slates.
Ah! It was further down the page, I see:
1 Formation, which will take the place of the Allied Detachment if chosen.
Got it, thanks
But aren't formations called "formation data slates"? I thought they were still dataslates, so didn't think to look further once I saw them mentioned under the CAD heading. Hopefully my confusion helps illustrate what someone else may have and thanks for clarifying for me.
By limiting the CAD to 1 and still allowing formations, you basically just allowing some armies to have access to 2 CAD and denying it to others. How is this not making specific allowances? It should be all or nothing 1 CAD and 1 Ally or 2 CAD (one can be a formation).
Yeah, good point, it is a bit confusing now with all the new ways of looking at making armies.
@Magc8Ball
Yeah, once per detachment is still covered. So, you can have one Exarch in your CAD no matter how many sources you draw on.
@Hot Sizzle
Yeah, I think the LoW will be a lot of fun, actually. They will all be giving up VPs as you destroy them, too, so they are a bit of a liability.
@deevil
Not everyone will be happy with every aspect of the format. That is 7th in a nutshell, though. Everyone is going to have to accept that compromise is inherent in this edition.
We are trying to stay as close to the book as we can. Not every faction has formations yet, but, those that do can essentially "ally" with themselves, yes. I assume more formations will be coming out for other factions in time.
Most of the Formations have "tax" units anyway, or honestly aren't that good. Those that are good (mostly Nids and Tau) are fine IMO as those armies have few (if any) ally options. Plus, Formations are very rigid and do not allow for much flexibility and often cost a lot of points. We have found them to be fine for competitive play so far. I honestly do not feel that it is unfair at all, it is just different.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Holy smokes, already 25% full!
Yeah, I think the LoW will be a lot of fun, actually. They will all be giving up VPs as you destroy them, too, so they are a bit of a liability.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Holy smokes, already 25% full!
\
That is why, the ones you chose are nothing but giant versions of vehicles, the baneblads are just giant Russes.
Although I know my bikes are gonna have Meltabombs now.
Still, Im sad the manta isnt on this list :(
Considering the Manta costs more points than we are allowing for the event, I think that would have been a tad difficult to do, lol! But, yeah, a Manta would be fun.
And grab dem tickets!! Wowzers, we're already approaching 1/3 full!
Closest Single bed: The only hotel close (.4 miles away) that has rooms for under $150 is the Four Points San Jose for $119 for a single king bed (no double beds available)
http://www.fourpointssanjosedowntown.com/
I like you LOW list. I'm intrigued by the Fellblade. I really like that tank. The damage potential is astounding and the fluff behind it is pretty good to.
The Typhoon Siege Tank, though not allowed in the BAO, is my favorite LOW tank for looks. It looks mean, it looks intimidating and if it can't shoot you down it will run you over to finish you off.
The Fellblade is a beast! I think it is too cheap for what you get, but, the equalizer in my mind is that you give up VPs as it gets damaged. I think it should be about 50-75pts more.
The Typhon is super cool but we decided on a blanket ban on any LoW with a large, ignores cover weapons. Those are the ones that really upset people, when they just pick up models by the handful with no save or recourse. We decided to kind of ease our way in with the LoW since our attendees do want them, but with some restrictions.
Reecius wrote: The Fellblade is a beast! I think it is too cheap for what you get, but, the equalizer in my mind is that you give up VPs as it gets damaged. I think it should be about 50-75pts more.
The Typhon is super cool but we decided on a blanket ban on any LoW with a large, ignores cover weapons. Those are the ones that really upset people, when they just pick up models by the handful with no save or recourse. We decided to kind of ease our way in with the LoW since our attendees do want them, but with some restrictions.
To be fair, we're also talking about a 160pt unit, if we're tallking about the same points investment as many of these superheavies, you could buy 3-4 Deathstrikes
I didn't try to hide that, but yes, it is important to know that space is limited and we are already pushing 60 and tickets have only been up for sale for two days now! So yeah, this event is almost certainly going to sell out.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I got mine too. Now I just need to get my army READY!!!!!
I wonder If I can paint a small IG thing by then........about 40 guardsmen and tanks
I have 8 guardsmen, two heavy weapon platforms, and...uh, a vendetta and 8 tanks (two of which is haven't even bought yet) to go? Why am I wasting time on this forum? Gottagettowork!
Pumped for the event, now! It is going to be good fun.
@Whitedragon
I know, right? The, "You're a Boss!" award for just being awesome!
But in the Friendly event we're doing, you could make a pretty bitchin Khorne army! And, you wouldn't have to worry about getting creamed in every game against some uber crazy stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Haha, some of the 40K Friendly Lists coming in are so cool! Definitely going to be some fun games!
Reecius wrote: Haha, some of the 40K Friendly Lists coming in are so cool! Definitely going to be some fun games!
For those of us who are going to be at each others' throats in the Championship rtt (Allan, you're the appetizer before I make Jy2 my main course , with a side of that Goat-Guy ) Reece, wouldja mind posting some of those lists for the friendly rounds?
I nearly went that route, but decided:
1. I'm used to the cut-throat Champ environment
2. It's two more games of 40k.
3. Even though I read the friendly page rules, I still couldn't grasp what such a list would look like. I guess I've played too long at GE's tourney scene.
w00t! Just hit half sold out for the 40K Championships! Nice one, this is going to be awesome!
@Red Corsair
No limit, we have plenty of space, but as a general guideline we expect 20-40 players in the Friendly.
@Fasight
As Brother Erekose pointed out (and thanks for doing that) the Championships is a competitive event with restrictions placed on the normal army building rules to try and provide a level playing field for competitive 40K. This event is 1850, 6 rounds with the spirit of the event to be to try to win games in a fair spirited competition. Awards are oriented around winning games, doing the best with a particular faction and having a really beautiful army.
The 40K Friendly is a laid back event with total freedom in list building at a 2K point limit. The only guideline is that your list must have a clear theme and be built with the intent to be fun to play with and play against. Each list is TO approved in advance. This event is 2K points, 4 rounds with longer round times. The spirit of the event is cooperative, laid back, fun and cinematic games. Awards are oriented around cool themed lists, funny in-game moments, beautiful modeling and painting and team work.
The intent is to provide something fun and exciting for players that like competition and those that prefer to enjoy the spectacle of miniatures gaming without worrying about winning or losing games.
I really appreciate your responses! Thanks. Count me in for the Competitive. I will make a statement that Tau are still viable and can take on the worst of Daemon hordes... hopefully
Commander_Farsight wrote: I really appreciate your responses! Thanks. Count me in for the Competitive. I will make a statement that Tau are still viable and can take on the worst of Daemon hordes... hopefully
Thanks for putting on BAO guys
Daemon hordes, sure...but what about the ever grinding treads of the Imperial Guard?
After a few games of spamming invisibility, I can't see how invisibility is good for the game. The invisible unit can pretty much do whatever it wants lol...
Is there going to be, or are there any plans to address how powerful and potentially game-breaking invisibility can be?
Commander_Farsight wrote: I really appreciate your responses! Thanks. Count me in for the Competitive. I will make a statement that Tau are still viable and can take on the worst of Daemon hordes... hopefully
Thanks for putting on BAO guys
See you there!
@Mortetvie
The vote to nerf Invisibility came out as a No by 4 votes (out of over 200 responses). So, Invis will be played RAW this event, and we will reassess after the event to see if it needs to be changed for the LVO.
Commander_Farsight wrote: I really appreciate your responses! Thanks. Count me in for the Competitive. I will make a statement that Tau are still viable and can take on the worst of Daemon hordes... hopefully
Thanks for putting on BAO guys
Daemon hordes, sure...but what about the ever grinding treads of the Imperial Guard?
I play Tau, with access to a lot of high strength low AP guns that can be plastered on Crisis Suits. I would love to blow up your tanks at the tournament Overall though. I think that AM has gotten a little better with 7th. I think that with the crazy allies chart (not necessarily used for the BAO, but in general) there can be some great combos, especially with the armies of the imperium all being bros.
@Reecius
Are you going to be releasing missions for the Competitive tournament pre the date of BAO? Or should I just expect to get a packet to browse upon arriving?
We are finishing up play-testing them as I type this! We have gotten a lot of feedback and so far everyone like them.
We are doing the following:
Primary Mission: Eternal War mission, modified slightly form the book usually to make sure the objectives are evenly distributed around the board, etc.
Secondary mission: Modified Maelstrom Mission. These are changed quite a bit from the book to be a lot simpler and to never have an objective that is impossible to get. We don't use cards but each mission has a custom chart that both players roll on to determine their turn by turn objectives. We're taking elements of the progressive or asymmetrical missions a lot of events are using. So far, everyone has really enjoyed them and felt they helped to balance out the crazier builds in the game.
The chart and everything you need to use these is in the mission packet, so you won't need cards or anything, just open your player pack and be good to go!
Tertiary missions are the book bonus points: first blood, linebreaker, slay the warlord.
Our goal is to have the missions up on the site for everyone to read by next week. We just want to have a lot of people play through them first to be sure that they are worded clearly and there are no loopholes or crummy aspects to any of the missions.
I think the BAO nerf of 2+ rerolls to 2+/4+ was the best thing that happened to 6th edition tournament play.
In 7th ed invisibility is also the problem, and the 2+ 4+ nerf has made it worse. If neither is nerfed then they can tarpit each other, but if only 1 is nerfed then it turns the other into an unchecked monster.
I think nerfing both or playing both as is are both viable options, but nerfing 1 without nerfing the other will create a stale and predictable meta dominated by the one that isn't nerfed.
Well, we voted and it is what it is at this point. We aren't changing course, now.
Remember, the missions REALLY alter the normal flow of the game and make mobility and flexibility critical. We will be posting videos soon, but the play test feedback has been really positive. Make an army to win the mission is my advice.
And, after the BAO, if Invisibility really turns out to be that bad, when we decide what to do for the LVO we will change it. At least this way we get a live fire test of it in a tournament environment.
schadenfreude wrote: I think the BAO nerf of 2+ rerolls to 2+/4+ was the best thing that happened to 6th edition tournament play.
In 7th ed invisibility is also the problem, and the 2+ 4+ nerf has made it worse. If neither is nerfed then they can tarpit each other, but if only 1 is nerfed then it turns the other into an unchecked monster.
I think nerfing both or playing both as is are both viable options, but nerfing 1 without nerfing the other will create a stale and predictable meta dominated by the one that isn't nerfed.
Chance to kill a Jetbike with a 2+/4+ save
With a Bolter:
With Fortune= 2.7%
With Invisibility=1.38%
With WS4 Str 4 in assault:
With Fortune= 2.08%
With Invisibility=1.38%
Note: Chance to kill with a 2+/2+ is .92% with a bolter and .69% in assault.
You are right! Thank God we did not have invisibility last edition! Eldar would have been totally broken. [/sarcasm]
Oh, and everyone has access to it now, so you can counter invisible Eldar with your own Invisible squads. Not only that. but psychic powers have radically changes and they are not very good this edition.
I want to play all of the armies that are built around invisibility. I will show you that there is no protection from Mindstrike missiles, and that my bucket of Deny the Witch dice only has to block it once for you to regret thinking that it is a game-changer..
When it comes to Invisibility, I think the bigger thing (to me at least) more than just the "only hitting on 6's" is, is that Invisibility removes the option of using blast and template weapons against an "invisible" unit, which is not only counter-intuitive (as those are exactly the types of weapons you'd whip out to engage such a unit from any sort of realistic perspective), but also adds a whole new level of risk avoidance and nullification of enemy weapons beyond just "being hit only on 6's".
schadenfreude wrote: I think the BAO nerf of 2+ rerolls to 2+/4+ was the best thing that happened to 6th edition tournament play.
In 7th ed invisibility is also the problem, and the 2+ 4+ nerf has made it worse. If neither is nerfed then they can tarpit each other, but if only 1 is nerfed then it turns the other into an unchecked monster.
I think nerfing both or playing both as is are both viable options, but nerfing 1 without nerfing the other will create a stale and predictable meta dominated by the one that isn't nerfed.
Chance to kill a Jetbike with a 2+/4+ save
With a Bolter:
With Fortune= 2.7%
With Invisibility=1.38%
With WS4 Str 4 in assault:
With Fortune= 2.08%
With Invisibility=1.38%
Note: Chance to kill with a 2+/2+ is .92% with a bolter and .69% in assault.
You are right! Thank God we did not have invisibility last edition! Eldar would have been totally broken. [/sarcasm]
Oh, and everyone has access to it now, so you can counter invisible Eldar with your own Invisible squads. Not only that. but psychic powers have radically changes and they are not very good this edition.
I want to play all of the armies that are built around invisibility. I will show you that there is no protection from Mindstrike missiles, and that my bucket of Deny the Witch dice only has to block it once for you to regret thinking that it is a game-changer..
Jetbike against a S5 WS4 power axe with or without fortune 33% but with invisibility it's 8.3%
Jetbike against a S5 WS4 power axe with hatred or prescience=50% with or without fortune but with invisibility it's 20.3%
Jetbike being shot by BS4 ignore cover plasma with or without fortune=55% but with invisibility it's 11%
Jetbike being shot by TLBS4 ignore cover plasma with or without fortune=74% but with invisibility it's 25.5%
Fortune has more counters than invisibility. Mind strike missiles can't target an invisible unit but can lay into a unit with fortune.
The GK bucked of dice is probably only going to be 18 to 24 dice and can't overcome invisibility if 10 dice are used. Farseers can pretty much ignore perils if they save 1 extra power die for the ghost helm.
I can understand your logic that invisibility can help counter the fortune deathstars, but I think it will just result in the same units that used fortune switching to invisibility which is slightly less powerful but has far fewer counters.
My opinion still stands. 2++ rerolls and invisibility become an even bigger problem if only 1 of them is nerfed. Allowing both of them into a tournament means can they tarpit each other, or banning both might help, but only banning 1 will create problems.
You've also raid the good question is fortune as bad as invisibility and 2++ rerolls. If so perhaps that's a good reason to allow 2++ rerolls or find a way to nerf fortune. I think I'm starting to lean towards the allow everything camp because it's more simple than nerfing 3 power combos. The only thing I don't' currently like the idea of is nerfing 1 and not the other.
That being said the die is cast for the BAO and all of the decisions Reece had to make are very difficult because he's running the first major 7th ed tournament, but I think this discussion has a place here because the BAO is the guinea pig for 7th ed tournament play.
There is also a rules debate about gk null rods where a TOFAQ can create or destroy a counter to invis. GK one says the unit can not be affected by psychic powers in any way. Does that mean they ignore invisibility?
note the codex inquisition null rod has a very different wording.
Jetbike against a S5 WS4 power axe with or without fortune 33% but with invisibility it's 8.3%
Jetbike against a S5 WS4 power axe with hatred or prescience=50% with or without fortune but with invisibility it's 20.3%
When you are saying 2+ save you are talking about a seer council with a 4+ Inv save. So it is really:
Jetbike against a S5 WS4 power axe with fortune 8.3%
Jetbike against a S5 WS4 power axe with invisibility it's 5.5%
Not that big of a difference.
Jetbike against a S5 WS4 power axe with hatred or prescience=50% with or without fortune but with invisibility it's 20.3%
You can get into all kinds of scenarios of what each unit has, but it will get you nowhere. One thing that the Eldar have going for them is speed, and they get to pick the fights that they get into so they will not have a bad match-up.
Seer Council being shot by BS4 ignore cover plasma with fortune=13.8% but with invisibility it's 6.9%
Seer Council being shot by TLBS4 ignore cover plasma with fortune=18.5% but with invisibility it's 12.6%
My point is that it is not to much of a difference between the two even with a best case scenario. Want to see what Tau do when they hit with some markerlights?
Jetbike against an Ork Loota with fortune 4.6%
Jetbike against an Ork Loota with invisibility it's 4.6%
Fortune has more counters than invisibility. Mind strike missiles can't target an invisible unit but can lay into a unit with fortune.
Remember last edition when mindstrikes did nothing to Farseers? Also Fortune went off over 92% of the time and there was nothing you could do to stop Fortune from going off?
The GK bucked of dice is probably only going to be 18 to 24 dice and can't overcome invisibility if 10 dice are used. Farseers can pretty much ignore perils if they save 1 extra power die for the ghost helm.
You say that very casually like it is nothing, but 10 dice is the output of over 2 Farseers. That means that they have burned through a lot of their warp charges and they do not have many left. So with averages they will roll around 5, but sometimes they will have made 7 successes, and sometimes 3. If they have a lot of successes, good for them, I will just block all of their other powers. So what has all of those points invested in psychic powers done for that army? They got 1 invisible unit that I will ignore. When they do have a bad roll then I will counter that with my WCs and if it gets denyied that expensive Seer Council is not any tougher than a regular marine squad. Then they will have death rain down upon them.
Do you know what those 10 Warp Charges from 2 Farseers did for you last edition?
They could cast: Fortune
Prescience
A couple of Guides for your Wraithknights
Misfortune
That being said the die is cast for the BAO and all of the decisions Reece had to make are very difficult because he's running the first major 7th ed tournament, but I think this discussion has a place here because the BAO is the guinea pig for 7th ed tournament play.
Psychic powers suck, and you just can't depend on them anymore. They often do not go off even if you roll a lot of dice, and they can be blocked. You just do not get as many powers off as you did 6th edition.
One last thing that you did not think about is that there is no guarantee that you will get invisibility. Not only that, but Telepathy sucks these days so you are going to get a lot of crappy powers with, or without it.
Oh, and one last, one last thing. That 2+ save is a psychic power. While you are worried about getting Invisibility off, I will just block that so you only have a 3+ save (and you will not use a lot of dice, or you will eat a perils). So let's do the math:
So it looks like this to me:
6th Edition (Febs LVO):
Grey Knight WS4 Strength 5 Power Weapon vs Fortune with a 2+/4+ save=2.7% to kill
7th Edition:
Grey Knight WS4 Strength 6 Power Weapon vs Invisibility with a 3+ save=6.9% to kill
Wait, aren't you saying that they are much harder to kill?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote: There is also a rules debate about gk null rods where a TOFAQ can create or destroy a counter to invis. GK one says the unit can not be affected by psychic powers in any way. Does that mean they ignore invisibility?
note the codex inquisition null rod has a very different wording.
As a GK player I would say no.
I was looking at it tonight to see if I could use it to counter Invisibility and I do not think it does. The GK codex is vague on the issue and it was an old FAQ that said that you could (it gave the example of it blocking the harlequin's Veil of Tears psychic power). That FAQ is long gone and now we have the precise wording in the Inquisitor codex that says that it does not block it.
Wait, aren't you saying that they are much harder to kill?
Sorry I was referring to units in general not the fully decked out seer council. That was tougher in 6th ed and are not as good in 7th because they can't spam all of their powers and the lvl 1 warlocks are very vulnerable to perils.
I think the more problematic unit will be beastpacks with 25 Khymerae, baron, and 2 farseers on bikes. S4 SW4 attacks averaged .083 against them with fortune but that's down to .054 in with invis. They have the option of clumping into a tighter formation because they have fleet baring a catastrophic and rare failure to cast telepathy. Unlike the poor seer council they don't lose much with the 7th ed transition while they gain a lot.
Wait, aren't you saying that they are much harder to kill?
Sorry I was referring to units in general not the fully decked out seer council. That was tougher in 6th ed and are not as good in 7th because they can't spam all of their powers and the lvl 1 warlocks are very vulnerable to perils.
I think the more problematic unit will be beastpacks with 25 Khymerae, baron, and 2 farseers on bikes. S4 SW4 attacks averaged .083 against them with fortune but that's down to .054 in with invis. They have the option of clumping into a tighter formation because they have fleet baring a catastrophic and rare failure to cast telepathy. Unlike the poor seer council they don't lose much with the 7th ed transition while they gain a lot.
With the Beastpack 2 Farseers is all they are getting. That means only 9-10 Warp Charges total on average to cast it (8-9 to hold one back for runes of warding). If they get a low dice roll for the random Warp Charges then they will have to get it off on 7-8 (holding none back for perils) and that is all they are doing that turn. They also might get it blocked with an army with a lot of Warp Charges.
Again. that is a huge difference between 6th edition when they can also cast another 4 very good psychic powers. The beast pack was also buffed by Prescience, Doom, and Misfortune, and they had Wraithknights with guide and other powers to throw around. That is a big hit to the whole army. Yes they still have a unit that is hard to kill, but they, and the units around them do not get the huge force multipliers that they did in 6th.
I think the way to go is Wave Serpents. They are fast, they are very durable, everything is always Twin Linked, they can shoot 60" with a gun that ignores cover, and they are an objective secured scoring unit. Wave Serpents always have their abilities, and they do not waste points on unreliable psychic powers.
But we will see in the coming months what will happen, and what armies come out on top. There is a good chance that the new Astro Militarium will be overlooked and be a formidable army.
jy2 wrote: An Eldar player won't win....
....because I won't be running Eldar there. Hahahahahaha
mortetvie wrote: If I get the money to make it to BAO this year, I'll totally take a CSM list with a bazillion invisible units and be unstoppable! Mwuahahahahaha!
Blackmoor wrote: There is a good chance that the new Astro Militarium will be overlooked and be a formidable army.
Invisible fearless blobs scare me, sure the blob can only hold one objective, doesn't appear to be a limit on how many it can contest. Scary stuff, at least they can be tank shocked around a bit.
Why is everyone worried about invisibility? From my experience recently at the Bugeater GT, Imperial Knights were the main counter to Eldar wave serpent/beast star armies. IK have the speed to close and the ranged shooting to take out serpents.
Invisible units mean little to Imperial Knights as their stomp is not affected by the power.
Invisibility makes a unit or two great, no doubt. But If you are so concerned that it is so bad ass why not make a counter list? MSU is the ultimate spoiler to these ultra high productively buffed units. Bubble wrap, roadblock, run, outplay. I feel like a lot of the negativity and doomy stats can be overcome by critical thinking and tactical play. As well as some decent list building.I personally hope every one of my opponents relies on this power as part of their strategy. I have good idea of how to pull the rug out from under them.
jy2 wrote: An Eldar player won't win....
....because I won't be running Eldar there. Hahahahahaha
mortetvie wrote: If I get the money to make it to BAO this year, I'll totally take a CSM list with a bazillion invisible units and be unstoppable! Mwuahahahahaha!
Yay! Trash talk!
Nothing like a good verbal jostle before the tournament.
BTW, I just may see/play against Mortetvie before the BAO.
I don't think I've been as happy for going to a GT like I am right now. Im taking MSU Marines but man painting this many models has been a pain. Looking forward to seeing you all there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Btw.....Reece did say MSU Marines is going to win the BAO.. lol
I think an MSU scoring list is going to be super effective in 7th ed! And yeah, we're pumped to get on with 7th ed, too, going to be fun.
@Thread
We played an MSU Drop Pod Marine list vs. Baneblade AM/Inquisition last night in the new BAO format: great game! Bloody game! lol, but in the end, it came down to a single HP on the Baneblade and a Scoring Drop Pod on an objective!
AM won the secondary by a single point as the Marines failed to strip a thrid hull point off of the Baneblade to get the bonus point which would have tied the secondary. AM also had Warlord and First blood for 5 mission points. Earning points turn by turn as you go is really fun and it changes the way the game is played quite a bit as you have to go for the points while you can get them.
The Marines won the primary with an ObSec Drop pod, lol! They also had Linebreaker with a Drop Pod, but Yarrick survived with a single wound to deny them Warlord. 5 Points for the Marines for a tie game!
Both armies only had about 5 models left on the table, very fun game. The new missions have been a big hit, and we will be posting them up this week so everyone can start practicing.
Reecius wrote: The new missions have been a big hit, and we will be posting them up this week so everyone can start practicing.
Excited to get a hold of them. We played your missions throughout 6th and I don't see that changing now. Particularly interested in how you've incorporated the Maelstrom missions.
They will be up this week for sure, if not sooner! Just getting them polished, now.
Although this is rumor so far. If the Stompa is in the dex as a possible choice as a non lord of war, would that be allowed in the Championships? Although it is unlikely, just wondering if Ork players would have that advantage.
They will be up this week for sure, if not sooner! Just getting them polished, now.
Although this is rumor so far. If the Stompa is in the dex as a possible choice as a non lord of war, would that be allowed in the Championships? Although it is unlikely, just wondering if Ork players would have that advantage.
Save reecius a reply here and say what I think he will say. Going to have to wait to see the new ork dex before even touching that one. I doubt the stompa is in the dex and not a LoW.
That's two obvious links you've missed.
Although the download did get me tripped up trying to log into Google, before I just went to 'File", and then "Download".
Reducing maelstrom missions to a D6 is a good call in a timed tournament. It captures the essence, and after looking at the maelstrom redux table you made all I can think of when it comes to the d66 table is "Ain't nobody got time for that"
It makes first and second turn a big deal. Player 1 gets to know player 2s missions before player 2s turn, but player 2 gets to blow player 1 off objectives and can easily cockblock hold the line with a fast unit. Overall it favors going 2nd.
That's two obvious links you've missed.
Although the download did get me tripped up trying to log into Google, before I just went to 'File", and then "Download".
No, no your right. I'll look more carefully. Sorry and thanks.
Hey everyone, after a long conversation with the NOVA crew, both BAO and NOVA are changing their list building guidelines to something that will be less confusing and more straightforward.
Excellent decision. I feel that allowing factions to "ally with themselves" is striking a good balance between limiting CADs while still allowing for the expanded flexibility you get from the 7E detachment system.
Yeah, the other way was RAW but just too confusing. This way everyone gets the same access to the same amount of goodies without going full frontal dual CAD
I just was reading over the Scenarios, and here is what I was wondering.
To win the primary, just achieve it to get 4 points. To achieve it for Purge the Alien lets say, have more VPs than you opponent for each unit destroyed?
To win a Maelstrom Secondary Mission, collect the most points for Maelstrom Missions achieved. Winning, this grants you an overall of 3 points?
The Bonus points are self explanatory.
To sum it up, you don't recieve any points for completing a mission (like the VPs for killing a unit) but those instead count twards the "sub competition" to win the Primary or Secodary. Upon winning it you get the 4 or 3 points. So you can only ever have a maximum score of 10 per Scenario?
Sorry if this was explained earlier, looking back now
1) I apologize if this has already been covered. But are you required to take a CAD? The format details seem to contradict themselves here.
2) More specifically, Can I take 1 Formation, and 1 Allied detachment, and call it an army? The format rules on the FLG website say that I can, and it also says that I can't.
3) Finally, how is the Strike Force Ultra considered? Is it counted as 2 separate formations, or if I take both of the sub-formations, am I counted as taking a single formation?
pizzaguardian wrote: Question out of curiousity , are imperial knights in? And if they are does a player still has to take a CAD and not field a just knight army?
Knights have their own Codex so you could bring 5 Knights if you wanted to as long as one is an HQ/Warlord. You could also take 1-2 as an ally.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Are the rumors of the grand prize being a date with frankie true? Also, Will we need the escalation book for using the warlord traits?
I assume your opponent will have to have the Escalation book if he wants to use a Lord of War, and that you'd use the table out of that.
Hey @Reecius, is it possible to just come to the BAO as a spectator? I'm happy to support you guys by buying a DropZone ticket or something, but I would be primarily interested in watching the 40k championship rounds.. (never been to a GT and would want to witness one before participating)..
pizzaguardian wrote: Question out of curiousity , are imperial knights in? And if they are does a player still has to take a CAD and not field a just knight army?
Knights have their own Codex so you could bring 5 Knights if you wanted to as long as one is an HQ/Warlord. You could also take 1-2 as an ally.
Jason
That's not how IK works anymore. Gotta look at the new FAQs on the. Knights detachment is now 1-3 regardless if it is primary or not. No more 1-5 for primary IK detachment.
Julnlecs wrote: So IKs are forced to ally in something to make up for the points missing?
GW thats a good way to make a brand new IK player buy another army.
It's actually only a problem because people want to restrict the number of detachments people can bring to a GT event. For example, if the BAO allowed dual CADs, you could bring one CAD of 3 knights and a second CAD of 2 knights and be fine.
Julnlecs wrote: So IKs are forced to ally in something to make up for the points missing?
GW thats a good way to make a brand new IK player buy another army.
It's actually only a problem because people want to restrict the number of detachments people can bring to a GT event. For example, if the BAO allowed dual CADs, you could bring one CAD of 3 knights and a second CAD of 2 knights and be fine.
Blame the player, not the game.
That wouldn't be fine. My question implies that.
Knights don't come in CAD, they come in Knight Detachments. Hence my question would a knight army still need 1 CAD to be BAO legal or would there be a solution counting Knight detachments as CAD. This question can be extended to include Inquisition primary armies as well or any non conventional army building method which we got in the last quarter of 6th edition.
Do you expect that tables' gaming space will pretty much butt up right against one another, or will there be a luxurious 2' space between them for setting down minis and the like? I'm planning out a display/carrying board and wondering if it's going to have a place to sit during games as opposed to just between them.
We are allowing self-allies so yeah, you actually can take an all Knight army.
@Pizza
Yes, you can take a Knight Detachment as your CAD or your ally, or both.
@8ball
Tables will be 4x6' and run in most likely 4 table rows. It is highly inefficient to run 4x8' tables. Where you could have 4 tables in a row, with 8' you only get 3. It means we would have to charge 33% more per ticket to yield the same revenue per square foot. And then, everyone would complain about the ticket price =)
There will be space under the tables for your display board, but, if you are bringing a giant display board, assume it will be in the way 99% of the time. That is why I always bring very small display boards (if at all) to events as they are 9/10 in the way and 1/10 cool. That is just me though, I prefer fcuntion over form for that type of thing.
That's not updated for the BAO 2014. It specifically says that since its the first 7th GT for Frontline and their callaborators, there will be no FW models allowed.
I'm not sure where you read that. There will be no Forge World army lists allowed, but FW models will be there, and if I'm wrong, Reece should get the word out before half the field shows up with illegal army lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From the 2014 BAO information page:
What to Bring
...
...
All pertinent rules for your army. Codecis, White Dwarf Articles, Foregworld Rules, etc.
If FW isn't allowed, Frontline did a poor job of writing this, and Reece's many many statements about how FW WILL be allowed would be pretty misleading.
Will there be a new BAOFAQ comming out soon? There are a few rules that I think need to be clarified. Some examples would be:
Wargear affecting Chariots
The use of the term "Psyker Unit"
Rerolling Warlord traits for Battle Forged armies.
Nihtfighting roll becoming optional
Mixed units running and turbo boosting
We have been slammed with work and rebooting the FAW for a new edition takes about 12 hours of phone call time between multiple TOs. It's no easy task and we have not had time to do it.
As for your specific questions:
No 3++ on Necron Chariots.
What about the term psyker unit needs clarification, specifically?
What about rerolling warlord is unclear?
Night-fighting is in our missions, not optional.
Are you asking if mixed units can run/turbo boost?
A lot of the rules questions have intuitive answers but nothing clearly written out in the rules. For example, I would imagine a unit of guardians with a Farseer on bike can have te guardians make their run move and the jetbike model turbo boost and as long as everything ends in coherency.
Anyway, I am still hoping my finances pan out to be able to make this event, it's scary watching the tickets slowly being sold out!
Reece I think I asked you about the psyker unit before about only being able to cast the same psychic power once per unit. Some people interpret that as being per psyker. The answer you gave me was it is only same psychic power per each unit. So flickering fire just once. Invisibility on itself just once. Fortune on itself just once. And not per psyker.
Reecius wrote: We have been slammed with work and rebooting the FAW for a new edition takes about 12 hours of phone call time between multiple TOs. It's no easy task and we have not had time to do it.
As for your specific questions:
No 3++ on Necron Chariots.
What about the term psyker unit needs clarification, specifically?
What about rerolling warlord is unclear?
Night-fighting is in our missions, not optional.
Are you asking if mixed units can run/turbo boost?
Thanks for the swift response! Yeah, I understand something like this takes a lot of effort to put together. Great work on everything though!
To be more specific:
A Psyker unit is listed as any Unit with the Psyker Special Rule. This becomes a huge mess with units such as a Seer Council. Many have made the interpretaion that Each Farseer/Warlock model in the council is NOT its own psyker Unit and thus, the unit as a whole can only ever attempt any single power one time. However, on this same line of thinking, Perils of the warp becomes impossible, because the whole unit would suffer it for any give roll of double sixes. Also gets screwy when generating Warp Charges. Add up the mastery level of all your psyker units....so if the council is a single psyker unit, what is our mastery level? Even the casting limitation seems strange when you consider this. If I have two solo Farssers, both knowing the power Guide, they can each cast their power. Now join those Farseers to the same unit and only one can cast it? Not sure how that could have ever been intended. I think the phrase "Psyker Unit" has to work on a model-by-model basis, otherwise the rest of the rules fall appart.
For the warlord traits, given that every army will be battle forged and thus granted a re-roll. Will you be doing pick one tree and then roll? Or will it be roll and then pick the corresponding number off of any of the 3 BRB trees?
Just to be clear on the nightfighting thing, In the 7th BRB, even when the mission has the nightfighting rule, it is only actually rolled for if at least one of the players would like to. In other words, If both players dont want to roll, the roll does not have to be made. Will these missions be the same way? Or is the roll mandatory?
Yes. Can a mixed unit both run and turboost their respective models?
Reecius wrote: Are you asking if mixed units can run/turbo boost?
Thanks for the swift response! Yeah, I understand something like this takes a lot of effort to put together. Great work on everything though!
To be more specific:
Yes. Can a mixed unit both run and turboost their respective models?
Thanks!
My local TO and I had a game where this came up. That is, if Baron Sathonyx is with a Jetstar, can the Baron Run (as Jump Infantry) while the Jetbikes Turbo Boost, as long as the unit stays in Coherency?
We came up with these possible answers :
a. Yes.
b. Sort of; the Baron *can* Run, but the 'bikes could only Turbo Boost as far as the unit's "Slowest model" could move, per that rule on Mixed unit movement.
c. No! You're a douche for playing the BaronStar and deserve nothing!
Reecius wrote: Are you asking if mixed units can run/turbo boost?
Thanks for the swift response! Yeah, I understand something like this takes a lot of effort to put together. Great work on everything though!
To be more specific:
Yes. Can a mixed unit both run and turboost their respective models?
Thanks!
My local TO and I had a game where this came up. That is, if Baron Sathonyx is with a Jetstar, can the Baron Run (as Jump Infantry) while the Jetbikes Turbo Boost, as long as the unit stays in Coherency?
We came up with these possible answers :
a. Yes.
b. Sort of; the Baron *can* Run, but the 'bikes could only Turbo Boost as far as the unit's "Slowest model" could move, per that rule on Mixed unit movement.
c. No! You're a douche for playing the BaronStar and deserve nothing!
Brothererekose wrote: My local TO and I had a game where this came up. That is, if Baron Sathonyx is with a Jetstar, can the Baron Run (as Jump Infantry) while the Jetbikes Turbo Boost, as long as the unit stays in Coherency?
We came up with these possible answers :
a. Yes.
b. Sort of; the Baron *can* Run, but the 'bikes could only Turbo Boost as far as the unit's "Slowest model" could move, per that rule on Mixed unit movement.
c. No! You're a douche for playing the BaronStar and deserve nothing!
Back when I ran BeastStar I always played it that the Beast Pack/Baron could Run but the Jetseer stays put and you have to keep in coherency with him.
extremefreak17 wrote: Will there be a new BAOFAQ comming out soon? There are a few rules that I think need to be clarified. Some examples would be:
Wargear affecting Chariots
The use of the term "Psyker Unit"
Rerolling Warlord traits for Battle Forged armies.
Nihtfighting roll becoming optional
Mixed units running and turbo boosting
Reecius wrote: We have been slammed with work and rebooting the FAW for a new edition takes about 12 hours of phone call time between multiple TOs. It's no easy task and we have not had time to do it.
As for your specific questions:
No 3++ on Necron Chariots.
What about the term psyker unit needs clarification, specifically?
What about rerolling warlord is unclear?
Night-fighting is in our missions, not optional.
Are you asking if mixed units can run/turbo boost?
Thanks for the swift response! Yeah, I understand something like this takes a lot of effort to put together. Great work on everything though!
To be more specific:
A Psyker unit is listed as any Unit with the Psyker Special Rule. This becomes a huge mess with units such as a Seer Council. Many have made the interpretaion that Each Farseer/Warlock model in the council is NOT its own psyker Unit and thus, the unit as a whole can only ever attempt any single power one time. However, on this same line of thinking, Perils of the warp becomes impossible, because the whole unit would suffer it for any give roll of double sixes. Also gets screwy when generating Warp Charges. Add up the mastery level of all your psyker units....so if the council is a single psyker unit, what is our mastery level? Even the casting limitation seems strange when you consider this. If I have two solo Farssers, both knowing the power Guide, they can each cast their power. Now join those Farseers to the same unit and only one can cast it? Not sure how that could have ever been intended. I think the phrase "Psyker Unit" has to work on a model-by-model basis, otherwise the rest of the rules fall appart.
For the warlord traits, given that every army will be battle forged and thus granted a re-roll. Will you be doing pick one tree and then roll? Or will it be roll and then pick the corresponding number off of any of the 3 BRB trees?
Just to be clear on the nightfighting thing, In the 7th BRB, even when the mission has the nightfighting rule, it is only actually rolled for if at least one of the players would like to. In other words, If both players dont want to roll, the roll does not have to be made. Will these missions be the same way? Or is the roll mandatory?
Yes. Can a mixed unit both run and turboost their respective models?
Thanks!
I will try my best to answer these for you, at least for the ones Reece hasn't answered yet.
Psykers/psyker unit - The Seer Council is a unit consisting of individual psykers. It is not a Brotherhood of Psyker unit. Casting psychic powers is done on a model-by-model (i.e. individual psyker-by-psyker) basis unless that unit has the Brotherhood of Psyker USR. Thus, each individual Warlock has his own powers, contributes warp dice to the warp pool, needs to take his own test for casting powers and can suffer Perils by himself. However, as it is a unit, even though they are individual psykers, they still cannot cast the same power more than once because of the unit's restriction.
Warlord Trait - that is correct. You get to re-roll your Warlord trait. It is roll and then pick from any of the 3 trees other than Tactical. And then you could re-roll that if you want and then pick from any of the 3 trees again.
Night-fighting - It is mandatory according to the BAO mission packs. However, in your game with your opponent, if the both of you should choose not to, then that is really up to you guys.
Turbo-boost/Running - By pure RAW, my intepretation is that no, you actually can't. That is because a unit of bikes cannot run. Instead, they turbo-boost. So the unit can't run and therefore, any attached characters - who are part of the unit - won't be able to run as well. However, this is something that needs to be FAQ'd and I can see argument for the other side as well.
I think the consensus (the How-I-would-play-it, or HIWPI) is that in a mixed unit of bikes and infantry, the non-bike units can run and the bikes can turbo.
Psykers/psyker unit - The Seer Council is a unit consisting of individual psykers. It is not a Brotherhood of Psyker unit. Casting psychic powers is done on a model-by-model (i.e. individual psyker-by-psyker) basis unless that unit has the Brotherhood of Psyker USR. Thus, each individual Warlock has his own powers, contributes warp dice to the warp pool, needs to take his own test for casting powers and can suffer Perils by himself. However, as it is a unit, even though they are individual psykers, they still cannot cast the same power more than once because of the unit's restriction.
The problem I have with this is as follows.
If this is true...
Casting psychic powers is done on a model-by-model (i.e. individual psyker-by-psyker) basis unless that unit has the Brotherhood of Psyker USR.
...then How does this make any sense?
However, as it is a unit, even though they are individual psykers, they still cannot cast the same power more than once because of the unit's restriction.
If the individual models are casting the powers, I'm not sure if you can conclude that the unit is casting the power. As far as I know, only BoP cast powers as a unit. If Council Unit is indeed casting the power then how do we allocate perils? I really dont think it can be both ways at the same time without breaking rules. I think the main pronlem here is the use of the word "Unit" It is used in some places to refer to single model, and then again in other places to refer to a whole unit. I am just having really hard time believing that 2 Pskers in seperate units can cast more freely than the same two Psykers if they join together.
Psykers/psyker unit - The Seer Council is a unit consisting of individual psykers. It is not a Brotherhood of Psyker unit. Casting psychic powers is done on a model-by-model (i.e. individual psyker-by-psyker) basis unless that unit has the Brotherhood of Psyker USR. Thus, each individual Warlock has his own powers, contributes warp dice to the warp pool, needs to take his own test for casting powers and can suffer Perils by himself. However, as it is a unit, even though they are individual psykers, they still cannot cast the same power more than once because of the unit's restriction.
The problem I have with this is as follows.
If this is true...
Casting psychic powers is done on a model-by-model (i.e. individual psyker-by-psyker) basis unless that unit has the Brotherhood of Psyker USR.
...then How does this make any sense?
However, as it is a unit, even though they are individual psykers, they still cannot cast the same power more than once because of the unit's restriction.
If the individual models are casting the powers, I'm not sure if you can conclude that the unit is casting the power. As far as I know, only BoP cast powers as a unit. If Council Unit is indeed casting the power then how do we allocate perils? I really dont think it can be both ways at the same time without breaking rules. I think the main pronlem here is the use of the word "Unit" It is used in some places to refer to single model, and then again in other places to refer to a whole unit. I am just having really hard time believing that 2 Pskers in seperate units can cast more freely than the same two Psykers if they join together.
It's all actually quite simple. You may just be overthinking things.
Say you have 2 far seers joining a beast pack unit. One casts Fortune and the other casts Prescience. That is ok because the unit hasn't broken any rules. Now say both far seers try to cast Psychic Shriek. Now you are breaking a rule by trying to manifest the same power more than once in the same unit (which is a unit of beasts with 2 IC's attached).
2 farseers joining a unit of warlocks form 1 unit (we'll just call this unit the seer council unit). Say 1 farseer casts Fortune, another farseer attempts to summon daemons by casting the Summoning and 1 warlock attempts to cast the Summoning as we'll. We'll, now you've broken a rule by having 2 psykers within the same unit trying to cast the same power. That warlock can cast any other power besides the Summoning within that particular seer council unit. Now if the farseer leaves the seer council unit, then he is in his own separate unit and now both the farseer and the warlock can both cast the Summoning as they are no longer within the same unit.
Psykers/psyker unit - The Seer Council is a unit consisting of individual psykers. It is not a Brotherhood of Psyker unit. Casting psychic powers is done on a model-by-model (i.e. individual psyker-by-psyker) basis unless that unit has the Brotherhood of Psyker USR. Thus, each individual Warlock has his own powers, contributes warp dice to the warp pool, needs to take his own test for casting powers and can suffer Perils by himself. However, as it is a unit, even though they are individual psykers, they still cannot cast the same power more than once because of the unit's restriction.
The problem I have with this is as follows.
If this is true...
Casting psychic powers is done on a model-by-model (i.e. individual psyker-by-psyker) basis unless that unit has the Brotherhood of Psyker USR.
...then How does this make any sense?
However, as it is a unit, even though they are individual psykers, they still cannot cast the same power more than once because of the unit's restriction.
If the individual models are casting the powers, I'm not sure if you can conclude that the unit is casting the power. As far as I know, only BoP cast powers as a unit. If Council Unit is indeed casting the power then how do we allocate perils? I really dont think it can be both ways at the same time without breaking rules. I think the main pronlem here is the use of the word "Unit" It is used in some places to refer to single model, and then again in other places to refer to a whole unit. I am just having really hard time believing that 2 Pskers in seperate units can cast more freely than the same two Psykers if they join together.
It's all actually quite simple. You may just be overthinking things.
Say you have 2 far seers joining a beast pack unit. One casts Fortune and the other casts Prescience. That is ok because the unit hasn't broken any rules. Now say both far seers try to cast Psychic Shriek. Now you are breaking a rule by trying to manifest the same power more than once in the same unit (which is a unit of beasts with 2 IC's attached).
2 farseers joining a unit of warlocks form 1 unit (we'll just call this unit the seer council unit). Say 1 farseer casts Fortune, another farseer attempts to summon daemons by casting the Summoning and 1 warlock attempts to cast the Summoning as we'll. We'll, now you've broken a rule by having 2 psykers within the same unit trying to cast the same power. That warlock can cast any other power besides the Summoning within that particular seer council unit. Now if the farseer leaves the seer council unit, then he is in his own separate unit and now both the farseer and the warlock can both cast the Summoning as they are no longer within the same unit.
I see where you are coming from, but in the paragraph where the rule in question is discussed, (pg 24 under manifesting psychic powers) it is pretty clear that use of the word "unit" is referring to the individual Psyker and not any other unit he may have joined. I invite you to re-read the whole paragraph and consider the context. The purpose of that rule is to prevent a single Psyker from using the same power twice.
I see where you are coming from, but in the paragraph where the rule in question is discussed, (pg 24 under manifesting psychic powers) it is pretty clear that use of the word "unit" is referring to the individual Psyker and not any other unit he may have joined. I invite you to re-read the whole paragraph and consider the context. The purpose of that rule is to prevent a single Psyker from using the same power twice.
Yes, each unit of psykers (i.e. going with my previous example above, 1 farseer, 1 farseer and 1 unit of warlocks) is his own unit. However, when they join together (with the IC's attaching to the warlocks), they then form just 1 unit of psykers. Each individual psyker can cast his own power (and perils as well). However, the group on the whole is bound by the restriction that "no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase." (BRB p.24). As a matter of fact, whether they are together or separate, both are bound by this restriction. If the farseer splits off, he cannot attempt to cast the Summoning twice. If he is with a unit, then he and a Warlock cannot both cast the Summoning.
I see where you are coming from, but in the paragraph where the rule in question is discussed, (pg 24 under manifesting psychic powers) it is pretty clear that use of the word "unit" is referring to the individual Psyker and not any other unit he may have joined. I invite you to re-read the whole paragraph and consider the context. The purpose of that rule is to prevent a single Psyker from using the same power twice.
Yes, each unit of psykers (i.e. going with my previous example above, 1 farseer, 1 farseer and 1 unit of warlocks) is his own unit. However, when they join together (with the IC's attaching to the warlocks), they then form just 1 unit of psykers. Each individual psyker can cast his own power (and perils as well). However, the group on the whole is bound by the restriction that "no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase." (BRB p.24). As a matter of fact, whether they are together or separate, both are bound by this restriction. If the farseer splits off, he cannot attempt to cast the Summoning twice. If he is with a unit, then he and a Warlock cannot both cast the Summoning.
It is referring to Psyker Units, not Units of Psykers. Pretty significant difference.
The problem is, you cant pick and choose when the word unit applies to a single model, or the whole unit. If you read the word "unit" like that, you would have to read it the same way for perils and everything else in the psychic phase rules. For example, in the same paragraph;
If, after attempting to manifest a psychic power, if you still have Warp Charge points left, you can attempt to manifest another psychic power with the same unit, or select another of your Psyker units and attempt to manifest a power the new unit knows.
Here we can see that the words "unit" and "Psyker unit" are interchanged freely. In fact, the whole paragraph is written that way.
Assuming you have enough Warp Charge points, you can alternate back and forth between the same Psyker units in this way, but no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase.
This is one complete sentence with a single subject. The subject is the "Psyker unit", which is shortened to "unit" after the comma to avoid repetition and awkward sentence structure. We know in this case the words"Psyker Unit" is referring to the individual Psyker because of the context. Some further examples of this.
Under Select "Psyker and Psychic Power"
Select one of your Psyker units
Then select a psychic power known to the unit...
With you interpretation of the word "unit" A Farseer joined to a unit of Guardians can never cast a power, as the unit does not know any psychic powers. Only the Farseer himself does, and thus, we conclude that "Psyker unit" and "unit" are referring only to the Farseer.
Under "Take Psychic Test"
If, when making a Psychic test, two or more dice rolls (before applying modifiers) were rolls of a 6, the unit attempting to manifest the psychic power suffers Perils of the Warp...
By your interpretation of the word "unit", the Guardian unit would suffer Perils. Also, the Guardian unit would be the "unit attempting to manifest the psychic power", which we know is not possible. The word "unit" has to be referring to the single Psyker for this rule to work.
The same language is used throughout the entire rule set for the Psychic Phase. This leaves us with two options.
A: The words "Psyker unit" and "unit" are referring to just the Psyker himself.
B: The words "Psyker unit" and "unit" refer to the Psyker AND any other unit he may join.
You can not pick and chose when to use option A and when to use option B. One must be applied across the board.
It is referring to Psyker Units, not Units of Psykers. Pretty significant difference.
The problem is, you cant pick and choose when the word unit applies to a single model, or the whole unit. If you read the word "unit" like that, you would have to read it the same way for perils and everything else in the psychic phase rules. For example, in the same paragraph;
If, after attempting to manifest a psychic power, if you still have Warp Charge points left, you can attempt to manifest another psychic power with the same unit, or select another of your Psyker units and attempt to manifest a power the new unit knows.
Here we can see that the words "unit" and "Psyker unit" are interchanged freely. In fact, the whole paragraph is written that way.
Assuming you have enough Warp Charge points, you can alternate back and forth between the same Psyker units in this way, but no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase.
This is one complete sentence with a single subject. The subject is the "Psyker unit", which is shortened to "unit" after the comma to avoid repetition and awkward sentence structure. We know in this case the words"Psyker Unit" is referring to the individual Psyker because of the context. Some further examples of this.
GW writing (or maybe the editing) is just plain and simple sloppy. They refer to psyker units under Manifesting Psychic Powers. However, when it comes to actually resolving them (under Manifesting Psychic Powers Sequence and also Perils of the Warp), they mention the singular Psyker, as in 1 model. Well, each Warlock is a psyker.
Under Select "Psyker and Psychic Power"
Select one of your Psyker units
Then select a psychic power known to the unit...
With you interpretation of the word "unit" A Farseer joined to a unit of Guardians can never cast a power, as the unit does not know any psychic powers. Only the Farseer himself does, and thus, we conclude that "Psyker unit" and "unit" are referring only to the Farseer.
I really don't see any inconsistency. Farseer + Guardians is still a psyker unit because there is a psyker model in the unit and powers are cast on a model basis.
Under "Take Psychic Test"
If, when making a Psychic test, two or more dice rolls (before applying modifiers) were rolls of a 6, the unit attempting to manifest the psychic power suffers Perils of the Warp...
By your interpretation of the word "unit", the Guardian unit would suffer Perils. Also, the Guardian unit would be the "unit attempting to manifest the psychic power", which we know is not possible. The word "unit" has to be referring to the single Psyker for this rule to work.
No, under Perils of the Warp on p.25, only the Psyker who cast the power suffers Perils, not that unit he is in.
The same language is used throughout the entire rule set for the Psychic Phase. This leaves us with two options.
A: The words "Psyker unit" and "unit" are referring to just the Psyker himself.
B: The words "Psyker unit" and "unit" refer to the Psyker AND any other unit he may join.
You can not pick and chose when to use option A and when to use option B. One must be applied across the board.
I agree that the language used isn't consistent. GW jumps from referring to psyker units to referring to individual psykers. Basically, GW makes no distinction whether a "psyker unit" is a unit consisting of entirely psykers (as in the warlock council) or a unit with just 1 psyker in it (as in IC + any unit). Without that distinction, then I am forced to consider any unit with a psyker in it to be a psyker unit, whether it is just 1 psyker + a bunch of non-psyker models or 10 psykers in the same unit.
In any case, don't overthink it. I can tell you that the consensus will be played as such:
1. With the exception of Brotherhood of Psyker units, each psyker in a unit can cast his own power, contribute warp charges to the warp pool and suffer Perils on an individual basis.
2. If those psykers are in the same unit (even if the unit consists of several psyker units combined together a la IC's + warlocks), then they will be restricted by the rule that "no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once".
I am almost positive that this is how it will be played at the BAO and probably the majority of tournaments. I'm pretty sure Reece will confirm this when he gets to reading it.
Julnlecs wrote: Reece I think I asked you about the psyker unit before about only being able to cast the same psychic power once per unit. Some people interpret that as being per psyker. The answer you gave me was it is only same psychic power per each unit. So flickering fire just once. Invisibility on itself just once. Fortune on itself just once. And not per psyker.
Yes. They join together, they are a single unit for casting purposes.
@Loch
You're welcome!
@freak17
Reroll once on a single trait. No more roll, and pick across. The traits are all really good, now.
Nightfight is in each mission, but as Jim said, if you both choose to say F it, or forget, then that is up to you.
Yes run/turbo boost. Using the mixed movement rules as basis for this.
@Jim
Thanks for the assist!
@
Down to about 10 tickets and change left! Don't wait!
Julnlecs wrote: Reece I think I asked you about the psyker unit before about only being able to cast the same psychic power once per unit. Some people interpret that as being per psyker. The answer you gave me was it is only same psychic power per each unit. So flickering fire just once. Invisibility on itself just once. Fortune on itself just once. And not per psyker.
Yes. They join together, they are a single unit for casting purposes.
Well that is disapointing. So, just to be clear, you will in fact be ruling this differently than NOVA and ETC correct? Any reasoning for this?
Forge world units have a green light, but forge world armies have like dark harvest, DKOK, Eldar corsairs, armored battle group, dread mob, and renegades and heretics have a big fat red light.
What about forge world chapter tactics? On one side you can argue that it's an army list using the 6th ed marine codex with forge world special characters and a forge world chapter tactic, on the other hand people can argue they are a forge world list.
If these are still Kosher we can expect to see a lot of Loth and people will be asking how the armor of Selket will work in 7th ed. RAW it has no warp charges at the start of the turn so it can't be activated.
Wow, did I actually say all those things in your sigs? I must be getting old and my memory fading....
schadenfreude wrote: Forge world units have a green light, but forge world armies have like dark harvest, DKOK, Eldar corsairs, armored battle group, dread mob, and renegades and heretics have a big fat red light.
What about forge world chapter tactics? On one side you can argue that it's an army list using the 6th ed marine codex with forge world special characters and a forge world chapter tactic, on the other hand people can argue they are a forge world list.
If these are still Kosher we can expect to see a lot of Loth and people will be asking how the armor of Selket will work in 7th ed. RAW it has no warp charges at the start of the turn so it can't be activated.
You're right. By RAW, Loth's armor does nothing now. Still, he is a steal for a Lvl 3 Psyker with automatic Invisibility. Oh, and free FNP for almost the entire army Yowzers!
Imagine 60 ObSec marines in drop pods, all with FNP.....
Wow, did I actually say all those things in your sigs? I must be getting old and my memory fading....
schadenfreude wrote: Forge world units have a green light, but forge world armies have like dark harvest, DKOK, Eldar corsairs, armored battle group, dread mob, and renegades and heretics have a big fat red light.
What about forge world chapter tactics? On one side you can argue that it's an army list using the 6th ed marine codex with forge world special characters and a forge world chapter tactic, on the other hand people can argue they are a forge world list.
If these are still Kosher we can expect to see a lot of Loth and people will be asking how the armor of Selket will work in 7th ed. RAW it has no warp charges at the start of the turn so it can't be activated.
You're right. By RAW, Loth's armor does nothing now. Still, he is a steal for a Lvl 3 Psyker with automatic Invisibility. Oh, and free FNP for almost the entire army Yowzers!
Imagine 60 ObSec marines in drop pods, all with FNP.....
7th pod could hold invisible honor guard with shrouding.
There is still some debate if FW chapter tactics still has a green light from Reece. I think it does, but that's only because it was fine in 6th when he still had a ban on fw armies.
7th pod could hold invisible honor guard with shrouding.
There is still some debate if FW chapter tactics still has a green light from Reece. I think it does, but that's only because it was fine in 6th when he still had a ban on fw armies.
I don't think it would be a problem to use FW Chapter Tactics. They have let people run them before. I have not heard anything about them banning it since.
The main problem with FW specific armies is that you need to FW books in order to run them. Not many people have access to those books and there is no way that even the TO's themselves can check a specific FW list to see if it is legal. However, FW Chapter Tactics basically run on the SM codex, with only differences being in the Chapter Tactics and the characters themselves. That is much easier to check, not only for the TO's but for the opponents as well, if something is wrong with the list (i.e. if it is illegal). Thus, from precedent, I see running FW Chapter Tactics using the SM codex to be perfectly fine.
If I am wrong, I am sure Reece will correct me in this thread. But to be on the safe side, you can always PM him as well.
7th pod could hold invisible honor guard with shrouding.
There is still some debate if FW chapter tactics still has a green light from Reece. I think it does, but that's only because it was fine in 6th when he still had a ban on fw armies.
I don't think it would be a problem to use FW Chapter Tactics. They have let people run them before. I have not heard anything about them banning it since.
The main problem with FW specific armies is that you need to FW books in order to run them. Not many people have access to those books and there is no way that even the TO's themselves can check a specific FW list to see if it is legal. However, FW Chapter Tactics basically run on the SM codex, with only differences being in the Chapter Tactics and the characters themselves. That is much easier to check, not only for the TO's but for the opponents as well, if something is wrong with the list (i.e. if it is illegal). Thus, from precedent, I see running FW Chapter Tactics using the SM codex to be perfectly fine.
If I am wrong, I am sure Reece will correct me in this thread. But to be on the safe side, you can always PM him as well.
Well that's pretty much what Reece said at all previous frontline events he just hasn't mentioned fw chapter tactics yet.
No, an IC cannot join a unit containing MCs, therefore, O'Vessa can join a unit, but not one that has another IC. He cannot join another IC, or MC, either.
You can only take 4 Heralds in a Primary detachment. Your Primary detachment is determined by which one your Warlord is in. As you can only have 1 warlord and therefore 1 primary detachment, you can only ever have 4 Heralds.
Reecius wrote: You can only take 4 Heralds in a Primary detachment. Your Primary detachment is determined by which one your Warlord is in. As you can only have 1 warlord and therefore 1 primary detachment, you can only ever have 4 Heralds.
You should probably read the FAQ Reece They took out the word "Primary". So in a self allied army you could have 8 (as you are still restricted to 4 per detachment by the wording).
Reecius wrote: You can only take 4 Heralds in a Primary detachment. Your Primary detachment is determined by which one your Warlord is in. As you can only have 1 warlord and therefore 1 primary detachment, you can only ever have 4 Heralds.
You should probably read the FAQ Reece They took out the word "Primary". So in a self allied army you could have 8 (as you are still restricted to 4 per detachment by the wording).
This so you could take up to 8 now, just like they removed the restriction on Warlocks I believe it no longer states Primary? Am I correct I know they removed the restriction on Daemons.
Reecius wrote: You can only take 4 Heralds in a Primary detachment. Your Primary detachment is determined by which one your Warlord is in. As you can only have 1 warlord and therefore 1 primary detachment, you can only ever have 4 Heralds.
You should probably read the FAQ Reece They took out the word "Primary". So in a self allied army you could have 8 (as you are still restricted to 4 per detachment by the wording).
Then I stand corrected.
So many little, tiny but significant changes, I am uploading it all ASAP, but every day I learn something new. 7th is going to be a long time in unfolding, I wish they had a change log or something.
@CKO
It is part of any detachment that includes it. So far, that is really only the CAD and Ork detachments, but we limit it to 1 in case, somehow, someone could take more than one through some detachment we are unaware of. It is included in it's deatchment though.
7th ed list building is complex, it will take some time to get used to it.
Interested as to why you allow the Stompa [pretty indestructible with all the of the opportunities to repair HPs] but didn't allow Warhound Titans? You state that you wanted to avoid ignores cover weapons, but the only ignores cover on the Warhound is the [short range] flamer?
tyrannosaurus wrote: Interested as to why you allow the Stompa [pretty indestructible with all the of the opportunities to repair HPs] but didn't allow Warhound Titans? You state that you wanted to avoid ignores cover weapons, but the only ignores cover on the Warhound is the [short range] flamer?
It seems the army composition portion of BAO rules has been revised (or maybe my memory is going bad).
Before, the BAO explicitly said a formation counted as a separate detachment and therefore an army couldn't have 1 CAD, 1 Allied detachment, and 1 formation because that would be a total of 3 detachments. Now, I don't see that sentence.
Does that mean a formation could be a part of CAD or allied detachment? If so, does that mean which ever one it's a part of have to have at least compulsory 1 HQ and 2 troops for primary or 1 HQ and 1 troop for allied detachment?
CKO wrote: So a IG and Space Marine list can include a baneblade variant?
If your CAD is IG, yes, you can include a Baneblade or other AMLoW.
@tyrannosaurus
It has been really interesting to me and quite funny, that about 90% of the negative feedback we have gotten has been about which LoW we HAVEN'T included. Haha, so funny, I thought people would just be happy to have them but it has been almost all complaints about which units we chose to omit. And, for the record, I am not saying you are being negative, you are being quite reasonable and just asking a question, but your question brought that to mind. The only truly mad, irrational emails I have gotten this time around have been pissed people about not getting their Tranny C'Tan or what have you. So funny.
But, we omitted any unit that could take a large, ignores cover weapon. I didn't want to start splitting hairs and banning specific weapons as I 100% guarantee, that would have caused more problems than it solved as people would have been upset that they built their LoW with those weapons and couldn't change it, or didn't see that rule and brought one anyway, etc., etc., etc. A blanket ban on those units this first time out felt like the right call.
As for the Stompa, eh, we'll see. Two Knights hit it in assault and it is probably dead, killing everything inside and around it. It is good, for sure, but essentially the entire army is built around that one unit, and I think it would actually be a very poor army for winning missions, but we'll see. I am sure one will pop up at the BAO.
All the fuss though, will largely be for naught as I bet money right now, less than 10% of the armies present will actually have a LoW.
@SabrX
A Formation IS a separate detachment, per the BRB, it didn't need to be explicit. You can have 2 detachments total, one of which must be a CAD (unless you play Orks, in which case it can be one of their codex specific detachments as explained in the BAO guidelines), the other can be an ally, formation or Inquisition..
A Formation can never be a part of a CAD as it is a detachment of its own. Check out the BRB in the army building section for further clarification.
See you there, glad you are getting back into tournament 40k, buddy!
@Reece, I mentioned in Slaeds batrep thread that you folks should have players turn in the Final Game Turn number so you know what turn the average games ended on and can also determine the average time it takes to finish a turn.
jy2 said he would mention it, but I thought I'd post it here as well as I think it would really help garner useful data to help figure out point limits for these tournies. It would be an easy addition to thew score sheets. If not then, the exit survey should contain it.
It has been really interesting to me and quite funny, that about 90% of the negative feedback we have gotten has been about which LoW we HAVEN'T included. Haha, so funny, I thought people would just be happy to have them but it has been almost all complaints about which units we chose to omit. And, for the record, I am not saying you are being negative, you are being quite reasonable and just asking a question, but your question brought that to mind. The only truly mad, irrational emails I have gotten this time around have been pissed people about not getting their Tranny C'Tan or what have you. So funny.
But, we omitted any unit that could take a large, ignores cover weapon. I didn't want to start splitting hairs and banning specific weapons as I 100% guarantee, that would have caused more problems than it solved as people would have been upset that they built their LoW with those weapons and couldn't change it, or didn't see that rule and brought one anyway, etc., etc., etc. A blanket ban on those units this first time out felt like the right call.
As for the Stompa, eh, we'll see. Two Knights hit it in assault and it is probably dead, killing everything inside and around it. It is good, for sure, but essentially the entire army is built around that one unit, and I think it would actually be a very poor army for winning missions, but we'll see. I am sure one will pop up at the BAO.
All the fuss though, will largely be for naught as I bet money right now, less than 10% of the armies present will actually have a LoW.
Thanks for the response, was genuinely interested so wasn't meant to be a criticism. I've tried to take down one of those suckers before and it was a nightmare, whereas Warhounds are comparatively simple to pop, so was just wondering if i had missed something. Hope the event goes really well, I can only imagine what a thankless task it must feel like at times to organise these tournaments! I'm sure it'll all be worth it once the dice start rolling and the beers start emptying
Edit - also wanted to say I think it's a really positive move not to blanket ban LoW as they're an integral part of 7th.
Yes, anytime Tau lose, an Ork gets his Power Klaw!
@Corsair
That is a good idea, we will notate that on the score card.
@t-rex
No worries, you didn't come across that way at all, it just made me think of it. And yeah, we are happy to have LoW in some fashion, we just weren't ready to go full Monty!
schadenfreude wrote: Are you going to do a rules FAQ Q&A on dakka and if so is this the place to bomb you with questions?
I doubt it. There's no way they will have the time to address all of the issues people are going to bring up, because not only will they have to address them, but they will have to spend the time to defend their viewpoints as well. There will be a lot of pushback in an open forum and it takes a large amount of time to defend your rulings because people will disagree. On top of that, they need to spend the time on the "back-end" with other TO's with regards to tournament FAQ's as well. My guess is that they will hash it out on the back-end with other TO's to try to create some uniformity in tournament rulings.
I think the best way to go about it is to just PM him with rules queries or to just post them here.
The FAQ should be updated by the end of the week. We have a conference call with the other TOs to hash out as much of it as possible, but as Jim said, some of it will be judgement calls at the event, i am sure.
Reece, if we purchase any "Battle Mats" would we be able to pick them up from you guys at the the event or in the alternative will you guys be selling the "Battle Mats" at the BAO? I've been meaning to get one or two to replace my slowed Realm of Battle board.
Psyker Unit is being ruled very different than NOVA.
Unyielding Anvil, seriously, doesn't grant Objective Secured, but Scores as Troops has zero value now. It's an absolutely pointless choice as everything is scoring already.
The BAO flat out rule change to allow ICs with Infiltrate to grant Infiltrate to noninfiltrating units persists...
A lot of this is good, but some are just plain rule changes that weren't necessary.
Psyker Unit is being ruled very different than NOVA.
Unyielding Anvil, seriously, doesn't grant Objective Secured, but Scores as Troops has zero value now. It's an absolutely pointless choice as everything is scoring already.
The BAO flat out rule change to allow ICs with Infiltrate to grant Infiltrate to noninfiltrating units persists...
A lot of this is good, but some are just plain rule changes that weren't necessary.
Yeah I am pretty disappointed with the seemingly random rule changes as well. I am incredibly baffled by the Psyker Unit thing. So a unit of Gaurdians with an attached Farseer, Spiritseer, and Warlock is a single Psyker Unit. What is the mastery level of that Psyker Unit? Is it 3? If so, is that unit only generating 3 Warp Dice? The book tells us to add up all the mastery levels of our Psyker units...so do I get 3 or 6 dice for that unit? Or does the FAQ's redefinition of "Psyker Unit" only apply when manifesting powers and not for the rest of the phase?
Psyker Unit is being ruled very different than NOVA.
Unyielding Anvil, seriously, doesn't grant Objective Secured, but Scores as Troops has zero value now. It's an absolutely pointless choice as everything is scoring already.
The BAO flat out rule change to allow ICs with Infiltrate to grant Infiltrate to noninfiltrating units persists...
A lot of this is good, but some are just plain rule changes that weren't necessary.
Yeah I am pretty disappointed with the seemingly random rule changes as well. I am incredibly baffled by the Psyker Unit thing. So a unit of Gaurdians with an attached Farseer, Spiritseer, and Warlock is a single Psyker Unit. What is the mastery level of that Psyker Unit? Is it 3? If so, is that unit only generating 3 Warp Dice? The book tells us to add up all the mastery levels of our Psyker units...so do I get 3 or 6 dice for that unit? Or does the FAQ's redefinition of "Psyker Unit" only apply when manifesting powers and not for the rest of the phase?
The unit should get 6 warp charges. The only restriction is that it won't be able to manifest the same power more than once. So say both the farseer and spiritseer gets Summoning from the Malefic Daemon powers. They both can't attempt to Summon as long as they are in the same unit with the guardians.
IMO, it really isn't that big a deal. One of our best Eldar players here in the bay area, Grant Theft Auto, runs a full-blown seer council with 2x farseers and 8-9 jetlocks. He's been running with these restrictions and he is still kicking a$$ in our area. 1 farseer goes for Fortune and if he gets it, the other goes for Invisibility or something like that. Then about half of his warlocks go for the codex powers whereas the other half go for Santic or Malefic powers. Both can be very useful with Sanctuary, Hammerhand and any of the Daemon summoning powers.
Psyker Unit is being ruled very different than NOVA.
Unyielding Anvil, seriously, doesn't grant Objective Secured, but Scores as Troops has zero value now. It's an absolutely pointless choice as everything is scoring already.
The BAO flat out rule change to allow ICs with Infiltrate to grant Infiltrate to noninfiltrating units persists...
A lot of this is good, but some are just plain rule changes that weren't necessary.
I was also perplexed by that ruling. Maybe it's just continued prejudice against GK for ruining the end of 5th edition for everyone
Unyielding Anvil Page 22 of the Grey Knight Codex: The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were troops.
40K Rulebook page 123: Objective Secured: All Troops units from the Detachment have the Objective Secured special Rule.
It seems pretty clear to me.
BAOFAQ: The Unyielding Anvil option of the Grand Strategy special rule never grants the Objective Secured special rule.
Blackmoor wrote: For an FAQ who is asking some of these questions?
Unyielding Anvil Page 22 of the Grey Knight Codex: The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were troops.
40K Rulebook page 123: Objective Secured: All Troops units from the Detachment have the Objective Secured special Rule.
It seems pretty clear to me.
BAOFAQ: The Unyielding Anvil option of the Grand Strategy special rule never grants the Objective Secured special rule.
Erm, it doesn't say Nominated Unit may Claim Objectives. It says "Nominated Unit may Claim Objectives AS IF THEY WERE TROOPS."
Is the unit in a Detachment that grants Troops the ObSec Rule? No? Then no ObSec. Yes? OK so ..
How do Troops capture objectives? Do they have ObSec? Yes? OH, well ...
Then they claim them like units that have ObSec. You can't very well claim as if you're a troop if you don't claim as if you're a troop. The rule is almost tautologically clear.
IIRC, The IBook version of Unyielding Anvil says nothing about claiming as if they were troops.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Furthermore, it's not correct to assume that all Troops automatically have OS. There are numerous instances in the game where Troops units do not have the rule. To say something scores like Troops is not in and of itself conference of the OS special rule.
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote: IIRC, The IBook version of Unyielding Anvil says nothing about claiming as if they were troops.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Furthermore, it's not correct to assume that all Troops automatically have OS. There are numerous instances in the game where Troops units do not have the rule. To say something scores like Troops is not in and of itself conference of the OS special rule.
This is a permissive rule set. If it says you can do something you can do it unless it says that you can't. If it tells you that Troop are Objective Secured then they are unless there is a rule that says they can't.
First of, you all are welcome for the thankless, hard work that goes into producing an FAQ by a large number of people that put hours of their free time into this for everyone's mutual benefit. 4 hours on a conference call into the wee hours of the night on our free time is as crappy as it sounds.
I understand that not everyone likes all the rulings, they never do. I DON'T LIKE ALL OF THE RULINGS! But, in the name of trying to make all the various events as close to one another as possible, we have to compromise as different TOs from different regions read the rules differently and have STRONG opinions as to how things should be done. We don't all get it all our way.
We used the ATC and NOVAFAQs to help guide our decisions and while their are some divergent rules calls, you will see that the various documents are 90% the same, if not more.
As a few of you have noted, there is a discrepancy between the print and digital versions of rules. They often have contradictory rulings FOR THE SAME UNITS. It makes things rather complex. You can tell some of the other FAQs were going off of either the print or digital editions of the rules.
So try not to react to this emotionally, which is hard I know, and try to understand that a lot of rulings are made because of not just how they interpret that one rule, but also because of the ripple effect one ruling will have on other rulings in other books. It is a LOT more complex than it at first appears.
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote: IIRC, The IBook version of Unyielding Anvil says nothing about claiming as if they were troops.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Furthermore, it's not correct to assume that all Troops automatically have OS. There are numerous instances in the game where Troops units do not have the rule. To say something scores like Troops is not in and of itself conference of the OS special rule.
This is a permissive rule set. If it says you can do something you can do it unless it says that you can't. If it tells you that Troop are Objective Secured then they are unless there is a rule that says they can't.
That's beside the point. The most recent version of the rules, the IBook, say nothing about scoring as Troops.
GW screwed the pooch on this one because there are TONS of differences between the IBooks and the printed codices. Most of the erratas that they dropped between editions didn't get removed from the IBooks. Again, IIRC, another good example is the DA power field generator. They took away the errata that said it doesn't work from inside tanks but the IBooks still have the errated language.
But back to your point, the rules DO NOT say Troops always have OS. OS is a Command Benefit for certain Detachments. So at the very minimum you need to add in a writer to the effect of if the unit was in a Detachment with the OS Command Benefit, etc. To blanket say that Troops get OS, or something that scores like Troops gets OS is incorrect.
Blackmoor wrote: For an FAQ who is asking some of these questions?
Unyielding Anvil Page 22 of the Grey Knight Codex: The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were troops.
40K Rulebook page 123: Objective Secured: All Troops units from the Detachment have the Objective Secured special Rule.
It seems pretty clear to me.
BAOFAQ: The Unyielding Anvil option of the Grand Strategy special rule never grants the Objective Secured special rule.
Erm, it doesn't say Nominated Unit may Claim Objectives. It says "Nominated Unit may Claim Objectives AS IF THEY WERE TROOPS."
Is the unit in a Detachment that grants Troops the ObSec Rule? No? Then no ObSec. Yes? OK so ..
How do Troops capture objectives? Do they have ObSec? Yes? OH, well ...
Then they claim them like units that have ObSec. You can't very well claim as if you're a troop if you don't claim as if you're a troop. The rule is almost tautologically clear.
Maybe I am just being obtuse, or maybe I should have taken that logic elective in college. To me it seems like if your Troops have Objective Secured, and if you have a unit that claims objectives as if they were Troops, then they would claim them as if they were Objective Secured.
The Grey Knight codex is a 5th edition codex and the Objective Secured rule is a 7th edition concept so of course there has to be some connecting of the dots. You can't go too far in parsing each word and use some common sense to discern what it should mean.
You're not. It's a question of whether you go with the digital or printed version when they conflict, as they do in this case. There's no right answer, there are good and bad sides to both. In this case the digital was used.
And I harp on the language around OS and Command Benefits only because it has implications for other rulings in the FAQ. If you do assume that all Troops get OS some of the other rulings don't make sense. But because OS is tied to a Detachment, not just being a Troop, there are other instances where people might think they get OS but the ruling in the document is that they don't.
I don't know why they ruled Unyielding Anvil like they did (iBook vs actualBook seems likely), but you can also look at it as a 'conflict' between an outdated codex/new edition.
Using the wording Blackmoor quoted, it seems clear: units elected to be Troops are Troops, and Troops have ObjSec. Pure and simple RAW...just like with the Phase Shifter/CCB. But strangely, I don't hear anyone here (or anywhere) championing the CCB getting a permanent 3++ save. That might be because it is A) obviously overpowered and B) flies in the face of the original RAI. An update in editions made a previously unremarkable piece of wargear into something amazing. Oops! Then everyone agreed to fix it. OK, all better now.
So with Unyielding Anvil: ObjSec on your entire army is incredibly powerful. Maybe too powerful. And, either way, definitely not in line with the RAI when the book was written way back in 5th. By not making Unyielding Anvil units ObjSec, sure, one of your many rules is now useless. But that's what happens when you're playing a book that's 2 editions old. S**t breaks, and if it breaks in your favor, prepare to get ruled against.
In short, to me it's a fair ruling. It's not RAW, and that's OK, because (as we've all seemed to agree on the CCB) sometimes RAW is stupid.
).
