Hello Dakka!

Our next event is coming up three Saturdays from now on July 14th!!

Since everyone's 40k 6th edition rulebook will be only about two weeks old by the time this event rolls around, we're going to be doing things a little bit differently. This event will focus less on knives-out competition and more on ironing out the new edition. There will be a variety of tables set up with whatever the new crazy terrain is, and I will be ensuring that players get paired up against the widest variety of opposing armies as I can within reason, so you won't be going three rounds against three Marine players (unless everyone who shows up plays Marines!) or anything silly like that. The intention here is for players to get some good games in and see what's out there in the Brave New World (tm).

Points level is 1500 points, to minimize head explosions over too many models to think about.

Since this is a low-impact event, I'm not expecting any major sportsmanship flareups, but the usual one-warning system for questionable behavior will be in effect. If a played has a legitimate complaint levied against them for unsportsmanlike play, they'll be notated as such, and any subsequent legitimate complaints will result in the player in question being asked to leave the event.

The scenarios and deployments for the day will be straight from the book; I will be deciding which ones to do once I've had a chance to sit down with the book and get a handle on things, but I'm going to be choosing scenarios and deployments with a mind toward putting the new system through its paces, so expect a good sampling of scenarios.

There are some basic requirements for armies. Armies must be comprised of a majority of models from the relevant codex, and fully assembled with all primary wargear represented on the model. WYSIWYG is the rule. I will make exceptions for conversion and 'counts-as' work if notified in advance, so I can take a look at the models in question and decide whether to allow them or not. If you're not sure about something, please let me know beforehand. You can contact me at the store, information below. The Rule of Awesomeness applies here, which is, of course, the more awesome your model is, the less likely I or your opponents are going to complain about it, so convert and counts-as competently, please!

I'm not going to be super strict on round times since there's going to be a lot of sorting out of rules issues, but timing for the games has been an issue so I will be keeping an eye on the round times and making sure that the games move along as well as possible.

We will have the usual $150 in GW prize support available, with more possible depending on turnout, but I will be carving the prize pool up into more, smaller chunks to accommodate the wider variety of prizes. There will be prizes for best General and best Painted, along with a selection of awards for various 6th-ed. specific accomplishments that I will determine once I get a change to read 6th ed!

For the tournament there is a $10 entry (or $20 purchase) to play. The doors will be open early for players to come in and get set up. As usual, I want to kick this one off as close to 10:00am as possible so we don't go too long. The last one wrapped at about 6:30.

The schedule will stick as closely as possible to the following:

8:30ish - 9:30 - Show up early, have donuts with Travis (B&C donuts on Alta Dena and Foothill is particularly good for those of you in a generous mood! ), talk shop, talk about all the new armies we're all going to play now that the rules have totally changed!
9:30am - 10:00 - check-in, sign-up, event preamble, pairings
10:00am - 12:15pm - Round 1
12:15 - 1:00 - Lunch
1:00 - 3:45 - Round 2
4:00 - 6:15 - Round 3
6:30 - Winners announced

It all goes down at Game Empire Pasadena:

1795 E. Colorado Blvd.
Pasadena, CA. 91106
626-304-9333
http://www.gameempirepasadena.com

Please let me know here or on the tournament thread on the Game Empire forums if you're planning on attending so I can get a rough idea what to expect. You can RSVP on Game Empire's facebook as well. If you RSVP on facebook, I'll give you a free candy and soda during the event! (Just remember to ask me about it, because I will totally forget/not know that you RSVP'd by the time we're halfway through the tournament!)

http://www.facebook.com/events/168780469922633/

If you have any comments or questions, let me know here or give a call to the store, and hopefully I'll see you there!
-Dis.

I will be there! Let's get a huge turn out guys. I think 6th is going to be awesome and we need to figure it out so we don't have edition reversion becoming a problem in our local RTs.

I'm planing on going to this and am going to be bringing imotekh and ghaz just because i can( or at least I think i can at this point)

azgrim wrote:I'm planing on going to this and am going to be bringing imotekh and ghaz just because i can( or at least I think i can at this point)

I have heard that detachments can not have unique characters. I have not seen the book or anything, so grain of salt required.


I will be there for sure.

Excited to breathe some life into some old units. Will be there for sure.

Stay tuned to this space; as soon as I get my hands on a book (which is hopefully tomorrow!) I will be starting a discussion about what kinds of things we will be doing / trying out from the new rules in a tournament format. So far I've heard that allies and fortifications are only at higher points levels, like 2k+, so they won't be encroaching on this event, but we get to start figuring out what the new tournament format should look like.

If this one is successful enough, we'll probably do a few of these over the rest of the summer, at different points levels, to get a better understanding of the new newnessness.

I'm going to field mad kustom mega blastas to kill all those terminators that will be running around!

Orks with Broadsides on Cinnamon toast?!

Get it out of here!

Orks coming out of stormravens with pulse rifles. 6th editionnnnnn!!!

New mishap table means a 90% increase in the number of deep striking land raiders...

First person to yell "Hammer of Might" wins!

(prize = a kick in the junk)

*Hammer of Wrath

Spent the evening poring over the book, and I've had to give "The Rundown" (tm) enough times now that I've got a solid handle on things at a basic level.

First blush stuff, obvious things aside:

Shooting and Assault, particularly wound allocation, have a number of subtle changes that will mean a lot, and it will be easy to gloss over them and miss things (especially those of us with all of the previous editions bouncing around the brain cells!), so read them carefully.

Overwatch shooting. Crazy.

Allies and Fortifications are going to be bugnutz! As a note: I'm going to say starting now that if you want to bring a fortification to any of my events or leagues it has to be fully built and fully painted. No exceptions. I'm not going to allow coffee-can bastions, not even once!

disdainful wrote:*Hammer of Wrath

Guess I'm getting kicked instead...

LOL nope! You're getting a single impact hit at my base strength.

*edit: at Initiative 10.

But only if I'm on a bike. Or using my jump pack in the assault phase. Or a Monstrous Creature. Or...

You're pretty monstrous

Only on the internets.

disdainful wrote:Only on the internets.

With only 393 posts? That makes me more monstrous than you right? Since Dakka post count is the bar by which we are measured right? Right?

OT I fully agree with your stance on the fortifications. Needs to be fully modeled and painted plus if it is a scratch built it better be really close to the actual model. I don't want to see 4 Paper towel rolls with card board in between, sprayed black, dry brushed silver with an Ork glyph as someones Fortress of Redemption...

So are those only for imperials or can anyone buy one?

Since the TO has the option of altering rules as he sees fit (BRB says you can choose how to implement missions) I move to make missions last 6 turns rather than random game length! =)

mortetvie wrote:Since the TO has the option of altering rules as he sees fit (BRB says you can choose how to implement missions) I move to make missions last 6 turns rather than random game length! =)

I am against any and all alterations to the rules until we have had time to actually play this edition in a competitive environment. Don't get me wrong I am pissed random game length is still in, in fact it is the only thing I truly hate in this edition, but I still feel we should play the game as a whole before deciding against certain things.

I get your point but certain things don't really need experimentation over. I am also dismayed that Tyranids get no allies at all or any way to deal better with the other allies people will be able to bring, that is probably one of the last things Tyranids needs to deal with in the game. =(

I have been living with the BRB for the last couple days and have played a bunch so far (go Orks! Snap fire Lootaz for the win!! ), and have been sorting through a lot of the data collected. I will be posting up a 6th edition-informed set of rules in detail soon, likely on Tuesday but possibly sooner if I can get some more time with the book and figure out the last couple bits and pieces.

In the interim, here's where I'm heading for the most part so far, so please weigh in as you please on the following:

- Allies are in. No restrictions. I have a variety of ideas about how to treat this in the future, but we're doing it straight out the book the first couple times to get an idea of how it actually works, rather than walk in with padded helmets to keep from being knocked out by all the pieces of falling sky.

- Fortifications are in. Your fortification MUST BE APPROVED BY ME in order to be played. This is a modification of the above-stated policy thanks to some conversations I've had with players in the store. If you don't show it to me beforehand, and I decide not to allow it on the morning of the event, tough. This will be a zero-tolerance, no tears shed situation. I think most of you trust me to make a reasonable decision about whether something is acceptable or not. In any case, if you can't show me beforehand, make a list without fortifications. I will adjust terrain on the tables to accommodate player fortifications before each game begins. You tell me where you want it, I place it and adjust the established terrain accordingly. In general, fully built and painted GW terrain will be approved. Awesomely converted generic or faction-specific terrain will be allowed. Scratch-built terrain that is competently built and painted will (probably) be allowed. Folger's Crystals cans will not be allowed, even if they have been primed, drybrushed, and had a couple bolters stuck on.

"But Travis, I'm not really good at converting or scratch-building!"
Buy the GW stuff. It's what it's there for, and it always makes sense for your army to be utilizing abandoned Imperial positions.
"But I don't want to buy that stuff. It's 'spensive."
Not my problem.

Not trying to be a boor or too harsh, but I cannot stress enough that fortifications are not a right. It has to look good, or it's not allowed.

- As a follow-up to the above, Buildings are in. Some tables will have buildings at the event, the rules for which will be specified at the appropriate table.

- Mysterious Terrain is out. Yes, this is arbitrary and gives leverage to arguments that other elements should be or not be in or out, since Travis said no to the terrain thing, so why not this?? But I have seen from experience with WHFB 8th that it is too much of time-sink in tournament games to have to figure out what extra effect happens every time a unit moves into a piece of terrain, and then keeping track of what that terrain is and does. Particularly when we're going through the first few events and still working out the kinks in stuff like the Shooting Phase. As we move forward and everyone gets a better handle on the rules, I might start sprinkling in some Mysterious Terrain on specific tables or missions, but for now, no.

- Random Game Length is in. I'm no fan of this rule, but the missions have changed enough that we need to see how things play out before making a decision. My initial impression is that this is more important now, since there's going to be so much more variance in armies and match-ups, a little occlusion of the end of the game might be necessary to give players who end up on the wrong end of a really bad match-up a shot at not getting steamrolled. We shall see.

- Time will be a factor in this event. We are only doing 1500 points with a 2000 point round time, so I expect games to reach a conclusion, and I will be keeping track of the games with that in mind.

- Grey Knights are out. I still hate those guys.

Stay tuned for the full kit. I will not be posting the individual missions, since some missions allow other FOC choices to count as scoring and I believe that the intention there is to encourage more balanced lists.

disdainful wrote:
"But Travis, I'm not really good at converting or scratch-building!"
Buy the GW stuff. It's what it's there for, and it always makes sense for your army to be utilizing abandoned Imperial positions.

"But I don't want to buy that stuff. It's 'spensive."
Not my problem.

Not trying to be a boor or too harsh, but I cannot stress enough that fortifications are not a right. It has to look good, or it's not allowed.

What? Buy stuff from a game store that lets you play there for free? That is crazy talk! /sarcasm

- Random Game Length is in. I'm no fan of this rule, but the missions have changed enough that we need to see how things play out before making a decision. My initial impression is that this is more important now, since there's going to be so much more variance in armies and match-ups, a little occlusion of the end of the game might be necessary to give players who end up on the wrong end of a really bad match-up a shot at not getting steamrolled. We shall see.

Moretvie will be glad to show with his eldar skimmers why we now have random game length.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mortetvie wrote:I get your point but certain things don't really need experimentation over. I am also dismayed that Tyranids get no allies at all or any way to deal better with the other allies people will be able to bring, that is probably one of the last things Tyranids needs to deal with in the game. =(

I think it is way to early to know what impact 6th edition has on the Tyranids. Just take a look at no longer having to take "no retreat" wounds does for them.

Blackmoor wrote:

disdainful wrote:
"But Travis, I'm not really good at converting or scratch-building!"
Buy the GW stuff. It's what it's there for, and it always makes sense for your army to be utilizing abandoned Imperial positions.

"But I don't want to buy that stuff. It's 'spensive."
Not my problem.

Not trying to be a boor or too harsh, but I cannot stress enough that fortifications are not a right. It has to look good, or it's not allowed.

What? Buy stuff from a game store that lets you play there for free? That is crazy talk! /sarcasm

- Random Game Length is in. I'm no fan of this rule, but the missions have changed enough that we need to see how things play out before making a decision. My initial impression is that this is more important now, since there's going to be so much more variance in armies and match-ups, a little occlusion of the end of the game might be necessary to give players who end up on the wrong end of a really bad match-up a shot at not getting steamrolled. We shall see.

Moretvie will be glad to show with his eldar skimmers why we now have random game length.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mortetvie wrote:I get your point but certain things don't really need experimentation over. I am also dismayed that Tyranids get no allies at all or any way to deal better with the other allies people will be able to bring, that is probably one of the last things Tyranids needs to deal with in the game. =(

I think it is way to early to know what impact 6th edition has on the Tyranids. Just take a look at no longer having to take "no retreat" wounds does for them.

I couldn't agree with you more about tyranids. I hope this means we will be seeing more of you at GE tournaments?

Oh, and I doubt I will be playing gk at this tournament. I am thinking csm and daemons... Crazy I know.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

mortetvie wrote:Since the TO has the option of altering rules as he sees fit (BRB says you can choose how to implement missions) I move to make missions last 6 turns rather than random game length! =)

I am against any and all alterations to the rules until we have had time to actually play this edition in a competitive environment. Don't get me wrong I am pissed random game length is still in, in fact it is the only thing I truly hate in this edition, but I still feel we should play the game as a whole before deciding against certain things.

What is wrong with random game length? I have trouble thinking of reasons why it is a bad game mechanic, especially in a tournament setting. I feel it not only makes games more fun, but also balances certain aspects of some units and requires greater player skill.

As for Tyranids, I am really digging them in the new rules. I am completely shelving my Blood Angels I am enjoying them so much.

Blackmoor,

Considering how Skimmers are hit on a 3+ in combat regardless how far they move, that tanks are easier to destroy, vehicles can only tank shock 12" (not the 24" fast skimmer tanks were able to do in 5th) and that you can only hold 50% of your army in reserves, a full skimmer reserves denial army is not nearly as viable in 6th, IMO. I mainly dislike the idea of having a game end on turn 5 because that doesn't seem like a full game, I think at LEAST 6 then MAYBE random game length would be better.

As far as nids go, sure no retreat wounds being gone are really nice BUT not having any allies EVER sucks and leaves the nids with a distinct disadvantage as other armies basically get a lot more options simply by not being Tyranids.

Anyway, I'm going to show up with 9 Vibro Cannons and laugh as 3 glancing hits a turn can actually destroy most tanks...

I do not know if wave serpents got a lot worse, but falcons certainly did. But what do I know, I play Eldar all time and I have never put the 3 wave serpents I own together.

And I was thinking about vibro cannons too. Not only do they glance anything they hit, but they are like JotWW and can strike multiple vehicles a turn.

yeah lol, plus Vibro Cannons hit Flyers just fine as well as targets locked in combat so if you are careful with where you draw the line you can really whittle down anything tying up your units in combat possibly freeing those locked units to be able to shoot that turn and charge. Crazy eh?

Obviously you guys haven't heard that 6th is the age of the swooping hawk!

Well, my Vibro Cannons will be shooting out Swooping Hawks so I'm on it, yo!

I'll be there, I think I'm going to bring Taudar. We'll see how it works.

disdainful wrote:- Fortifications are in. Your fortification MUST BE APPROVED BY ME in order to be played. This is a modification of the above-stated policy thanks to some conversations I've had with players in the store. If you don't show it to me beforehand, and I decide not to allow it on the morning of the event, tough. This will be a zero-tolerance, no tears shed situation. I think most of you trust me to make a reasonable decision about whether something is acceptable or not. In any case, if you can't show me beforehand, make a list without fortifications. I will adjust terrain on the tables to accommodate player fortifications before each game begins. You tell me where you want it, I place it and adjust the established terrain accordingly. In general, fully built and painted GW terrain will be approved. Awesomely converted generic or faction-specific terrain will be allowed. Scratch-built terrain that is competently built and painted will (probably) be allowed. Folger's Crystals cans will not be allowed, even if they have been primed, drybrushed, and had a couple bolters stuck on.

Are you changing up how deployment and objective placement works or are you using the rulebook method?

The reason I ask this is because GW seems to have gone nuts and thrown objective balance out the window in the name of allowing players to bring their own Fortifications.

I say this because now objectives are placed AFTER sides are picked, which means, given that objectives can now be placed within 6" of a table edge, any mission that ends up with an odd number of objectives, the guy who gets lucky enough to place the first objective will get one more objective deep, deep in his own deployment zone while his opponent has to try to desperately scratch their way onto one of those objectives or try to collect all the secondary objectives and play for a tie.

It is a terrible, terrible decision on GW's part and the only reason I can see them having made that change is because players need to know what side they're on before placing terrain now, because players have to be able to place their fortifications FIRST before terrain gets placed.


So please, please do not allow this to happen in your tournaments. Objectives need to be placed before sides are chosen so that way players have incentive to place objectives in neutral positions (because they don't know what side they'll be starting from).

And if you're already changing the rules to allow Fortifications to be set up AFTER other terrain is placed then its really no big deal to switch up the objective placing time as well, you just have to say you can't place your Fortifications on an objective.


So here would be the revised 'preparing for battle' rules to allow this to happen (assuming you're having terrain pre-set up on the tables as opposed to having players do it each game):

1) Roll to determine mission. If you rolled the 'Purge the Alien', 'The Emperor's Will' or 'The Relic' missions, then proceed with the preparing the battle rules as laid out in the rulebook. However, if you rolled any of the other 3 missions ('Crusade', 'Big Guns Never Tire' or 'The Scourging'), the proceed with the steps as listed below:

2) Roll for deployment style (but don't roll off for deployment zone choice yet).

3) Objectives must be placed now following the rules given for placing objective markers (roll-off to see which player places the first objective).

4) Players then roll-off to see who chooses deployment zones.

5) Players place any fortifications taken as part of their army wholly within their own table half and not within 3" of another fortification (starting with the player that chose his deployment zone). They may also not be placed on top of any other terrain piece or on an objective. If there is absolutely no space to place a fortification following those rules, then push terrain pieces out of the way the minimum distance needed to fit the fortification on the table.

6) Players then roll for Warlord Traits.

7) Players then roll for psychic powers if necessary.

8) Roll-off with the winner choosing whether to deploy first or second.

9) The player that deployed second may now attempt to Seize if he wants. If he does he goes first, if he doesn't he goes second.

So whaddya think? Or are you just coming up with your own missions for the event anyway? If so, are you 'fixing' the objective placement in your missions or leaving them horribly broken as they are in the rulebook?

yakface wrote:

disdainful wrote:- Fortifications are in. Your fortification MUST BE APPROVED BY ME in order to be played. This is a modification of the above-stated policy thanks to some conversations I've had with players in the store. If you don't show it to me beforehand, and I decide not to allow it on the morning of the event, tough. This will be a zero-tolerance, no tears shed situation. I think most of you trust me to make a reasonable decision about whether something is acceptable or not. In any case, if you can't show me beforehand, make a list without fortifications. I will adjust terrain on the tables to accommodate player fortifications before each game begins. You tell me where you want it, I place it and adjust the established terrain accordingly. In general, fully built and painted GW terrain will be approved. Awesomely converted generic or faction-specific terrain will be allowed. Scratch-built terrain that is competently built and painted will (probably) be allowed. Folger's Crystals cans will not be allowed, even if they have been primed, drybrushed, and had a couple bolters stuck on.

Are you changing up how deployment and objective placement works or are you using the rulebook method?

The reason I ask this is because GW seems to have gone nuts and thrown objective balance out the window in the name of allowing players to bring their own Fortifications.

I say this because now objectives are placed AFTER sides are picked, which means, given that objectives can now be placed within 6" of a table edge, any mission that ends up with an odd number of objectives, the guy who gets lucky enough to place the first objective will get one more objective deep, deep in his own deployment zone while his opponent has to try to desperately scratch their way onto one of those objectives or try to collect all the secondary objectives and play for a tie.

It is a terrible, terrible decision on GW's part and the only reason I can see them having made that change is because players need to know what side they're on before placing terrain now, because players have to be able to place their fortifications FIRST before terrain gets placed.


So please, please do not allow this to happen in your tournaments. Objectives need to be placed before sides are chosen so that way players have incentive to place objectives in neutral positions (because they don't know what side they'll be starting from).

And if you're already changing the rules to allow Fortifications to be set up AFTER other terrain is placed then its really no big deal to switch up the objective placing time as well, you just have to say you can't place your Fortifications on an objective.


So here would be the revised 'preparing for battle' rules to allow this to happen (assuming you're having terrain pre-set up on the tables as opposed to having players do it each game):

1) Roll to determine mission. If you rolled the 'Purge the Alien', 'The Emperor's Will' or 'The Relic' missions, then proceed with the preparing the battle rules as laid out in the rulebook. However, if you rolled any of the other 3 missions ('Crusade', 'Big Guns Never Tire' or 'The Scourging'), the proceed with the steps as listed below:

2) Roll for deployment style (but don't roll off for deployment zone choice yet).

3) Objectives must be placed now following the rules given for placing objective markers (roll-off to see which player places the first objective).

4) Players then roll-off to see who chooses deployment zones.

5) Players place any fortifications taken as part of their army wholly within their own table half and not within 3" of another fortification (starting with the player that chose his deployment zone). They may also not be placed on top of any other terrain piece or on an objective. If there is absolutely no space to place a fortification following those rules, then push terrain pieces out of the way the minimum distance needed to fit the fortification on the table.

6) Players then roll for Warlord Traits.

7) Players then roll for psychic powers if necessary.

8) Roll-off with the winner choosing whether to deploy first or second.

9) The player that deployed second may now attempt to Seize if he wants. If he does he goes first, if he doesn't he goes second.

So whaddya think? Or are you just coming up with your own missions for the event anyway? If so, are you 'fixing' the objective placement in your missions or leaving them horribly broken as they are in the rulebook?

My name is mortetvie and I endorse this message.

Possibly GW changed the objective placement to make the games more Attacker/Defender if the objective number is uneven? It seems wildly broken but once you add in all the other things like Warlords, Psychics, and Flyers it may be a more dynamic game than it used to be. If everyone just wants to build a huge fort and put their whole army including objectives in it I think the problem is the Fortifications? The coolest and most fun (imbalanced by nature usually though) missions and game types for 40k never make it into tournament play anyway so I'm sure it will get distilled down to whatever the tournament players deem the most fair. Pretty much every tournament large or small was running Nova or BAO style missions the last year, making a nice even playing field... but also a pretty dry gaming experience if you seek something other than the most competitive and fair missions.

We regularly play Battle Missions, Cities of Death, and other mission and game types at my house so I just don't want to see tournament 40k in 6th get turned into let's play the same mission 3 times with different deployments.

Again I must reiterate that until the missions have been fully vetted and used in a tournament environment (please let's all remember it's only been 4 days that we've had the book) we should make as few changes as possible.

The mechanic for objective placement and fortifications definitely seems imbalanced from a 5th edition perspective. But with the preeminence of flyers and the fact that vehicles can now move 18 inches a turn, 12 in the movement, and 6 in the shooting. This means that castles will be more easily assaulted and brought to within melta range etc. Honestly we need to actually try these out and see if they are broken for real before making judgments, a lot of people still look at the game through the lens of 5th edition and this game is too different from 5th for us to make any clear assertions while those lenses are still in place.

Really? From my reading of the rulebook, this looks like 5.5th edition. The rules are entirely too much the same for my tastes. Some things are different. Airplanes will be harder to hit for most people. But since everyone can take an aegis defence line, they will basically be playing 100 points down to shoot your flyers down.

It really does seem like the chaos spawn of editions. It used to be something i liked and then it got random as hell.

Dok wrote:Really? From my reading of the rulebook, this looks like 5.5th edition. The rules are entirely too much the same for my tastes. Some things are different. Airplanes will be harder to hit for most people. But since everyone can take an aegis defence line, they will basically be playing 100 points down to shoot your flyers down.

It really does seem like the chaos spawn of editions. It used to be something i liked and then it got random as hell.

Not sure how you're getting that. There are enough small changes that add up to a very different game, and enough large changes (fortifications, allies, flyers, hull points etc.) that this edition is significantly different from 5th. Again, and I was watching this happen on Saturday, people in our area are treating this as 5.5 and playing the game in a haphazard fashion where they play 5th until they want to do something different then check the rules and FAQs and realize they've played about half of the stuff wrong.

I am fine with them playing 100 points to shoot down flyers, they are paying 100 points for a weapon that may or may not be effective in any given round at a tournament.

Some examples of playing things like 5th until proven otherwise:
Slow and Purposeful, not the same.
Trying to put Daemon ICs with CSM units.
Trying to use CSM icons to help Daemons DS
Flat out, not the same.
Deploying from a vehicle VERY different.
MC with wings are NOT all flying MC as many assumed...
Assault still being measured as 6in automatic.
SM, SW, BA Missile Launchers DO NOT have Flaak as one of the missile types.

The list goes on and on and on... We are still only 4 days in, to think anyone has enough of a handle on this edition to declare they know it inside and out, and can accurately make judgments about it in any sort of a declarative manner is just hubris.

It sounds like a lot of that stuff was Brian, haha. To be fair, he doesn't have a rule book so he was just going on what he knew before hand.

Dok wrote:It sounds like a lot of that stuff was Brian, haha. To be fair, he doesn't have a rule book so he was just going on what he knew before hand.

Some of it was Brian, some Emil, some me , some my opponent. There was a mixture of others sprinkled in there too.

Will you be in tonight to play?

I might be in tonight. I don't think I will be playing. My having the next couple days off is dependent on everyone getting a lot of work done today. But if it gets done then I will have the next couple days free to play.

Dok wrote:I might be in tonight. I don't think I will be playing. My having the next couple days off is dependent on everyone getting a lot of work done today. But if it gets done then I will have the next couple days free to play.

Then crack that whip and make them get it done!

As far as the objective sequencing thing goes, I think that kind of stuff is just a consequence of the reduction in focus on competitive play. I don't think the word 'tournament' appears in the book once! I'm not totally sure how to proceed on this one just yet, going to need to play a few more games before I can make any assessment. The change to fortification placement was not arbitrary; there's no way I can run an event in a reasonable amount of time if players set up terrain before each game.

I'm not totally certain that this particular part of the sky is falling, anyway.

When 5th ed dropped, lots of guys spent a lot of time trying to bodge homebrew fixes onto the game to make it more like 4th, or more to the point, more like what they were familiar with. I'm not ready to pass judgment on any aspect of the game just yet. As stated above (at some point, I think! ) I'm going to keep things as close as possible to the Way It Is Now (tm) and figure out what works and what doesn't, rather than try to make 6th ed. more like The Way It Was Then (tm).

Of course, I'll be using whatever meta mechanics I think work best from the point of view of running a good event. The terrain and mission organization sections are the areas most likely to be tinkered with anyway.

We're all going to be heading off in different directions for a while trying to find our way with the new game; I'm confident that my direction is at least on the right quadrant of the compass, if not necessarily dead on. We shall see. I've got another couple games lined up for tonight, and that's the best way to figure all this stuff out!

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Dok wrote:Really? From my reading of the rulebook, this looks like 5.5th edition. The rules are entirely too much the same for my tastes. Some things are different. Airplanes will be harder to hit for most people. But since everyone can take an aegis defence line, they will basically be playing 100 points down to shoot your flyers down.

It really does seem like the chaos spawn of editions. It used to be something i liked and then it got random as hell.

Not sure how you're getting that. There are enough small changes that add up to a very different game, and enough large changes (fortifications, allies, flyers, hull points etc.) that this edition is significantly different from 5th. Again, and I was watching this happen on Saturday, people in our area are treating this as 5.5 and playing the game in a haphazard fashion where they play 5th until they want to do something different then check the rules and FAQs and realize they've played about half of the stuff wrong.

I am fine with them playing 100 points to shoot down flyers, they are paying 100 points for a weapon that may or may not be effective in any given round at a tournament.

Some examples of playing things like 5th until proven otherwise:
Slow and Purposeful, not the same.
Trying to put Daemon ICs with CSM units.
Trying to use CSM icons to help Daemons DS
Flat out, not the same.
Deploying from a vehicle VERY different.
MC with wings are NOT all flying MC as many assumed...
Assault still being measured as 6in automatic.
SM, SW, BA Missile Launchers DO NOT have Flaak as one of the missile types.

The list goes on and on and on... We are still only 4 days in, to think anyone has enough of a handle on this edition to declare they know it inside and out, and can accurately make judgments about it in any sort of a declarative manner is just hubris.

I thought because skulltaker was Khorne he could join the berserkers!

I still do think that you can use CSM Icons for Chaos Daemons.

MCs from Chaos Demons are FLying MC's

That's all I caught from my game with Travis.

Remembering Fear from all my Demons, Daemonic possesioned vehicles, and oblits is the tricky part!

The Icon section of the CSM codex specifically states which units from the codex may use the icon thus precluding any other unit(s) from using it.

The flying MC assumption wasn't you btw. Someone who shall remain nameless was trying to say that all MC with Wings were now Flying MC which is not true. The same gent was claiming Jump Pack troops, like Skyclaws etc, could hover in place and be shot only on a 6...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

disdainful wrote:As far as the objective sequencing thing goes, I think that kind of stuff is just a consequence of the reduction in focus on competitive play. I don't think the word 'tournament' appears in the book once! I'm not totally sure how to proceed on this one just yet, going to need to play a few more games before I can make any assessment. The change to fortification placement was not arbitrary; there's no way I can run an event in a reasonable amount of time if players set up terrain before each game.

I'm not totally certain that this particular part of the sky is falling, anyway.

When 5th ed dropped, lots of guys spent a lot of time trying to bodge homebrew fixes onto the game to make it more like 4th, or more to the point, more like what they were familiar with. I'm not ready to pass judgment on any aspect of the game just yet. As stated above (at some point, I think! ) I'm going to keep things as close as possible to the Way It Is Now (tm) and figure out what works and what doesn't, rather than try to make 6th ed. more like The Way It Was Then (tm).

Of course, I'll be using whatever meta mechanics I think work best from the point of view of running a good event. The terrain and mission organization sections are the areas most likely to be tinkered with anyway.

We're all going to be heading off in different directions for a while trying to find our way with the new game; I'm confident that my direction is at least on the right quadrant of the compass, if not necessarily dead on. We shall see. I've got another couple games lined up for tonight, and that's the best way to figure all this stuff out!

QFT. I honestly think we all need to try as hard as possible to do the red highlighted part. I remember the terrible version of 5th we were all playing at the beginning because too many people saw the sky falling and overreacted.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

disdainful wrote:As far as the objective sequencing thing goes, I think that kind of stuff is just a consequence of the reduction in focus on competitive play. I don't think the word 'tournament' appears in the book once! I'm not totally sure how to proceed on this one just yet, going to need to play a few more games before I can make any assessment. The change to fortification placement was not arbitrary; there's no way I can run an event in a reasonable amount of time if players set up terrain before each game.

I'm not totally certain that this particular part of the sky is falling, anyway.

When 5th ed dropped, lots of guys spent a lot of time trying to bodge homebrew fixes onto the game to make it more like 4th, or more to the point, more like what they were familiar with. I'm not ready to pass judgment on any aspect of the game just yet. As stated above (at some point, I think! ) I'm going to keep things as close as possible to the Way It Is Now (tm) and figure out what works and what doesn't, rather than try to make 6th ed. more like The Way It Was Then (tm).

Of course, I'll be using whatever meta mechanics I think work best from the point of view of running a good event. The terrain and mission organization sections are the areas most likely to be tinkered with anyway.

We're all going to be heading off in different directions for a while trying to find our way with the new game; I'm confident that my direction is at least on the right quadrant of the compass, if not necessarily dead on. We shall see. I've got another couple games lined up for tonight, and that's the best way to figure all this stuff out!

QFT. I honestly think we all need to try as hard as possible to do the red highlighted part. I remember the terrible version of 5th we were all playing at the beginning because too many people saw the sky falling and overreacted.

Look, I'm the furthest from a doomsayer that you'll ever find. You won't find me complaining about flyer madness or crazy allied shennanigans or anything else like that because I know people will find builds to counter certain things and as newer codexes are released GW will naturally start to add balance back in to the overall meta.

HOWEVER, imbalanced objective placement is ALWAYS going to be completely unfair no matter how you slice it. Can some armies perhaps be created that give them a chance to get in and take that extra objective away from the enemy? Sure, but that doesn't change the simple fact that the mission is incredibly weighted towards one player in that paritcular situation.

All you need to do is play a few games of 'Crusade' or 'Big Guns Never Tire' with either 3 or 5 objectives to see this in action, especially with Hammer and Avil (short table edge) deployment.

There is no strategy, no tactic, no army composition that can ever possibly change that these missions are horribly imablanced regardless of the composition of the armies being played.

Again, yes just because the guy has the extra objective and is able to place them deep in his deployment zone does not guarantee his victory. Like I said it is obviously still very possible to win. But there is absolutely no possible way that anyone can ever think this scenario prevents a fair and balanced mission between the players. One side starts with a massive advantage.

Another possibly viable solution is to have the odd objective placed in the center of the table. This could turn the mission into a drawfest, but it wouldn't change the structure of the mission too much.

Dok wrote:Another possibly viable solution is to have the odd objective placed in the center of the table. This could turn the mission into a drawfest, but it wouldn't change the structure of the mission too much.

That's a great suggestion! But it should probably have to be the first one placed in that case, so that all others can still be placed more than 12" away so the rest of them can still follow all the other objective placement restrictions.


Oh, and as for this edition only being 5.5, I couldn't disagree more! This is by far the biggest change since 2nd to 3rd (when they re-wrote the game basically). First edition to 2nd edition was definitely a bigger change than this as well, but this one knocks the socks off of the last two edition changes in terms of radical game differences.

Basically the entire focus of the game has changed from just unit on unit action to model on model action. The fact that you can not move some models in the unit and they count as being stationary, the fact that cover saves are basically determined on a model by model basis and the closest model casualty removal all make the game totally centered around you worrying about the exact placement of every model in the unit at all times.

I don't particularly care for it, to be honest, but it IS a big, big change.

I'll just weight in to say, I pulled the allied 2 broadside (with CSM as the main army) on Ishmael and it sho' felt foine!

Night Fight rules on every mission adds fun, but sure makes round one a fast one, too! Too bad I've hung up my DE for the time being.

Thanks Yak! Hopefully your party went ok without me

Reading through the rulebook, it seems like the majority of the rules are just copy pasted from 5th. That's fine as structure is good to have, but it seems like they threw darts at a board of 5th rules and just made the stuff they hit more random. Charge range, psychic powers, warlord traits, and random nerfs to reserves all seem meh. This is all internet conjecture though as I'm far to busy at work to play a game. It could be the super sweet game of my dreams and I'm just reading it wrong. I'm trying to keep an open mind until I actually sit down and throw dice and charge a random distance...

Dok wrote:Thanks Yak! Hopefully your party went ok without me

Reading through the rulebook, it seems like the majority of the rules are just copy pasted from 5th. That's fine as structure is good to have, but it seems like they threw darts at a board of 5th rules and just made the stuff they hit more random. Charge range, psychic powers, warlord traits, and random nerfs to reserves all seem meh. This is all internet conjecture though as I'm far to busy at work to play a game. It could be the super sweet game of my dreams and I'm just reading it wrong. I'm trying to keep an open mind until I actually sit down and throw dice and charge a random distance...

The thing is, all that stuff you mention gets the hype, but its actually the 'modelfication' (my word) of the game is really what changes the game. You constantly have to be worrying about where your specialty models in your unit are, and you also have to be looking at enemy units to see where you have an opportunity to hit their specialty models.

For example if you spot an angle where one of your squads can move and shoot at an enemy unit and their two plasma guns (for example) will be the closest models, you totally go for it. But this also applies when only a few models are out of cover, because you can do the 'focus fire' attack, where you focus the shooting only on the models out of a declared cover level. Given that you can manipulate cover, by using your own vehicles for example, you can totally set up positions where you can snipe out specialty models out of units, even if they aren't the closest models in the uint at the start of the turn.

So yeah. This is all the stuff I didn't like in 2nd, 3rd & 4th and I'm not happy to see it back personally. It makes the game much, much slower. I have a feeling that I won't want to play in tournaments above 1,500 points for quite a while (if ever).

Yeah, it's going to turn into a game of "protect the melta gunner!". At least it will be easier to kill long fangs with missiles now.

While I understand the "lets test things out, give things a try" mentality, you generally don't need to give everything a chance to know it's a bad idea. You don't need to give being involved in a train wreck a try to know it is a bad idea... I think there are a few things in 6th like this.

All of that said, it will take some play testing and experimenting to make a good way to play 6th happen. Looking at the failboat GW express in their FAQs alone, I think it will be up to TOs to make competent rulings for their own events.

Case in point:

Eldar FAQ edits sentences of Harlequin entry that are irrelevant to how the unit functions (effectively giving them +3 cover saves AND the 2d6 spotting distance) while the Dark Eldar FAQ makes no mention of Harlequins regarding their shrouding...This leaves the question of weather Veil of Tears is intended to provide 2d6 spotting distance in addition to +3 cover or just +3 cover and why no reference to it in the DE faq?

Another wonky thing is assaulting out of vehicles... The BRB says that you cannot assault in the unit's subsequent assault phase if they disembark, assault vehicle rules say that a unit can assault on the turn they disembark out of a vehicle...

So RAW, if a unit is forced to disembark from a vehicle on any turn other than their own, they can't assault the next turn even though they didn't begin the turn in the vehicles?

Come on GW!

yakface wrote: .... Given that you can manipulate cover, by using your own vehicles for example, you can totally set up positions where you can snipe out specialty models out of units, even if they aren't the closest models in the uint at the start of the turn.

So yeah. This is all the stuff I didn't like in 2nd, 3rd & 4th

Range sniping? Damned straight that's back. Big time.

I lost the Nurgle Mark bearer to sloppy positioning on my part (damned enemy drop pods) and the enemy lost Meltaguns because of that, too. We'll all learn to have the Pfist & MGs in mid crew, no biggy ... unless the enemy has drop pods.

As for game time? Let's give ourselves a score of games (20) played to really work out just how much slower or faster game times will be, until we get to where we just ended 5e: Playing a game without more than one rules check.

Only two games in for me, and there's just too much time spent re-consulting the book to fairly judge a 'standard' game time.

If you are trying to run it as much from the new rules as possible then why not the random terrain and objectives too? Just curious.

Edit: To be clear, I know they are broken and silly. But in the interest of testing things...

I think a quick moving solution (that still has a random element) to the objective issue is have a set place for them if you roll 3 objectives, a different set placement if you roll 4, and a different set placement if you roll 5. different every time with still a random element of how many and where they are placed (three variations) to change it up.

Couple more games yesterday, sadly KPs were the scenario. Talked round table about objectives with a variety of players as well. We did a lot of diagramming of prospective deployments and potential objective placements (lotta 40k-WM defectors, so we're used to diagramming for threat ranges and scenarios and deployments). It's most assuredly an issue in short table edges with 3 objectives where one player gets to put both of his in his back corners, others weren't so cut and dry.

*waits for rabble to die down

*still waiting

*removes Global Warming casualties

At least, there was a lot of discussion. One good thing that came out of it was the idea that the number of objectives should be set for tournament games, which I like a lot as a TO, since it means I know everyone is playing the same mission. I also like the idea that in the case of an odd objective, the first objective placed has to be put in the 'no-man's land' between deployment zones, which is a modification of the center-of-the-board idea from above.

Hopefully will get a couple more today, looking to get 10 games or so on the books by next week. It's been very helpful.

disdainful wrote:Couple more games yesterday, sadly KPs were the scenario. Talked round table about objectives with a variety of players as well. We did a lot of diagramming of prospective deployments and potential objective placements (lotta 40k-WM defectors, so we're used to diagramming for threat ranges and scenarios and deployments). It's most assuredly an issue in short table edges with 3 objectives where one player gets to put both of his in his back corners, others weren't so cut and dry.

*waits for rabble to die down

*still waiting

*removes Global Warming casualties

At least, there was a lot of discussion. One good thing that came out of it was the idea that the number of objectives should be set for tournament games, which I like a lot as a TO, since it means I know everyone is playing the same mission. I also like the idea that in the case of an odd objective, the first objective placed has to be put in the 'no-man's land' between deployment zones, which is a modification of the center-of-the-board idea from above.

Hopefully will get a couple more today, looking to get 10 games or so on the books by next week. It's been very helpful.

I like either the center of the board or no man's land required objective for tournament play, casual play I don't care as much about the balance issue, and the idea of fixed objective numbers for tournament games was practically a necessity in the previous 2 editions. I don't think anyone coming to a tournament would have any problem with everyone playing the same mission as the other tables every round

I got my armies in my car still if anyone wants to get a mid day game in.

WYSIWYG question for the tournament...

I only own one actual Carnifex. I would like to run two in the event, and will be buying a second one to cover my tournament entry fee (though it obviously would not be built in time to play with). I have two solutions;

A) I have an unpainted Old One Eye model from an old edition. It looks terrible, and is slightly smaller than an actual 5th ed carnifex, but I could arm it with the appropriate weapons. It would be an eye sore but besides being a little small it is a wysiwyg carnifex.

B) I have a base coated metal hive tyrant. It is the right size and doesn't look horrible. It would have the right arms and since I have no other walking tyrants in the list would not be confused for being a tyrant.

Thoughts?

I'd say use One Eye. I have several of the old sculpts of Daemons and my old Lord of Change is a Daemon Prince I use now. I just rebased him on a 60mm and put him up on some rocks so he takes up about the same profile as a current Prince. Same for old Chaos Terminators, rebased them on 40mm with some extra basing stuff and they are perfect (and all OG of me) for games now. I have a soft spot for the Old One Eye anyway, he used to be the scariest thing out there!

As regards Carnifexes, option A is , option B is . Old One Eye is actually a Carnifex model, albeit, as you say, a bit of a wonky one.

Still gathering data, got another game in yesterday and have one coming up in about 30 minutes, so say tuned!

disdainful wrote:As regards Carnifexes, option A is , option B is . Old One Eye is actually a Carnifex model, albeit, as you say, a bit of a wonky one.

Still gathering data, got another game in yesterday and have one coming up in about 30 minutes, so say tuned!

So what's the ruling on my using Karchev as Bjorn? We're cool right?

You're wracking those games up! I heard the game with Davis went well for the Sunz. Those Nobz still doing the business on everyone?

You gonna be at the store tomorrow Mr. Miyagi? I have the day off and would like to burn through some matches. Or anyone else that's free...

Dok,

I got tomorrow off from work, I might be able to meet up at some point if you want. I may be playing a game at my house midday, so I'd either have to head up there in the evening time or you could always just come over to my house and play there too.

That's an interesting idea you have there. I have to do some stuff in the morning, but it would be fun to see you guys. I'll shoot you a text and let you know for sure.

Anyone up for a game on Saturday?

I will be in Saturday from open until about 6pm, hopefully playing games 8-10.

Got in game 6 today, against Daemons and took another win (6-0 in 6th! I'd like to thank my dice!) literally thanks to random game length! Hey, I was rolling 1s all game, so why not to see if the game ends!?

I'll be in the shop tomorrow, and should be able to get game 7 in after I get finished with the orders for the day.

It was amazing to me how bad I lost that game we played, even though most of your stuff was dead. KP are still silly...

Will this tourney have painting/sports scores as well as battle points? I will probably have a short list of questions about things too, mostly wargear changes and little stuff though. Really liking "out of the book" 6th so far, the multitude of little tweaks has made it into something much more exciting, dynamic, and fun while the bigger changes work to create an awesome mood for each battle as you see what Warlord powers and other things will be coming to bear. Good stuff, looking forward to crushing you all utterly... I mean not getting tabled in every game.

Painting and sports will be scored, and there will be a prize for best painted army. I'm still figuring out the other "6th-ed. Specific" awards though.

disdainful wrote:Painting and sports will be scored, and there will be a prize for best painted army. I'm still figuring out the other "6th-ed. Specific" awards though.

Most successful use of the new Wound Allocation system?

Most stuck in 5th edition?

Best use of allies?

Most rules disputes?

OverwatchCNC wrote:Best use of allies?

Andy and I will probably tie for the award with 3 broadsides and a Crisis Suit.

Played games 7 and 8 yesterday... couple of small ones. Took my first loss to Chuck's BT on Purge the Alien, draw against Necrons on Emperor's Will ( ).

New of interest: Forests specify that if you're shooting through them, the target gets a cover save. Other types of area terrain do not. So, if you're not in the crater, but behind, you don't get a save. There's interesting implications for ruins as well, particularly if they have a base. Ruins with bases count the base as area terrain. This means that models that are actually 25% obscured by a part of the ruin are entitled to the 4+ cover save, while models that are on the base but not obscured by any part of the actual ruined terrain model are only entitled to a 5+ cover save as detailed in the area terrain rules.


Guy on the left 5+, on the right 4+

Further, if a model is shooting at another model, and the line of fire crosses over area terrain that is not a forest, the model being shot at gets no cover save at all if it's not 25% obscured.

This also has some interesting implications for things like model placement. The question of the 'flying battlewagon' came up yesterday, and it's pretty clear that's no longer legit. Since area terrain ruins are no longer abstracted, and vehicles can't move on the upper levels of ruins, there's no more hanging big vehicles on the tops of ruined buildings with the "it's on the ground floor" rationale. If it can't actually fit on the ground floor, it can't go there.

I also finally found the rule that says you can't Look Out Sir! wounds from Challenges. There was some rabble over that for a minute.

I like the idea of a "Best Use of Allies" award, though I don't know quite how to quantify that... maybe whoever brings allies and gets the most kills with said allies? Most likely there will be a prize for most Secondary Objectives points earned (First Blood, Slay the Warlord, Linebreaker, etc.)

Most likely I will not announce the awards until the morning of, so that guys don't have the temptation to build lists that snipe for specific alt prizes.

disdainful wrote:
New of interest: Forests specify that if you're shooting through them, the target gets a cover save. Other types of area terrain do not. So, if you're not in the crater, but behind, you don't get a save. There's interesting implications for ruins as well, particularly if they have a base. Ruins with bases count the base as area terrain. This means that models that are actually 25% obscured by a part of the ruin are entitled to the 4+ cover save, while models that are on the base but not obscured by any part of the actual ruined terrain model are only entitled to a 5+ cover save as detailed in the area terrain rules.

Yeah, I noticed this myself and brought it up in a YMDC thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/458369.page

The only point of contention I still see is that wreckage/rubble area terrain mentions it is a 4+ save, which could easily be what the bottom floor of a ruin that has a base is considered.

Of course, if you read that thread you'll also see that it gets mentioned that the wreckage/rubble rules specify that models BEHIND wreckage/rubble get a 4+ save (as opposed to being IN the terrain, as the rules for impact craters do, for example). So would you play that wreckage/rubble area terrain only provides a 5+ cover save unless the models are actually 25% obscured behind some part of the wreckage/rubble?

Further, if a model is shooting at another model, and the line of fire crosses over area terrain that is not a forest, the model being shot at gets no cover save at all if it's not 25% obscured.

That's a very good catch...I hadn't noticed it, but it makes sense since really the main 'tall' area terrain types before would be forests and ruins and now that ruins are no longer just a generic area terrain it makes sense to specify that forests are the only ones that still provide cover saves when being fired over.

This also has some interesting implications for things like model placement. The question of the 'flying battlewagon' came up yesterday, and it's pretty clear that's no longer legit. Since area terrain ruins are no longer abstracted, and vehicles can't move on the upper levels of ruins, there's no more hanging big vehicles on the tops of ruined buildings with the "it's on the ground floor" rationale. If it can't actually fit on the ground floor, it can't go there.

I'd disagree with that assessment. The 'wobbly model syndrome' rule is still in the book (pg 11) and I see no reason why a vehicle wouldn't abide by this rule as well. So yes, the Battlewagon would 'count' as being on the ground floor of a ruin it was driving through, but if you have to place the model to the side of the ruin or up on the 2nd floor temporarily, that is still an acceptable way to remind yourself where the vehicle is supposed to be (on the ground floor).

yakface wrote:Of course, if you read that thread you'll also see that it gets mentioned that the wreckage/rubble rules specify that models BEHIND wreckage/rubble get a 4+ save (as opposed to being IN the terrain, as the rules for impact craters do, for example). So would you play that wreckage/rubble area terrain only provides a 5+ cover save unless the models are actually 25% obscured behind some part of the wreckage/rubble?

The text for Wreckage/Rubble says specifically that "If a model is in cover behind wreckage or rubble, it has a 4+ cover save". Since it specifies that you have to be 'in cover' behind the terrain, that says to me that you'd need to be 25% obscured. For dude-sized dudes on the ground it would likely mean that you would get the save no matter how far away you were, since LOS over the deck is a straight line and the terrain would get in the way. Once you start dealing with bigger models or models in elevated firing positions, then you might have situations where models behind said terrain were not necessarily in cover behind that terrain from the POV of the firing model.

yakface wrote:I'd disagree with that assessment. The 'wobbly model syndrome' rule is still in the book (pg 11) and I see no reason why a vehicle wouldn't abide by this rule as well. So yes, the Battlewagon would 'count' as being on the ground floor of a ruin it was driving through, but if you have to place the model to the side of the ruin or up on the 2nd floor temporarily, that is still an acceptable way to remind yourself where the vehicle is supposed to be (on the ground floor).

Fair. I actually hate the Wobbly Model allowances, because no one ever remembers quite where the model was supposed to go! As has been discussed, this edition of the game is far more individual-model-focused than previous editions, and anyone who's played enough Warmachine knows that mechanics that involve the moving of game pieces in play to accommodate difficult positioning are a minefield. Most people come correct to events with cut-outs of their vehicle footprints for denoting exploded vehicles, and those same accessories could be the answer, simply using them to keep track of a vehicle's position in a precarious or difficult spot. I use small medium and large 'stunt bases' in my WM games all the time to keep track of precise model placement when terrain or the models themselves would make things difficult to keep track of.

I really really hate flying battlewagons. As long as it's not doing a Noah's Ark after the flood on the third-story pinnacle of a ruin it doesn't give me too much of a rash, I guess. Not sure just how to handle this from the point of view of the event, but it's on the docket of "Stuff Travis Has To Figure Out Before Saturday"

After playing and watching a couple missions with the objectives placed after table sides I'm more confident that it's not legit for tournaments, especially if the event doesn't use mysterious objectives.

"Let's see what my two objectives in the back of my table edge do! They're both Grav-Wave generators?! Boss! What does yours do? Awww... it blows up every turn? Sorry man. Lunch is on me today."

Still not sure if I'd rather do objective placement before rolling for sides, or to go RAW with the requirement that the odd objective (if any) has to be placed in the no-man's-land between deployment zones. Not a superfan of dead center of the table; it's a little too arbitrary for my taste. Both seem like simple enough tweaks. Kinda leaning toward the first solution to be honest, since it is a time-tested method that basically has zero negative impact on the game and potentially a huge positive impact. We shall see. More games to come, so more table time experience to draw from.

In other news;

Finished game 9 today. Finally took a well-deserved loss to Daemons. Stupid dice. Apparently Brandon's stupid Chicken of Change made like 30 saves in a row. Jerk. Great game regardless, and even after blowing a (long, admittedly, but it was the Waaagh! turn, so...) charge that basically meant my Warboss and Nobz got swept up I still managed to only lose 7-4 on Purge the Alien. Starting to feel like clockwork at this point, though little stuff still pops up. Like I didn't realize that Move Through Cover auto-passes Dangerous Terrain, and since all Monstrous Creatures have MTC, no worries about DPs breaking an ankle when landing in the forest!

Looks like I have to bow out of this one. A work party with an open bar is callllllin me!

Dok wrote:Looks like I have to bow out of this one. A work party with an open bar is callllllin me!

That's cool, it just means you'll be that much more behind the curve on 6th than everyone else

Not that I will be that far ahead, only 3 games under my belt so far. I am hoping to get games 4 and 5 in Tuesday night, I need to practice with the Aegis Defense line

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Not that I will be that far ahead, only 3 games under my belt so far. I am hoping to get games 4 and 5 in Tuesday night, I need to practice with the Aegis Defense line

I have 3 games in also, and lots of little skirmish tests. I've got a game against my uncle on Thursday, I'm going to try and convince him to come to the tournament.

Hiding behind your defense line will not help you... mwuahahahahhahaha!

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Dok wrote:Looks like I have to bow out of this one. A work party with an open bar is callllllin me!

That's cool, it just means you'll be that much more behind the curve on 6th than everyone else

Not that I will be that far ahead, only 3 games under my belt so far. I am hoping to get games 4 and 5 in Tuesday night, I need to practice with the Aegis Defense line

I got three games in on friday. Beat up Brian and then lost to Yakface 2 times. And then spent the whole night throwing up. I think Yakface poisoned me to get an advantage.

A testament to his advancement through Painboy skool!

Dok wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Dok wrote:Looks like I have to bow out of this one. A work party with an open bar is callllllin me!

That's cool, it just means you'll be that much more behind the curve on 6th than everyone else

Not that I will be that far ahead, only 3 games under my belt so far. I am hoping to get games 4 and 5 in Tuesday night, I need to practice with the Aegis Defense line

I got three games in on friday. Beat up Brian and then lost to Yakface 2 times. And then spent the whole night throwing up. I think Yakface poisoned me to get an advantage.

That's very Ork of him. I approve.

He was probably a Nurgle carrier. Orks didn't get sick, but he managed to stick it on you.

"I also finally found the rule that says you can't Look Out Sir! wounds from Challenges."
True that, however...
Glorious Interventon (pg65) does allow for a second Character in the same combat to take the place of a Charater in a challenge AFTER the first round of combat is complete. The intervening character must pass an Initiative test, failing meaning he continues to fight the normal combat. Passing the "I" test the 2nd character fights the challenge while the original character fights in the normal combat.
Some interesting abuse here: A bunch of Nobs/Pallies can get in a fight with a challenge. After round 1 if the guy has a wound you can attempt to substitute a fresh (unwounded) model in his place. Continue substituting fresh guys every turn until you kill the offending Eternal Warrior.

Yeah, the "units of characters" are going to slow the game down tremendously.

Most of the challenges I've seen haven't lasted more than a single round, what with all the powerfists and claws running around.

And it's hardly a guarantee that a Nob is going to pass his Initiative test to intervene. That being said, units like Nobz and Wolf Guard have some interesting benefits, like every 6 to hit being a Precision Hit, and in-built protection from getting bogged in dangerous or annoying challenges, since anyone in the unit can accept/intervene.

Looking forward to games tomorrow. Been building some of the Battlefield Debris terrain pieces to start trying out.

Would anyone object to me proxing Necron flyers using croissants if I stick them on the appropriate bases? I'd buy the costco pack and share the left overs...

As the TO I'd have to say I'd prefer donuts with some appropriately-modeled bites taken out.

mortetvie wrote:Would anyone object to me proxing Necron flyers using croissants if I stick them on the appropriate bases? I'd buy the costco pack and share the left overs...

disdainful wrote:As the TO I'd have to say I'd prefer donuts with some appropriately-modeled bites taken out.

If you're serious, then yes . If not, see Dis' comment.

I suppose I could use a maple bar as a command barge. I could also stick pipe cleaners into donut holes and call them wraiths.


This is my WIP sofar, the bacon strip is supposed to be my Necron lord. What do you think of my color scheme? The blue plate is not part of the model BTW.

ROFL

Needs a flying base and you are good to go!

mortetvie wrote:I suppose I could use a maple bar as a command barge. I could also stick pipe cleaners into donut holes and call them wraiths.


This is my WIP sofar, the bacon strip is supposed to be my Necron lord. What do you think of my color scheme? The blue plate is not part of the model BTW.

I think a Necron Lord would be better represented as a pig in a blanket. Color looks good.

Blegh! I hate maple bars.

DQ'd!

I don't think that was part of "forging the narrative" that they were talking about.

It was forging the narrative of my breakfast invasion. BTW maplebars are probably the quintessential donut IMO and I'm not just saying that because I am Canadian and love maple syrup...oh wait maybe I am.

I might just settle for using nids and proxying this as a Tervigon...French fries will be termagaunts of course and the cheese represents toxin sacs.



SERIOUSLY though, I want your ruling on the army I really AM going to bring (TS with allied demons woohoo I can stop playing my TS as cheaterknights).

Do Thousand Son aspiring sorcerer's only generate one roll on the discipline chart because they can only purchase one power or do they generate 2 because they are mastery level 2? (base 1+1 for mark of Tzeench letting them cast another power).

Also, does a Chaos Sorcerer generate a power for each one purchased or can I buy the 1 compulsory power, buy mark of tzeench (making him mastery 2) and a familiar and get 3 rolls? It's not entirely clear to me though I can see it going either way.

It says in the FAQ, any model with psychic powers can exchange a purchased power for a roll on the available table/s. Seems pretty straightforward.

Yeah, I think the rulebook and FAQs are definitely a bit confusing on the matter although if you read it really carefully the answer is pretty clear.

The big issue is that psychic mastery level = the number of powers a pysker is able to use each turn, not necessarily how many powers they actually have.

The rulebook states that if it isn't specified otherwise that psykers know the # powers equal to their mastery level, but in the case of older codexes (which they pretty much are all now in this regards):

• If a rule states that a psykers can use X number of powers per turn, this is the psykers mastery level.
• When exchanging out core psychic powers for random ones, you roll for each power the psyker knows...if this happens to be more than his mastery level, that's fine. The psyker knows extra powers (and therefore randomly generates them) but can still only cast as many per turn as his mastery level allows.


So a Chaos Sorcerer with a Mark of Tzeentch and a Familiar would still be Mastery Level 2 (as he can use 2 powers a turn) but as he has 3 powers, he would be able to exchange all 3 for rolls on the random psychic power charts.

Yeah thanks guys. I remember reading what Dok pointed out in the Eldar FAQ but I glossed over it in the CSM FAQ, my bad! I was really hoping deep down that I could get 3 rolls for just buying the 1 compulsory power, mark and familiar but nooo, I guess I have to pay for it all =(.

And Tzeench doesn't get access to divination? *grumbles at GW*.

I think I am most mystified with how a fast skimmer moving 42" can be hit just as easily as a Leman Russ going .01"...

mortetvie wrote:Yeah thanks guys. I remember reading what Dok pointed out in the Eldar FAQ but I glossed over it in the CSM FAQ, my bad! I was really hoping deep down that I could get 3 rolls for just buying the 1 compulsory power, mark and familiar but nooo, I guess I have to pay for it all =(.

And Tzeench doesn't get access to divination? *grumbles at GW*.

I think I am most mystified with how a fast skimmer moving 42" can be hit just as easily as a Leman Russ going .01"...

Having been on the receiving end of 2 telepathy powers in different games, I think that it is the best discipline. Especially if you role hallucination as one of your powers. psykotroke grenades, give me hallucination any day!

You still have to roll and get lucky with the powers (though Invisibility and Hallucination are perhaps some of the most game changing powers), I rather fancy gate of infinity from telekinesis (spellcheck almost turned telekinesis into televangelist lol...) and that lore in general seems to have more useful powers no matter what you roll. The Primaris power is ok as well to put units into difficult terrain.

If I play you maybe I will choose telepathy just for you =).

mortetvie wrote:You still have to roll and get lucky with the powers (though Invisibility and Hallucination are perhaps some of the most game changing powers), I rather fancy gate of infinity from telekinesis (spellcheck almost turned telekinesis into televangelist lol...) and that lore in general seems to have more useful powers no matter what you roll. The Primaris power is ok as well to put units into difficult terrain.

If I play you maybe I will choose telepathy just for you =).

I had that power turn off my Draigostar last night for a turn Luckily his 10 man shooty terminator squad needed to roll a 10 through difficult terrain and failed. Otherwise that would have been a lot of dead Paladins who couldn't strike back...

mortetvie wrote:

I think I am most mystified with how a fast skimmer moving 42" can be hit just as easily as a Leman Russ going .01"...

Except Fast Skimmers can always Jink. You get hit as easy but can dodge a few of them.

You can Jink when Zooming as well by using Evade but then you can only Snap Shot back.

(you probably know this, but I just wanted to be sure)

As far as I can tell:

Jink only works against shooting/ram attacks not close combat attacks .

Fast Skimmers cannot zoom/evade, only flyers can and so you hit Fast Skimmers at normal BS regardless of how fast they move.

The bottom line is that fast skimmers are vulnerable in ways that don't make sense. As I previously mentioned, it makes no sense that a tank going 42" is the same to hit as one going .01" =(

mortetvie wrote:As far as I can tell:

Fast Skimmers cannot zoom/evade, only flyers can and so you hit Fast Skimmers at normal BS regardless of how fast they move.

The bottom line is that fast skimmers are vulnerable in ways that don't make sense. As I previously mentioned, it makes no sense that a tank going 42" is the same to hit as one going .01" =(

You are right that speed does not matter on how hard they are to hit but you are wrong that they don't have Jink. PG 83 under Skimmers under Special Rules.

Jink does not give a save vs. close combat you are right. But, if you are going Flat Out with your Skimmers your Jink save improves to a 4+ against shooting.

2 days away and working on some conversions. I hope I can get done in time.

Blackmoor wrote:2 days away and working on some conversions. I hope I can get done in time.

It would be awesome to have you. Are you going to go back to GK or are you still trying to get the Foot Dark Eldar to work?

BladeWalker wrote:

mortetvie wrote:As far as I can tell:

Fast Skimmers cannot zoom/evade, only flyers can and so you hit Fast Skimmers at normal BS regardless of how fast they move.

The bottom line is that fast skimmers are vulnerable in ways that don't make sense. As I previously mentioned, it makes no sense that a tank going 42" is the same to hit as one going .01" =(

You are right that speed does not matter on how hard they are to hit but you are wrong that they don't have Jink. PG 83 under Skimmers under Special Rules.

Jink does not give a save vs. close combat you are right. But, if you are going Flat Out with your Skimmers your Jink save improves to a 4+ against shooting.

I think we are going in circles saying the same thing, we are on the same page... I never said they don't have jink I only said that jink can only be used against shooting/ram rolls which is what you just said, lol.

The only thing I specifically said fast skimmers don't have is the ability to zoom and evade which is different from jink.

LOL got it. Just wanted to make sure you were getting all your rolls. Some of that stuff is hiding!

I do agree it should be a bit more difficult to land a punch on a Fast Skimmer going Flat Out. :-)

Sadly, even after all that delicious talk of proxies, I won't be able to make it this Saturday. Hope everyone that goes has a good time and I look forward to hearing how it went and checking out battle reports.

So... Closed or open army lists for this, and future, tournaments?

Page 118 "A Note on Secrecy."

Beat me to it!

We will be playing this weekend with closed lists, as per the note on secrecy referenced above. This basically means that the only thing you are compelled to tell your opponent about your list during the game is what units are embarked on which transports.

This, of course, means that WYSIWYG is now a hard-and-fast rule, more so than before; if it's not on the model, they aren't carrying it. Obviously, intangible elements like psychic powers can't be modeled on, but things like combi-plasmas and appropriate heavy weapon upgrades can and must. Further, it means that models must be fully built to represent what it is, so no more unarmed Valkyire-chassis flying around.

The rule of Cool still applies, though you are now beholden to fully explaining everything beforehand.

This leaves Mysterious Objectives as the last element I'm uncertain of including.... I'm of the mind that I should just go whole hog and do it, since we're already doing most everything else from 6th unmodified for 'test-run' purposes.

Getting close now... got another small one in on Tuesday, puts me at 7-2-1 for 6th. Orks ftw!

I just wanted to give a heads up that myself and two others will be going to the tournament.

Also which way are you going to play the FMC grounded test argument?

A summary of this discussion can be found in YMDC.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/460633.page

Essentially either a failed grounding test cause the model to stop counting as swooping and therefore can be hit on normal BS.

Or a failed grounding test just has the listed effects and a model can be subject to multiple failed grounding tests per turn.

I can see it being played either way. I just would like to know how you are feeling about it before I pick which army I am bringing Saturday.

You better make sure all those necron players are modelling their crypteks right. And all those GKs have properly modeled grenades. And that all those Tyranids have the correct biomorphs displayed...

What I'm saying is that secret lists are terrible. If I wanted to play a game where I move my pieces into random surprises hoping I don't get blown up, I would play stratego.

But then again, I can't make this one, so have fun!

disdainful wrote:Beat me to it!

We will be playing this weekend with closed lists, as per the note on secrecy referenced above. This basically means that the only thing you are compelled to tell your opponent about your list during the game is what units are embarked on which transports.

This, of course, means that WYSIWYG is now a hard-and-fast rule, more so than before; if it's not on the model, they aren't carrying it. Obviously, intangible elements like psychic powers can't be modeled on, but things like combi-plasmas and appropriate heavy weapon upgrades can and must. Further, it means that models must be fully built to represent what it is, so no more unarmed Valkyire-chassis flying around.

The rule of Cool still applies, though you are now beholden to fully explaining everything beforehand.

This leaves Mysterious Objectives as the last element I'm uncertain of including.... I'm of the mind that I should just go whole hog and do it, since we're already doing most everything else from 6th unmodified for 'test-run' purposes.

Getting close now... got another small one in on Tuesday, puts me at 7-2-1 for 6th. Orks ftw!

Wha?

The note on secrecy clearly specifies that you can agree to see each others' list before the game...so its an option, and that's precisely the kind of thing that a tournament can and should do (require openness).

List secrecy only leads to one possible thing in tournaments and that is a giant sh**storm.

So please tell me what happens if I think my opponent is playing with too many points and then at the end of the game I check his list and find out he had the wrong models on the table? Do I win the game?

Maybe I'll just show up and play my first game with a 2,000 point army, it will be awesome...anything that dies I'll put back in my miniature case and then deny I ever had it on the table if challenged after the game is over.

What a great idea this is!

3 things.

1. I think random objectives are good. They help to balance out the current power curve that is balanced towards flyers, they provide armies without skyfire a chance to get some units the rule.

2. As far as closed lists go the brb says to agree prior to the match. If I insist on having open lists and my opponent refuses what happens? Neither of us is right or wrong per the rules, and we are both well within our rights to want to play it either way. In a normal, non-tournament game, we could simply agree to disagree and not play one another but that isn't the case here. I don't think closed lists work for tournaments.

3. I love the hard WYSIWYG rule. I get tired of having to constantly ask where the guns on DE flyers are or trying to approximate LoS for weapons that are missing. But what do we do about things like Grenades or Crypteks that are either too small (grenades) to see effectively, or there are no differentiated models (crypteks) and therefore all look the same?

Looks like I need to swap out my Trygon tails to get them WYSIWYG.

As for closed lists, I have not found there to be a problem playing fantasy with closed lists, even in tournaments. I think in fantasy there is even more chances for closed list problems (banner and items that never get modeled like scrolls and potions), but everyone seems to put the best bit forward and there are not issues.

The only downside I see comes from having to change how one hobbies things. For example If I have a carnifex who has green goo dripping from his mouth is that a representation of poison or is it just modeled to look like he has saliva dripping? I think that could be where issues come up.

L'Etat C'Est Moi wrote:Looks like I need to swap out my Trygon tails to get them WYSIWYG.

As for closed lists, I have not found there to be a problem playing fantasy with closed lists, even in tournaments. I think in fantasy there is even more chances for closed list problems (banner and items that never get modeled like scrolls and potions), but everyone seems to put the best bit forward and there are not issues.

The only downside I see comes from having to change how one hobbies things. For example If I have a carnifex who has green goo dripping from his mouth is that a representation of poison or is it just modeled to look like he has saliva dripping? I think that could be where issues come up.

Closed lists are not a problem as long as everyone is a complete gentleman and does not take advantage of the rule.

So basically they completely hinge on the good graces of all your players. It only takes one bad apple to completely ruin the whole thing and when its bad, its really bad because the problems tend to only be definitely 'caught' once the games have already finished, at which point it becomes a he said/he said argument...as opposed to open lists, which an error can be caught mid-game and a fix applied at that point which hopefully still allows players to finish their games feeling okay.


Have you guys never been in a game where an opponent has accidentally screwed something up in their army, you think it looks odd, so you ask to see their list and point out the issue?

I mean, even if someone isn't trying to purposely screw people over this rule is a terrible idea...simple mistakes are less likely to get caught and instead turn a small gaffe into a giant bunch of hurt feelings after the game is over.

disdainful wrote:We will be playing this weekend with closed lists, as per the note on secrecy referenced above. This basically means that the only thing you are compelled to tell your opponent about your list during the game is what units are embarked on which transports.

Heh.

I felt like a middle schooler tossing a stink bomb into the auditorium right as the doors closed for an assembly on this one.

First though, the easy(ish) one. I checked the Flying MC thread about the grounding issue. Wow, did that one get hot quick! In my view, it's not quite so black and white as some would make it out to be. As I see it, it's a question of modes and states. Flying MCs can choose to either Swoop or Glide as their movement mode, and risk acquiring the Grounded state if hit by enemy fire. The question in my mind is whether or not the Grounded state can be applied concurrently with the Swooping mode, or if it replaces it entirely? I would not be surprised to see this get FAQ'd (and I would not be surprised to see it break it either way!), but in the interim, at my events, Grounded replaces Swooping, which means that if a model become Grounded, it is no longer Swooping.

The alternative creates some nonsensical situations where a Flying MC is on the deck but people still can't hit it, and it could potentially have to take multiple Grounded tests over the course of a turn.

And on to the

The intent of this event is not to be a referendum on the edition or its seaworthiness, so to speak. As stated in the initial post, this is going to be a light, not intensely competitive event with the intent of players getting a chance to play games against a wide variety of opposing armies across a variety of terrain in the interest of refining our skills with the rules of the new edition. However, I pointedly understand the concerns a completely closed list format raises.

With that in mind, We will be playing the army lists closed, with the modification that you must make your list available to your opponent to verify elements of your list during the game as or after you have used them, and the list must be made open to your opponent after the game. It's similar to our solution in WHFB. Players must specify which units are embarked in which transports, and this includes being clear about which characters are where by name, if applicable.

For reference, there is no mention at all of showing lists to your opponent before or after the game in 2nd or 3rd; the 4th ed book specifies that players are not normally allowed to look at their opponent's list during the game, including not having to specify about embarked units, but are free to agree otherwise, 5th says you should make your list available to your opponent after the game but you should make it clear which units are embarked where, and that players can agree otherwise and has a parenthetical noting that such an agreement would be the norm in tournaments. 6th says that you should make your list available to your opponent after the game and make it clear what units are embarked where, and says players can agree to look at lists during the game. The tournament proviso is noticeably absent in 6th, which follows with the current viewpoint that GW is specifically de-emphasizing competitive play.

(I have all the books in front of me, the virtues of a nearby used book section! )

The idea of someone bringing extra models or some other shenanigans that are blatantly cheating, it harkens to yakface's 40k Rule #1. Someone can try to cheat like that under any rules format.

With the intent of this event being to learn and test out the various elements of the new system, I'm not particularly worried about how much of the sky is falling just yet. This is my fourth 40k edition switch during my career in gaming and if all of the other changeovers are any indication, it's going to take a year and a few new codexes or so for things to settle down anyway.

I took a look at the Golden Throne GTs take on Mysterious Terrain and I like it a lot. Not enough to put it back in at the eleventh hour, but it will probably pop up in subsequent events.

Finally, Mysterious Objectives are in.

disdainful wrote:
I felt like a middle schooler tossing a stink bomb into the auditorium right as the doors closed for an assembly on this one.

First though, the easy(ish) one. I checked the Flying MC thread about the grounding issue. Wow, did that one get hot quick! In my view, it's not quite so black and white as some would make it out to be. As I see it, it's a question of modes and states. Flying MCs can choose to either Swoop or Glide as their movement mode, and risk acquiring the Grounded state if hit by enemy fire. The question in my mind is whether or not the Grounded state can be applied concurrently with the Swooping mode, or if it replaces it entirely? I would not be surprised to see this get FAQ'd (and I would not be surprised to see it break it either way!), but in the interim, at my events, Grounded replaces Swooping, which means that if a model become Grounded, it is no longer Swooping.

The alternative creates some nonsensical situations where a Flying MC is on the deck but people still can't hit it, and it could potentially have to take multiple Grounded tests over the course of a turn.

I'm assuming that if you're ruling that grounded = switching back to being gliding (essentially) that would mean the restriction on firing snap shots in the next turn for a diving FMC would be removed too? Because if the leap is being made that grounded effectively removes the swooping status, that penalty for diving should go away as well to be fair.

With that in mind, We will be playing the army lists closed, with the modification that you must make your list available to your opponent to verify elements of your list during the game as or after you have used them, and the list must be made open to your opponent after the game. It's similar to our solution in WHFB. Players must specify which units are embarked in which transports, and this includes being clear about which characters are where by name, if applicable.

The idea of someone bringing extra models or some other shenanigans that are blatantly cheating, it harkens to yakface's 40k Rule #1. Someone can try to cheat like that under any rules format.

With the intent of this event being to learn and test out the various elements of the new system, I'm not particularly worried about how much of the sky is falling just yet. This is my fourth 40k edition switch during my career in gaming and if all of the other changeovers are any indication, it's going to take a year and a few new codexes or so for things to settle down anyway.

I don't quite get how having closed lists promotes a fun casual learning event, and actually I think the reverse is probably true, but I'm certainly not going to take my toys to my room and refuse to play because of it.

But what exactly does it mean that its available to verify elements of their army? Can I expect to be able to ask players what their units on the table are equipped with and get answered? Does this apply to things that you wouldn't expect to visually see like selected codex psychic powers, for example?

And if players have to designate what is in reserves and what is arriving in what transport, how vague are they allowed to be? Obviously they have to say what type of vehicle is going into reserve but can they keep the weapon and wargear configurations a secret? Do they just have to say the type of unit it is transporting, thereby allowing them to play a shell game between multiple Rhinos arriving with multiple Tac squads (for example)?

In other words, I normally just ask my opponents to tell me everything about their units as they're putting them on the table or into reserves. What exactly am I allowed to know and ask about and what am I not allowed to ask about and know?

yakface wrote:

disdainful wrote:
I felt like a middle schooler tossing a stink bomb into the auditorium right as the doors closed for an assembly on this one.

First though, the easy(ish) one. I checked the Flying MC thread about the grounding issue. Wow, did that one get hot quick! In my view, it's not quite so black and white as some would make it out to be. As I see it, it's a question of modes and states. Flying MCs can choose to either Swoop or Glide as their movement mode, and risk acquiring the Grounded state if hit by enemy fire. The question in my mind is whether or not the Grounded state can be applied concurrently with the Swooping mode, or if it replaces it entirely? I would not be surprised to see this get FAQ'd (and I would not be surprised to see it break it either way!), but in the interim, at my events, Grounded replaces Swooping, which means that if a model become Grounded, it is no longer Swooping.

The alternative creates some nonsensical situations where a Flying MC is on the deck but people still can't hit it, and it could potentially have to take multiple Grounded tests over the course of a turn.

I'm assuming that if you're ruling that grounded = switching back to being gliding (essentially) that would mean the restriction on firing snap shots in the next turn for a diving FMC would be removed too? Because if the leap is being made that grounded effectively removes the swooping status, that penalty for diving should go away as well to be fair.

With that in mind, We will be playing the army lists closed, with the modification that you must make your list available to your opponent to verify elements of your list during the game as or after you have used them, and the list must be made open to your opponent after the game. It's similar to our solution in WHFB. Players must specify which units are embarked in which transports, and this includes being clear about which characters are where by name, if applicable.

The idea of someone bringing extra models or some other shenanigans that are blatantly cheating, it harkens to yakface's 40k Rule #1. Someone can try to cheat like that under any rules format.

With the intent of this event being to learn and test out the various elements of the new system, I'm not particularly worried about how much of the sky is falling just yet. This is my fourth 40k edition switch during my career in gaming and if all of the other changeovers are any indication, it's going to take a year and a few new codexes or so for things to settle down anyway.

I don't quite get how having closed lists promotes a fun casual learning event, and actually I think the reverse is probably true, but I'm certainly not going to take my toys to my room and refuse to play because of it.

But what exactly does it mean that its available to verify elements of their army? Can I expect to be able to ask players what their units on the table are equipped with and get answered? Does this apply to things that you wouldn't expect to visually see like selected codex psychic powers, for example?

And if players have to designate what is in reserves and what is arriving in what transport, how vague are they allowed to be? Obviously they have to say what type of vehicle is going into reserve but can they keep the weapon and wargear configurations a secret? Do they just have to say the type of unit it is transporting, thereby allowing them to play a shell game between multiple Rhinos arriving with multiple Tac squads (for example)?

In other words, I normally just ask my opponents to tell me everything about their units as they're putting them on the table or into reserves. What exactly am I allowed to know and ask about and what am I not allowed to ask about and know?

Should you ask me before hand to have a game with fully open lists I would, as per p. 118 exercise my prerogative and, agree to it. That's just me though

Are you coming to this event? It would be great to see you, remember the store moved locations!

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Should you ask me before hand to have a game with fully open lists I would, as per p. 118 exercise my prerogative and, agree to it. That's just me though

Are you coming to this event? It would be great to see you, remember the store moved locations!

As of right now, I am planning on attending (gotta get my crap together though).

Where did it move to and when did this happen? I'll have to check the website!

yakface wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Should you ask me before hand to have a game with fully open lists I would, as per p. 118 exercise my prerogative and, agree to it. That's just me though

Are you coming to this event? It would be great to see you, remember the store moved locations!

As of right now, I am planning on attending (gotta get my crap together though).

Where did it move to and when did this happen? I'll have to check the website!

Awesome. http://gameempirepasadena.com/about-TheBigMove.php

They moved several months ago, just 3-4 blocks west. Huge, amazing new store. It is easily 3x the size of the previous store. Massive gaming space.

The Flying MC issue is, along with units of characters, one of the elements of this edition that is a problem. Either solution is sub-optimal. Either:

1. Grounded replaces Swooping when it occurs. This 'makes more sense', but it is not necessarily RAW, depending on your reading. It also adds the liability to the Flying MC that it can be shot easier.

2. Grounded is a 'once each time' effect, which may be more in line with RAW (again, depending on your reading), but doesn't make a lot of sense since the model is then somehow Swooping in the air while having simultaneously crashed to the ground, and adds the liability of the Flying MC having to take multiple Grounded tests per turn, creating the potential for it to take any number of Lascannon hits in addition to any other shots it takes.

I'm not saying that Grounded = Gliding. I'm saying that Grounded is its own state that the model can be in, which is unique and replaces Swooping. When Grounded is applied, Swooping no longer applies. As far as dive goes, I consider that a state the model can be in, the difference being that a model can be diving concurrently with Swooping and follow the rules for both.

Arbitrary? Maybe. It's the solution I'm happiest with, given the perceived ambiguity. All of this aside, we're talking about like five models in the game that this whole discussion affects, and one of them doesn't even exist yet!

If I were to take a strict RAW stance on everything in the book, then the tournament would be a nightmare. Not only would there be the issue with players placing terrain before each game (landmine), there's placing objectives after picking table sides (landmine), and the whole argument about lists is out the window, since, by RAW, you should let your opponent look at your list after the game, make clear which squads (just squads, not units or characters) are embarked where, and players should agree whether or not to look at lists during the game, so there's no possibility of seeing the list before the game anyway, and lots of disagreements to arbitrate about looking at lists (BOOM! It's a Grot's Life! ).

Speaking of lists: You must explain which units are embarked in which transports, and since most units are unique in some way you must be clear about distinguishing those units as well. This means that you can't say "A Character" if it's Mephiston. As for verifying lists during the game, Once your opponent uses an element of their army that is not WYSIWYG (like, when a Runepriest hits your Grounded Harpy with Jaws and it falls into the earth), you can look at their list to make sure the RP has Jaws like your opponent says.

I've watched more tournament games than should be healthy and most players might, at most, glance over their opponent's list once before deployment, and often start putting models out with no more knowledge than what army the other guy is playing. Once I start running Warmachine-style two-list tournaments, then there'll be an obvious necessity for looking at lists beforehand so you can choose which one of yours to run.

I'm going to try it tomorrow. If I have rampant cheating and a line of players waiting to lodge complaints against their opponents for misrepresenting their armies and lists, then I won't be doing it again.

Good luck all.

26 players for the event! Round one is drawing to a close now, as I said to the gathered throng at the beginning of the event, I don't think there's any woodwork left, with how many people came out of the woodwork!

This is a really good sign, when the 4th-5th switch happened, the mood was decidedly less enthusiastic. There's a field full of lots of guys I haven't seen in a while, and a lot of crazy armies are on the field!

I think we're just missing Darrian from the grand ole gang.

*edit - Players and army lists

Ismael C. - Blood Ravens
Overwatch from http://www.captureandcontrol.com - Grey Knights
Chris A. - Grey Knights
Chris H. - Dark Angels
Anthony G (from http://www.turn7wargaming.com) -Tyranids
Evan B - Chaos Marines (Aegis Defense Line)
Ken K. - Imperial Guard / Black Templars (Imperialars)
Scott E. - Imperial Guard
Yakface - Tau / Orks (Torks)
Andrew W. - Imperial Fists (all Bikes!!!)
Chris M. - Necrons
Andy V. - Grey Knights
Steve M. - Tyranids
Blackmoor - Eldar / Dark Eldar (Deldar)
Scott W. - Necrons
Dean H. - Tyranids
Ethan S. - Orks
Andrew H. - Orks
Keith M. - Orks (Aegis Defense Line)
Bruce M. - Tau
Casey H. - Chaos Marines / Tau (Bastion) (Tauos)
Louie E. - Eldar
Carlos C. - Space Wolves
Scott C. - Tau / Eldar (Taudar)
Chris T. - Dark Eldar
Charlie N. - Space Wolves

So five armies with allies, three with fortifications.

Awesome turn out! I got to play yakface round 3, first time we've actually gotten paired together, it was a great game.

It really helped me to iron out what I like and don't like in competitive 6th ed 40k. Still don't like closed army lists , I don't like placing objectives after deployment sides have been chosen , but I like all the rest. All my games went fast too which was nice, playing a 19 model Draigowing army probably helped.

Look out, sir...

Results????

Andy V. - Overall
Allan/Blackmoor for accomplishing the most 6e secondary objectives (9 for 9) - - a 6e tourney specific prize
Best paint - Louie's eldar (looked great!)
Andrew W. for being the first to blow up a bastion (my bastion, BTW).
Casey H. (me) for Best Sportsman.
- - I guess I took it rather well when my bastion was blown up, *twice*.

Thanks for running this event, it was a blast as usual. In terms of RTT TO's you take the cake for sure.

Realized as I was driving out of the parking lot that in all three of my games we never rolled once for mysterious objectives...oops,

2-1 with the nids, not a bad day at all. Thanks to my opponents, they were all great!

I forgot Mysterious Objectives in all of my games as well, and I forgot to roll for night fight before the game in round 2 and forgot to roll for night fight on turns 5+ in round 3.


Definitely not firing on full rules cylinders for 6th edition just yet!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oh, and I told a few people during the tournament (including Overwatch during our game, sorry!) that there is range sniping in 6th edition, which actually looking closely at the rules now seems to be incorrect.

Range is only checked when initially firing with the unit, and as long as you're within range of at least one visible model in the target unit then the firing model is considered to be in range and can fire.

When it gets to wound allocation, only models in the target unit that are completely out of LOS of all firing models are immune to being casualties...range is actually not a limiting factor in casualty removal!


Whoops!

Great tourney, thanks Travis for running it. As far as I could tell it went off without a hitch. The other two guys I dragged along had a great time as well.

Any idea what point level the next tourney will be?

Also, damn you for giving me another scout bike!

yakface wrote:
I forgot Mysterious Objectives in all of my games as well, and I forgot to roll for night fight before the game in round 2 and forgot to roll for night fight on turns 5+ in round 3.


Definitely not firing on full rules cylinders for 6th edition just yet!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oh, and I told a few people during the tournament (including Overwatch during our game, sorry!) that there is range sniping in 6th edition, which actually looking closely at the rules now seems to be incorrect.

Range is only checked when initially firing with the unit, and as long as you're within range of at least one visible model in the target unit then the firing model is considered to be in range and can fire.

When it gets to wound allocation, only models in the target unit that are completely out of LOS of all firing models are immune to being casualties...range is actually not a limiting factor in casualty removal!


Whoops!

No worries. It's a new rule set we are bound to do some stuff wrong!

Thanks everyone! I'm glad it was a good time and everyone had fun; that's the measure of an event for me.

I also gave out a dual prize to Steve and Carlos for the Best Duel - A Swarmlord fighting a Wolf Guard Battle Leader, in a challenge, last turn of the game, both were the army Warlord, both had rolled +1 for killing the enemy Warlord trait, Purge the Alien Mission! It seemed fittingly epic. And one to Chris for coming up with the most brain-steaming rules Q That I had not previously addressed in a game (whip-coils/wargear that lowers your initiative vs. pile in at multiple steps, thence into madness).

Lot of good feedback from the event and I learned a lot as well. I'll be posting my after-action thoughts here a little later today (once I finish writing them), and will most likely be expanding them into a piece for CNC later.

Thanks again to everyone for coming out and making it a great event!

I apologize if this was said earlier, but I'm stuck browzing on my phone, which is a pain.

With that said, I was wondering how the tournament handled terrain placement and fortifications? Thanks!

Ok, here's my after-action take:

Easy Stuff:

- Mysterious Objectives - Many forgot this anyway, since it was the first event of the edition. No one who used them voiced any concerns about them. So, most likely will stay in.
- Fortifications - Largely a non-issue, it came up once or twice during the day about placement and adjusting the pre-set terrain to accomodate a player's preference, but in general guys just set them out like any other part of the army. In.
- Warlord Traits - We did random throughout the day; pick a chart each game and roll on it. Seemed like a broad spread of useful and useless overall, so this will stay in, though it has a lot of potential for adjustment.
- Allies - Didn't dominate with crazy combos, but were interesting and fun to watch. In, obviously. Maybe something will be found that shatters the sky, but until then, in without qualifier.

Contentious Stuff:

- Objective placement - Placing objectives after seeing deployment is silly, as expected. The viewpoint that there's enough other ways to score points in most missions that it won't matter as much doesn't bear out. Someone can still get a super advantageous position and the odd objectives, and squirrel away the primary victory condition from their opponent. Once we see some more codexes, with perhaps more flying transports / outflank / mobility, it might be revisited, but for now, out.

The idea of odd objectives being placed in the no-man's land between deployment zones has been discussed in this thread and that will be in the next event. Yak and I spoke afterward about the Scouring mission as well, and I think I'm getting it mostly correct that we discussed a modification in which each player gets to place a 2 and a 3 value objective in their deployment zone, and the 1 and 4 must be placed in no-man's land, to guard against one player ending up with 3-3-4 objectives all along the back of his deployment zone. I'll have to test that one out a few times, but it seems legit.

- Open vs. closed lists - For a variety of reasons, we tried closed lists a'la WHFB. It was largely a non-issue, mostly because it's just a habit of tournament players to be open about their lists at the beginning of the game. The zeitgeist is open lists, and it would take a sea change to alter that norm in any significant way. Closed lists have a place in league and campaign play, not in tournaments. This, of course, is exactly what I expected to be the case, but it was worth a shot.

- The Flying MC conundrum - Yes, it meant that a Harpy died at least one ignominious death, but until GW says one way or t'other, I'm sticking to my ruling.

- Units of Characters - Didn't make a big splash... Overwatch's Paladin deathstar didn't dominate, but I do think it's an element of the game that is off. My knee-jerk solution would be that such units must nominate one model to be the 'champion' or somesuch, and he is the character in the unit for the duration of the game. That being said, while it may be wonky, it is an are of the rules that is pretty clear, so I'm not quite sure how to treat it just yet.

- Whip coils vs. Pile in - This is a rules black hole much like the Flying MC problem. As I see it, it has to be treated as such: each initiative step is locked as soon as it is determined which models are going to act during the step. All those models pile-in, then make their attacks. Models that move into base contact with whip coils (or the like) still make their attacks, and will suffer the reduction in subsequent turns. Yes, this de-values such pieces of wargear as whip coils in this circumstance, but, like the Flying MC issue, the alternative is similarly sub-optimal and creates greater issues. With the above ruling, a canny player can 'duck' whip coils for a round of CC with excellent positioning, assuming that initiative is fluid and that a model who moves into base contact with a model with whip coils immediately drops to I1, creates that problem that they potentially pile in twice (once at their normal I, once more at I1), and allows the player in control of the model with whip coils to deny attacks completely with canny play and wound allocation. Libro with a force sword piles in at I5 and hits a model with whip coils, dropping to I1 and losing his attacks at I5. Then at the I4 step, the Necron player takes a wound on the model in base with the Libro. Libro's I jumps back to 5, but since that step has already passed, no attacks for you!

Either solution is not firmly grounded in the rules in my view, hence black hole. I'm happiest with the ruling above (which I went with during the event when it came up), since, while it may lessen the effect of the whip coils somewhat, it doesn't grant a player the chance to completely strip a model of their attacks.

That's all I've got, thanks again to everyone for coming, and stay tuned for the next one!

I think the unit of Characters idea served to make Paladins and Nob bikerz remain good as deathstar units. Neither unit is insanely OP, both units are slightly more survivable with a 5+ FNP against anything not double toughness, neither unit is significantly better than before. The Character Unit idea certainly gives a boost to Loganwing armies, by which I mean it makes Space Wolf Terminators not a joke anymore!

Great time overall. Still 1500 for the next one right?

OverwatchCNC wrote:I think the unit of Characters idea served to make Paladins and Nob bikerz remain good as deathstar units. Neither unit is insanely OP, both units are slightly more survivable with a 5+ FNP against anything not double toughness, neither unit is significantly better than before. The Character Unit idea certainly gives a boost to Loganwing armies, by which I mean it makes Space Wolf Terminators not a joke anymore!

Great time overall. Still 1500 for the next one right?

I'm not the greatest of players, but I have not been able to get my Loganwing Terminator army to be competitive at all.

The only army I have beaten with them were a drop pod army played by a really bad player and Deathwing, against several players :( Here's hoping this character thing stays and works....

I don't know how viable an all terminator build is for SW but having a single SW terminator squad rolling with Logan would be killer in games nearer the 1850 level.

Yeah, that's something I've been looking at. Logan in a squad of termies is just insanely scary now. A few shields and then all claws or axes and your in business.

Draigo is actually not as killy of a character in the big leagues due to his non-AP2 weaponry. Means Abaddon, Logan, Calgar in TA, Mephiston, & Sanguinor will eat him for lunch.

Hulksmash wrote:Yeah, that's something I've been looking at. Logan in a squad of termies is just insanely scary now. A few shields and then all claws or axes and your in business.

Draigo is actually not as killy of a character in the big leagues due to his non-AP2 weaponry. Means Abaddon, Logan, Calgar in TA, Mephiston, & Sanguinor will eat him for lunch.

Abby's not AP2 either....neither is Mephiston or Sanquinor I thought?

Hulksmash is referring to their armor. Draigo will be whapping them with AP3 wounds, and they'll be laughing as they roll 2+ for saves.

disdainful wrote:Ok, here's my after-action take:
- Units of Characters - Didn't make a big splash... Overwatch's Paladin deathstar didn't dominate, but I do think it's an element of the game that is off. My knee-jerk solution would be that such units must nominate one model to be the 'champion' or somesuch, and he is the character in the unit for the duration of the game. That being said, while it may be wonky, it is an are of the rules that is pretty clear, so I'm not quite sure how to treat it just yet.

OK, I may be biased in this instance but changing this rule till there is a FAQ seems like it would change list building in 6th tremendously. I'm just afraid changes like this (not a ruling but an actual change) is what will as bloggers have been saying "kill tournaments in 6th edition". I know its a harsh thing to say but it will. When every tournament has different house rules to fix "what wrong in 6th" there will be no standard of rules and everything will go to chaos (and not in a cool deamon/CSM way).

Brothererekose wrote:Hulksmash is referring to their armor. Draigo will be whapping them with AP3 wounds, and they'll be laughing as they roll 2+ for saves.

And.....they'll be doing the same thing to him.......

Why is he (Draigo) going to get beat by those guys now?

That's a good point. I went kinda braindead on their weapons. So except for Dante (if it's an axe), Marneus, Lysander & Grimnar with their AP2 goodness most major hitters will be slap fighting.

Oh, and Karandras is gonna eat Draigo now this makes me chuckle

Looks like characters in Terminator/Artificer armor w/ap2 weapons are going to be killing machines in 6th. I'm thinking a power sword & power axe so you can pick which one to use. Or just stick to the fist/hammer

Thats one thing thats going to make Loganwing type units scary. At least until GW FAQs it to let the special characters use the sub types, to appease the marine whining like they always do.

MY main concern with the character units it:

A) LOS does not require assigning wounds so that it is killing whole models, so any unit with an IC on point can route the wounds in a manner where no one dies until every model in the unit has already sustained all but one of its wounds. And for extra funsies, the multiwound character units can let the IC dive in the way on a 4+ if they get precission shot or flanked.

B) Precission shot turns all character units into assasins. Good luck keeping your important single model alive when a Nob unit with TL Big Shootas or Loganwing Storm Bolter fest rains down on it, especially if the desired target is not a character, like is common in a nmber of xenos armies.

The one allies trick I am curious if anyone tried is using the Battle Brothers rule with guard to make the super blobs. Imagine taking a Wolf Priest with Stealth and sticking him in a blob unit (dump the Commisars) to convey Counter Attack, ATSKNF, Preffered Enemy, and Stealth to a blob sitting behind an Ageis Defense line. Who cares if they are stubborn with ATSKNF in play and the Wolf Priest in terminator armor. You can even put another blob right next to it with a Runepriest and your cost of entry is a unit of Grey Hunters you can cram into a Vendetta. That (and certain ICs) is how I see the allies rules being broken. Well, that and VG Vets being air dropped by Vendettas....

Phazael wrote:Thats one thing thats going to make Loganwing type units scary. At least until GW FAQs it to let the special characters use the sub types, to appease the marine whining like they always do.

MY main concern with the character units it:

A) LOS does not require assigning wounds so that it is killing whole models, so any unit with an IC on point can route the wounds in a manner where no one dies until every model in the unit has already sustained all but one of its wounds. And for extra funsies, the multiwound character units can let the IC dive in the way on a 4+ if they get precission shot or flanked.

B) Precission shot turns all character units into assasins. Good luck keeping your important single model alive when a Nob unit with TL Big Shootas or Loganwing Storm Bolter fest rains down on it, especially if the desired target is not a character, like is common in a nmber of xenos armies.

The one allies trick I am curious if anyone tried is using the Battle Brothers rule with guard to make the super blobs. Imagine taking a Wolf Priest with Stealth and sticking him in a blob unit (dump the Commisars) to convey Counter Attack, ATSKNF, Preffered Enemy, and Stealth to a blob sitting behind an Ageis Defense line. Who cares if they are stubborn with ATSKNF in play and the Wolf Priest in terminator armor. You can even put another blob right next to it with a Runepriest and your cost of entry is a unit of Grey Hunters you can cram into a Vendetta. That (and certain ICs) is how I see the allies rules being broken. Well, that and VG Vets being air dropped by Vendettas....

The Grey Hunters can't jump into the Vendetta. Nor can Vanguards embark in Vendettas. I believe there is a specific restriction about embarking upon allied transports, battle brothers or not.

They can't use dedicated transports, but the non dedicated are fair game, at least for battle brothers.

Phazael wrote:They can't use dedicated transports, but the non dedicated are fair game, at least for battle brothers.

The BRB says "not even battle brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." I would assume this means ANY transport, dedicated or not.

mortetvie wrote:

Phazael wrote:They can't use dedicated transports, but the non dedicated are fair game, at least for battle brothers.

The BRB says "not even battle brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." I would assume this means ANY transport, dedicated or not.

Yep. It does not specify dedicated and therefore all transports are off limits.

Hulksmash wrote:That's a good point. I went kinda braindead on their weapons. So except for Dante (if it's an axe), Marneus, Lysander & Grimnar with their AP2 goodness most major hitters will be slap fighting.

Oh, and Karandras is gonna eat Draigo now this makes me chuckle

Looks like characters in Terminator/Artificer armor w/ap2 weapons are going to be killing machines in 6th. I'm thinking a power sword & power axe so you can pick which one to use. Or just stick to the fist/hammer

No worries homie, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything either! And yes, alot of Characters all the sudden became really good choices!

OverwatchCNC wrote:

mortetvie wrote:

Phazael wrote:They can't use dedicated transports, but the non dedicated are fair game, at least for battle brothers.

The BRB says "not even battle brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." I would assume this means ANY transport, dedicated or not.

Yep. It does not specify dedicated and therefore all transports are off limits.

You are correct and I was wrong. Missed that when I read it for some reason (probably old age). But add 35 points for a pod and the point remains valid. Wolves allied to IG is an easy way to abuse the crap out of allies. Two strongest books get to be battle brothers, while nids sit in the corner going "me so ronery!"......

I think that allies are mainly implemented for fluff/thematic considerations as opposed to balance considerations since some armies benefit A LOT more than others from the matrix and parts of the allied matrix make no sense to me (I don't see how SM or Eldar would ever ally with ORKS in any way, SM constantly try to purge Orks while Beil Tan is on a genocidal rampage against them and other Eldar are loathe to even think of such an alliance...).

Case in point as Q pointed out, everyone gets some form of allies except nids? I guess GW forgot about genestealer cults and how the hive mind can enslave other races to do their will (zee Zoats).

All the Allies Doom (tm) at the moment is mostly theoretical. Everyone peed their pants over Tau Broadsides with <anything>!? Eldrad with <anything>!?; we saw both of those at the event to no great calamity. Only Eldrad cracked the top ten in that respect. Granted, we didn't see Epidemius, but I still don't get how people think he's going to survive long enough to work.

I'm sure once guys have a chance to buy and build some models for some of the more eyebrow-raising ally options, we might see some power builds come out of that, but parking lot IG was super strong for a while, Space Wolves were top kick for a while, Grey Knights rickrolled people for a while... there's always going to be power builds that are innately stronger than armies built without tournament power in mind. What's the difference if now they have allies instead of being from one book?

And all that aside, I think Hulksmash said it that any significant expense for allies dilutes the main force in such a way that they don't necessarily do what they are supposed to do quite as well. It's like getting the half a sandwich and cup of soup combo for lunch... sure I get a cup of soup, but now I only have half a sandwich!

Regardless of all that, Allies seem to be here to stay, at least for the duration of 6th. They will be in my tournaments.

Why Grey knights are still on top

Mmm, soup...

Grey knights are boss, that's why.
Especially when there are very few actual grey knights in the list.
Also soup is fantastic.

hey tuff love, I know who you is but your avatar threw me off with flashbacks of some crazy rude arguments from the past. nice to see you on here. On a side note I think were under valueing the half sandwich. sometimes I just don't want a full sandwich

Most of the ally lists I've actually seen written out don't seem too bad. Most of the panic seems to come from the more theoretical possible combinations.

Maybe at higher point levels there will be a more powerful build that I am unaware of but at the levels that I usually play at it hasn't been an issue so far.

Dok wrote:Mmm, soup...

Tuff Love wrote:Also soup is fantastic.

Grimgob wrote:On a side note I think were under valueing the half sandwich. sometimes I just don't want a full sandwich

I don't think you guys are getting this...

It's a half...

of...

a sandwich!

Soup is food's last chance to be eaten. A full sandwich > any quantity of soup and less than a full sandwich.

lunch aside, I'm writing a "how it should be" treatise on what the new dawn of 40k tournaments should be. It's going to be my benchmark for events that I run and I'll have it up here soon, for all interested parties.

In Soviet Russia, soup>sandwich... And I am inclined to agree (mmm goulash).

Commie.

OverwatchCNC wrote:Commie.

In Soviet Russia...you would not be heard from again...


On a side note, what will the next points limit be? I vote for 1850!