Hello Dakka!

We've got our next event coming up in a couple weeks at Game Empire! Throughout all the tumult of the new edition and subsequent running around screaming getting dirt in our hair, I'm doing my best to make sure that the regular events I run are a place of calm amidst the storm. The last one went off without a hitch and we had 26 players, which ain't bad for a local event! Everyone had a good time and learned a lot, we gave out some cool prizes, and I learned a lot about what I want to see in this Brave New World (tm). With all that in mind, here is the tournament format I will be using for my events here in the shop for the time being. Please feel free to co-op this in whole or part... It works for us!

*******************

The Game Empire 6th Edition Warhammer 40,000 Tournament Standard(tm)

Player Responsibilities
Players must bring their army and all necessary gaming supplies such as dice, tape measure, tokens, and templates. Players must have a copy of the core 40k rulebook and their relevant Codex(es). Players must bring five copies of their army list printed or legibly hand-written. One of these will be handed in to the TO, one is for the player's reference, and one each is to be given to the player's opponents before each game.

Terrain
Terrain for all tables is pre-set before the event by the TO. Terrain may not be moved by players, with the exception of trees on forest templates being moved to accommodate models within the template.
Rules for specific Buildings and any Battlefield Debris will be notated for the tables on which they are present

Fortifications
All fortifications are allowed. Fortifications may be placed by the owning player anywhere in their table half after determining deployment zones such that it does not overlap any pre-set terrain. Players may request a TO shift pre-set terrain to accommodate placement of larger pieces such as the Skyshield Landing Pad and Fortress of Redemption. The TO's adjustment of pre-set terrain in this case is final for the duration of the game.

Allies
Allies are allowed. Allies must be clearly notated as a separate section of a player's army list.

WYSIWYG, Proxies, Counts-as, and Conversions
What You See Is What You Get is the rule. All wargear elements, weaponry, and optional equipment must be clearly modeled. However, competent conversions and clearly delineated counts-as army elements are allowed at the TO's sole discretion and, if allowed, must be fully explained to your opponent before the game begins. Proxies are not allowed. Players must contact the TO prior to the event for approval of an army with extensive conversions or counts-as elements.

Scenarios & Deployment Type
The scenarios and deployments for each round will be pre-determined by the TO. In some cases, the number of objectives for the various objective-based missions will be pre-determined as well. If this is not the case players will roll randomly to determine the number of objectives at their table for the game. The TO will ensure that scenarios are not repeated if possible given the number of rounds in the event, and that if scenarios must be repeated that they use differing deployments. All scenarios and deployments are played from the 40k rulebook on pp. 118-119 and 126-131, with the following modifications:

Hammer and Anvil Deployment: In the case of a room layout where tables are set up end-to-end, Hammer and Anvil deployment may be replaced by Spearhead Deployment at the TOs discretion. In Spearhead deployment, players set up in opposite table quarters, with no model deployed within 12” of the center of the table. A player's table edge is the long table edge on which their deployment zone lies.

The Scouring: Each player must place at least one objective in the no-man's-land between deployment zones.

The Relic: The Relic scenario will not be played in most normal events.

Secondary Objectives
All Secondary Objectives (Slay the Warlord, First Blood, and Linebreaker) are included in each scenario unless otherwise specified.

Starting the Game
At the beginning of each round, Players will use the following sequence to begin each game:

1. Exchange army lists and fully explain any conversions or counts-as elements in their armies.
2. Roll to generate the number of scenario objectives if necessary.
3. Roll off for objective placement and place objectives as described in the 40k rulebook on p. 121.
4. Roll for deployment and first turn.
5. Set up all Fortifications.
6. Determine Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers.
7. Deploy armies and begin the game.

Warlords and Warlord Traits
Warlord Traits must be rolled before armies are deployed. Players may choose which chart (Command , Personal, or Strategic) to roll on each game, and may choose different charts between games. During the Purge the Alien scenario, a roll of 6 on the Personal Traits chart must be re-rolled. Each player must clearly specify which model is his Warlord during deployment.

Psykers and Psychic Powers
After determining Warlord Traits, players who are generating Psychic powers from a discipline randomly must do so. Generating powers is done openly as explained in the 40k rulebook on p. 418. Players must consult their relevant codex or FAQ to determine their models' Psychic Mastery level and the number of powers they can generate. If a player elects to have their Psyker generate powers from disciplines in the main rulebook instead of using the powers available to them in their codex, the psyker must generate all of their powers from disciplines in the main rulebook, and may not mix and match powers from their codex and disciplines from the main rulebook.

A Note on Warp Charge Tokens: Players must place appropriate counters or tokens next to their Psykers during the game to represent Warp Charge.

Reserves
In missions that use reserves, players must clearly explain the organization of their reserves to their opponent, including which units are in reserve, which characters are joined to which units if any, and which units (with any attached characters) are embarked on which transports.

Seize the Initiative
Players may attempt to Seize the Initiative in all games.

Mysterious Terrain
Mysterious Terrain may be included at the TOs discretion, if not, all terrain is mundane for the duration of the event. If so, all Forests, Jungles, Woods, Rivers, Lakes, and Pools are Mysterious Terrain as noted in the 40k rulebook on pp.103-104. If Mysterious Terrain is used, once the special rules for a type of terrain has been determined each game, all terrain of that type will follow the same rules for the duration of the game.

In some cases, a specially themed table will have elements of terrain pre-determined; if so these rules will be specified at the table, no random roll is required.

Mysterious Objectives
Mysterious Objectives may be included at the TOs discretion, if not, all objectives are mundane for the duration of the event. If so, all scenarios that use objectives will follow the rules for Mysterious Objectives as noted in the rulebook on p. 125. Players must roll for each objective individually. Once determined, each objective uses the determined rules for the remainder of the game.

Round Timing
Round times are approximately 2 hours for most tournament games. This means that in order to complete a six-turn game, player turns should be around 10 minutes each if given equal weight. Naturally, some turns will go longer and some shorter as more or less of the battle is joined, but players must be mindful of their turns and conduct the game in a timely manner.

Judge Calls and Rulings
It is a player's responsibility to call a judge for a ruling as soon as a questionable situation arises, preferably before models are moved or dice rolled.

Random Game Length
All games include Random Game Length, rolled for as normal. However, a TO may call any turn of a game the last one if, in his judgment, further turns would cause the game to go over the round time limit. In this case, the current turn of the game is played through both player turns then the game ends and a winner is determined.

Record Keeping and Round Scoring
At the end of each game, players must record the following information:

The winner and loser
- Their Victory Points earned in the game
- Their Battle Points earned from the game
- A Sportsmanship Score for their opponent

Unless otherwise specified, all tournament rounds use the following scoring. Note that Victory Points earned during the game determine the winner of a game in a given tournament round, while Battle Points earned from games determine the winner of the tournament.

Win the game with 3 more Secondary Objectives than your opponent:
Massacre win – 20 Battle Points for the winner / 0 Battle Points for the loser

Win the game with 2 more Secondary Objectives than your opponent:
Major win – 17 Battle Points for the winner / 3 Battle Points for the loser

Win the game with 1 more Secondary Objective than your opponent or less:
Minor win – 13 Battle Points for the winner / 7 Battle Points for the loser

Draw – 9 Battle Points per player, +1 for each Secondary Objective achieved.

Some tournament rounds may have additional Battle Point bonuses available, which will be detailed on the scenario sheet for the round.

Sportsmanship Scoring
Sportsmanship is scored on a 0-2-4-6 scale. A score of 4 represents the default score for a normal tournament game, while a 2 represents a game with a large amount of disagreement between players during the game that was difficult to resolve, and a 6 represents an amazing game that was great fun. A score of 0 represents a game that was an entirely horrible experience and will require explanation to a TO.

Army Composition
Composition scoring is a 0-1 score. A score of 1 represents an army that, in your opinion, was built with army theme as its first and foremost consideration, with competitive effectiveness second. A score of 0 represents all other lists. Composition scoring is only factored in determining the Best Army award for the tournament, and does not factor into overall scoring.

Player Voting
At the end of the event, players may cast a single vote for their Favorite Opponent of the day and their Favorite Army in the tournament. These votes are not required. A vote for Favorite Opponent must be cast for one of the player's opponents during the event, while a vote for Favorite Army may be cast for any army in the event. Favorite Opponent votes are factored into a player's overall score, Favorite Army Votes are not.

- First Favorite Opponent Vote – 1 Point
- Second Favorite Opponent Vote – 2 Points
- Third Favorite Opponent Vote – 3 Points
- Each Favorite Army Vote – 1 Point

Tournament Scoring and Awards
At the end of the event, the following scores are calculated for each player:

Overall:
- Battle Points from each round
- Painting score as judged by the TO and/or his appointed painting judges
- Sportsmanship score
- Favorite Opponent Votes

Appearance:
- Painting score as judged by the TO and/or his appointed painting judges
- Composition score
- Favorite Army votes

Sportsmanship:
- Sportsmanship score
- Favorite Opponent votes

Awards
Tournament Champion – The player with the best Overall score is the Tournament Champion and takes the top prize. Ties are broken first by Sportsmanship (including Favorite Opponent votes), then by raw Battle Points, then by Victory Points earned in-game.
Best Army – The player with the best Appearance score wins the Best Army award and a secondary prize. Ties are broken first by number of Favorite Army Votes, then by Sportsmanship (including Favorite Opponent votes), then by raw Battle Points
Best Sportsman – The player with the highest Sportsmanship score wins the Best Sportsman award and a secondary prize. Ties are broken by least raw Battle Points, then by least Victory Points earned in-game.
The 'Must Play Again' Award – Also known as the Wooden Spoon or Doctor award (because you still call the guy that finished last in medical school Doctor!), this prize is awarded to the player with the lowest Overall score. Their prize is free entry into the next event so they can redeem themselves!

Other Awards
Other awards may be available, including such things as Most Secondary Objectives achieved, Most Enemy Characters Killed in Challenges, Best Conversion, etc, at the TO's discretion. Such awards will have conditions to win them detailed at the beginning of the event. TOs are encouraged to keep track of fun or noteworthy occurrences in games throughout the day for which to give out door prizes.

Example: After round 2, two players tell the epic tale of how their game hinged on a single challenge between their respective Warlords, the winner of which would carry his army to victory! At the end of the day, the TO gives out a small prize to each player involved (as long as they didn't win anything else!), declaring it the award for Best Duel.

TOs are free to give out door prizes randomly as well. Regardless of the number of awards or door prizes, no player may win more than one.

Appendix A: Alternate Game Set-up
Once players have been paired with an opponent and assigned a table, they will set up their game using the sequence detailed in the 40k rulebook on pp. 118-122, with the following modifications:

- The roll for deployment and first turn is made after players Determine Warlord Traits and generate Psychic Powers.
- Fortifications are set up immediately after deployment zones are determined.
- The rules for setting up terrain are not used.

Appendix B: Alternate Round Scoring
Win the game with 10 more Victory Points more than your opponent - Massacre win
17 Battle Points for the winner / 0 Battle Points for the loser, +1 for each Secondary Objective achieved

Win the game with 5-9 more Victory Points than your opponent - Major win
14 Battle Points for the winner / 3 Battle Points for the loser, +1 for each Secondary Objective achieved

Win the game with 1-4 more Victory Points than your opponent - Minor win
13 Battle Points for the winner / 4 Battle Points for the loser, +1 for each Secondary Objective achieved

Draw – 9 Battle Points per player, +1 for each Secondary Objective achieved.

Appendix C: Known Issues and Rulings
Please check the Game Empire Tournament Rulings thread on Dakka for the most current rulings that will be enforced during the event for a variety of known issues:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/467314.page

*******************

Points level for this event is 1500.

Note that this event will be using Mysterious Objectives, but will not be using Mysterious Terrain, will not be using The Relic scenario, and will be using the Hammer & Anvil deployment as normal.

The one area of the above that I'm particularly interested in feedback on is the scoring format... both the primary scoring scheme and the alternate method listed in Appendix B. Let me know what you think of those, and what you might like to see. Trying to stick to 20 possible points in the round.

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 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/media/set/?set=a.415837015128612.87912.106899122689071&type=3

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'll be there!

Looking at the scoring mechanics, 10 VPs more than your opponent seems more difficult to get at first glance than it used to be, the KP mission being the exception of course. Honestly I haven't played any of the missions with this as a goal yet so I would need to. Obviously this isn't a make or break sort of thing so I say we just try it out and see, that's the best way to figure out this new edition after all, right?

I like the new format.

I'll be there along with a group of 4-5+ others depending on how many of them actually manage to get up early enough.

Regarding the scoring formats I prefer the "Appendix B" version of scoring in all missions except maybe Purge the Alien because it could very well be impossible to get 10 more victory points than some armies. Even then I think the format is probably better than any alternative I can think of.

If a player "tables" his opponent does the game end and are VPs counted from there or is it an auto massacre?

It could make a difference if a player gets everything on the table killed turn 1 but his opponent has yet to move onto any objectives.

In 5th we played tabling as all bonus points were earned, I don't know if it was "full" points though, as in a massacre. If you conceded a match we had it count as a win with full points for your opponent.

With some armies it is conceivable that you table your opponent but still lost on "Kill Points" but with the new rules that if at the end of any game turn a player is left with no models on the table then that player loses you still win. So I guess the question in a tournament is to what degree like you said. I would say a tabling is a massacre no matter what as the BRB states simply you win. But really it is Travis' call and I can see the argument both ways.

At present I think, although I could be convinced otherwise, that the best way to handle it is a massacre win if the game ends due to no models being left on the table.

The only armies this would seriously affect would be Chaos Daemons IMO as pulling the wrong wave + bad scatters could give their opponent only a few units required to completely wipe out in order to win.

As a Chaos Daemons player though, I think that is just part of the new edition with Daemons. It sucks but we have to get used to it.

Are you having a Feast of Blades qualifier, and if so, when?

How many points is this one going to be , I didn't see it maybe I'm blind

He mentioned to me previously he thought it was going to be 1,500 again but he may of changed his mind.

deanthedespoiler wrote:How many points is this one going to be , I didn't see it maybe I'm blind

It's 1500. On the FB page it is listed as 1500 and that is what's been talked up in the store etc as the points level.

On the Daemons note, I agree that it is a risk you take by playing the army. Any good Daemon player will tell you that winning with daemons is more about risk management than anything else. Except maybe luck

Not blind, I simply forgot to list it in amongst all that! The first post has been edited to include the points level, and it is 1500 points.

As for wipeouts and battle points, OW is right, in the case of an opponent conceding the game, it is scored as a massacre win with full points for the winner. I'm not quite sure how to go in the case of a wipeout victory; with the vagaries of reserves and such, it's possible one player could get blown out on the first or second turn, and while it was their risk to take, I don't know if that should constitute a massacre, or what kind of bonus points (if any) should be scored. Thoughts?

As for Feast of Blades, I'm not ready to run at 2000 (or 1999+1, or whatever they're calling it), and I've had at least a few requests to just run the next event as normal, and I'm inclined to listen to my constitchensy! I had a few conversations with the guys at FoB, but we haven't spoken in a while and to my knowledge we had not confirmed anything because I hadn't yet bought their tournament pack materials.

In any case, this one is being run as described above. I'll be happy to provide info on the winners to FoB for qualifier purposes, of course, should they want it.

I don't think I'll be there on the 11th, my social coordinator has informed me that "we" have plans that day.
On a tournament day!
IS NOTHING SACRED?!!!

Anyway good luck everyone I'll be back to claim what's mine in September

disdainful wrote:Not blind, I simply forgot to list it in amongst all that! The first post has been edited to include the points level, and it is 1500 points.

As for wipeouts and battle points, OW is right, in the case of an opponent conceding the game, it is scored as a massacre win with full points for the winner. I'm not quite sure how to go in the case of a wipeout victory; with the vagaries of reserves and such, it's possible one player could get blown out on the first or second turn, and while it was their risk to take, I don't know if that should constitute a massacre, or what kind of bonus points (if any) should be scored. Thoughts?

As for Feast of Blades, I'm not ready to run at 2000 (or 1999+1, or whatever they're calling it), and I've had at least a few requests to just run the next event as normal, and I'm inclined to listen to my constitchensy! I had a few conversations with the guys at FoB, but we haven't spoken in a while and to my knowledge we had not confirmed anything because I hadn't yet bought their tournament pack materials.

In any case, this one is being run as described above. I'll be happy to provide info on the winners to FoB for qualifier purposes, of course, should they want it.

I would be fine with a wipeout victory being either a Massacre or a Major as long as any bonus points that could be earned are. For example you wouldn't get First Blood/Warlord/Line Breaker unless you had achieved it. I believe the wording for Warlord is dead at the end of the game and unit in deployment zone at the end of the game. If you wipe someone out the game ends immediately so if you don't have a unit in the deployment zone then you didn't earn it. I think that made sense right?

In short for a tabling, Massacre or Major, but only bonus points that you've actually achieved. Also, if you would have achieved a Massacre then I think you should still achieve it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tuff Love wrote:I don't think I'll be there on the 11th, my social coordinator has informed me that "we" have plans that day.
On a tournament day!
IS NOTHING SACRED?!!!

Anyway good luck everyone I'll be back to claim what's mine in September

Unfortunately no, nothing is sacred to the social coordinator. I keep my fingers crossed all the way up to the morning of!

I'm gonna try to make it, but I haven't even really had a chance to play that much. I'll just have to win instead of Andy.

OverwatchCNC wrote:I would be fine with a wipeout victory being either a Massacre or a Major as long as any bonus points that could be earned are. For example you wouldn't get First Blood/Warlord/Line Breaker unless you had achieved it. I believe the wording for Warlord is dead at the end of the game and unit in deployment zone at the end of the game. If you wipe someone out the game ends immediately so if you don't have a unit in the deployment zone then you didn't earn it. I think that made sense right?

I know what you're getting at. The BRB includes a note that, if at the end of any turn a player does not have any models on the table, they lose the game. This is a departure from last ed. where you had to have nothing left (so reserves still waiting in the wings kept you going), iirc. Either way, it means that games can end abruptly, especially at lower points and factoring in armies getting kooky allies and reserves.

I'd say the best solution is Massacre win, bonus points as earned. Simple.

As an aside, we totally missed the 'Unusual Power Weapons' part of the CC weapons rules, which make it pretty clear that Frost blades/Frost Axes are both AP3, S as user melee weapons with the unique rule that they grant +1S to the wielder, so no +2 strength unwieldy AP2 Frost Axes!

Don't worry Dok, 6th ed. won't bite!

disdainful wrote:I'd say the best solution is Massacre win, bonus points as earned. Simple.

Sounds like the best solution to me.

As an aside, we totally missed the 'Unusual Power Weapons' part of the CC weapons rules, which make it pretty clear that Frost blades/Frost Axes are both AP3, S as user melee weapons with the unique rule that they grant +1S to the wielder, so no +2 strength unwieldy AP2 Frost Axes!

Don't worry Dok, 6th ed. won't bite!

It is actually the SW FAQ which says this, unfortunately. Page 3 of the SW FAQ changes frost axes to +2 str ap 2 unwieldy and frost swords to +1 str ap 3.

walledin wrote:It is actually the SW FAQ which says this, unfortunately. Page 3 of the SW FAQ changes frost axes to +2 str ap 2 unwieldy and frost swords to +1 str ap 3.

LOL! Looks like we got that one all kinds of wrong! We were going around in circles today spazzing out about what kind of power weapon a burna was!

...And then I started thinking: This sounds like a problem that comes from not reading the last sentence. Lo and behold, there it was!

...Though the image of burnas with bodged-on axe heads and speartips was pretty hilarious, if only for a moment!

disdainful wrote:...Though the image of burnas with bodged-on axe heads and speartips was pretty hilarious, if only for a moment!

We had that discussion locally and decided that the best way to model it would of been to green stuff axe shaped flames on the end.

I will be bringing my improved nids and I'm dragging Scott w along with his necrons again

disdainful wrote:Scenarios & Deployment Type
The scenarios and deployments for each round will be pre-determined by the TO. In some cases, the number of objectives for the various objective-based missions will be pre-determined as well. If this is not the case players will roll randomly to determine the number of objectives at their table for the game. The TO will ensure that scenarios are not repeated if possible given the number of rounds in the event, and that if scenarios must be repeated that they use differing deployments. All scenarios and deployments are played from the 40k rulebook on pp. 118-119 and 126-131, with the following modifications:

Hammer and Anvil Deployment: In the case of a room layout where tables are set up end-to-end, Hammer and Anvil deployment may be replaced by Spearhead Deployment at the TOs discretion. In Spearhead deployment, players set up in opposite table quarters, with no model deployed within 12” of the center of the table. A player's table edge is the long table edge on which their deployment zone lies.

The Scouring: Each player must place at least one objective in the no-man's-land between deployment zones.

The Relic: The Relic scenario will not be played in most normal events.

Secondary Objectives
All Secondary Objectives (Slay the Warlord, First Blood, and Linebreaker) are included in each scenario unless otherwise specified.

Am I missing it or is 'Scouring' the only mission type you fixed the objective issue on?

Because while the objectives in Scouring can end up being incredibly lopsided, its unlikely to end up that way, whereas an odd number of objectives in 'Crusade' or 'Big Guns Never Tire' absolutely ensures a completely lopsided game...so if you were going to write an objective fix in for any mission, shouldn't it have been for 'Crusade' or 'Big Guns'? Or are you just planning on always having an even number of objectives?

I think having to place the odd objective into no-mans land on those missions is essentially required to have any semblance of a fair game.


Oh and have you changed your mind about allowing IA units yet? I'm telling you, now's the time!

Due to the varying VPs of objectives in the Scouring, it has the additional objective placement rule in place to reduce the effect of lopsided random objectives. Having to place in no-man's land means that if one player does get the 3 and 4 in his deployment zone, *and* the other guy gets the 1 and 2, there's still at least a 3 and 2 in play. Uphill battle probably, but unwinnable/unfair hopefully not.

There are no modifications to objective placement in Crusade and BGNT because this format requires that players determine the number of objectives and place them before rolling for deployment zone/first turn. So, just like three months ago, if there's five objectives and the player who puts three down drops them all deep in one deployment zone, he runs the risk of his opponent winning the roll for deployment and camping all his shiny objectives.

We're going to see how this change works. It was discussed before the previous event, but I wanted to see if the new stuff like secondary objectives/random objective values/heavy and fast FOC choices scoring in some missions had any bearing, and it became clear that if it did, it wasn't enough after hearing feedback from players. I decided to go with the tried and true sequence, mostly because it's a well-established habit of tournament players by this point so flipping the script isn't optimal anyway, but also because I feel that it is the least limiting on the players and reduces the unavoidable temptation to stack the deck, so to speak, which just causes an NPE for someone.

As for FW/IA... At the least, I'd say that I could be convinced. Truth be told, that stuff is so far off my radar it's silly, mostly because it's something I can't sell in my store (thanks Workshop! ), so I haven't even really bothered keeping up with it. Come down to the shop, show me these Forgeworlds Books you speak of and their blasphemous contents, and I can make a more informed decision!

I'm planning to be there. Finally got all the rules sorted in my head...

My only issue with IA/FW is that there is a unit summary in my 40k rulebook for everything that is in the Codex books, not so much for FW/IA. I at least have a general idea of the stats and capabilities of every unit in 40k but with FW/IA you have to buy the books just to familiarize yourself with the units even if you have no intention of buying FW models. I doubt there would be anything too surprising but I always thought FW/IA was with opponents permission and only for campaigns, narratives, and other non-competitive games. Nothing personally against those units and books, other than they are cost prohibitive in my collection.

It may very well be that we're on the cusp of a new era as regards Forgeworld. In my dream world, GW would release an FAQ or document that integrated FW into the main game and then set up a trade format where I can carry that product in my store.

But, GW being as it is, and Forgeworld's production capability being as it is, my dream is unlikely. What I would expect if rumors are true is something that legitimizes certain aspects of FW in the main game, which will in turn make it more prevalent in events. It would certainly make FW more money, even if they remain as their namesake - the distant, baroque and arcane world from whence wonders come, at the high price of one's soul!

The summary in the back of the book doesn't include special characters and army specific stuff like Deffrollas and Runic Weapons, and (again, limited knowledge of the current state of FW releases here, so bear that in mind) I expect the stuff that we're talking about including here is in the same vein: a handful of army-specific elements that wouldn't be in the force's general summary anyway.

I'd be happy to spend some time with the FW books to get a better sense of what we're talking about, but someone will need to bring them in so I can take a look; I ordered myself a costly fiasco of a set of Imperial Fists vehicle accessories and a couple pre-plastic kit Vindicator sets, and I'm not keen to dive into that swamp again!

If anyone is coming from the Ventura/Oxnard area or further up the coast and wants to share ride costs shoot me a PM. I have to spend half as many wife points to come if I can leave her the car...

I might try to make it.

Imma flying circus all over the place!!

My first event after shipping out the orks with probably be pretty gloom and doom for me though...

It looks right now like I don't move back to Minnesota until the next week which means I will get one last SoCal tournament under my belt!

disdainful wrote:I hadn't yet bought their tournament pack materials.

Is FoB charging stores who run qualifiers?

BladeWalker wrote:If anyone is coming from the Ventura/Oxnard area or further up the coast and wants to share ride costs shoot me a PM. I have to spend half as many wife points to come if I can leave her the car...

If you don't hear from anyone who is right around you shoot me a PM a few days before the tournament. I could stop by on my way through from SB.

what was the ruling on grounding test for FMC's? is it everytime they are shot or by unit?

deanthedespoiler wrote:what was the ruling on grounding test for FMC's? is it everytime they are shot or by unit?

Last tournament it was once they're grounded they no longer count as swooping. Allowed me to obliterate two Swooping Tyrants on the first turn.

I'm okay with the ruling either way, but I just think its crazy that if you're saying the unit no longer counts as swooping when grounded that somehow the 'snap fire' penalty for 'diving' would somehow still apply in the FMC's next turn (which is how it was ruled last time). That's just nuts to me, as it seems like the overall ruling is being made based on the fact that intent of the rule is likely that a grounded creature is supposed to no longer be swooping and therefore doesn't get any swooping benefits anymore, but if that's the case, why would it still get the jink benefit from diving (or would it) and if it wouldn't once its grounded, why would that penalty for diving somehow still apply?

The FMC issue is a problem. As discussed before, it's either nonsensical or something of a hindrance to the model who owns the rule. That being said, we've got a bug player in the store whose Flyrants have yet to suffer so ignominious an end as the guy that Yak played (though Yak's Ork/Tau alliance army didn't have a whole lot of trouble with flyers in general, so his sampling might be slightly skewed! )

That being said, it's a bad spot in the rules. Thankfully one of the few, but bad nonetheless. Hopefully we'll get something from GW on it soon, at which point I may have a plate full of crow to enjoy (though I don't think so!), but until then, I'm sticking to my ruling.

Something from last night's games, thanks to BrotherErekose for bringing it up: Tervigons Smashing with Crushing Claws and Warp Speed and how to resolve their attacks. It seems pretty clear to me that the rules for modifying stats in the beginning of the book cover this, which means you would halve the stat (3, down to 1.5, rounded up to 2), then apply +d3 for the claws and +d3 for Warp Speed, +1 if charging (potentially) for a spread of 5-9 attacks. I've looked at all the relevant literature and I can't see any good reason this wouldn't be the case, but I'd be happy to hear alternate opinions.

About ten days to go! I'm looking forward to seeing everyone again.

I don't see any other reasonable way to interpret the Tervigon situation personally.

Although knowing GW and their past record with the Tyranid FAQ, I'm sure they'll come out and make a ruling against their RAW and say that Smash halving happens after all other modifiers or something.

I've always said that I won't be surprised if GW rules either way on stuff; such is their mercurial mind.

And again here, I would be unsurprised if GW goes with a ruling that keeps the number of attacks the Tervigon can generate low. And not only because we're not talking about Space Wolves (who get all the FAQ breaks, always ), but also because I can easily hear some rationale bounce around my head about how it's a giant, ponderous brood-mother type creature whose primary role is support not attack, carnifexes are the assault bioforms blah blah blah.

We shall see. Anyone have any notion of when there might be a second round of FAQs, including one for the BRB? Not that I'm holding my breath!

Sometime in August is what I think was said at the GW Open day, although I can't recall if they said late or early August (or nothing at all).

And on the Tervigon, you have to buy Crushing Claws, which aren't that cheap AND get lucky enough to roll Warp Speed, which means you're not taking the atuo-feel no pain rule that the Tervigon comes with (which is a massively important power to the Tyranids).

So turning the Tervigon into a ocmbat monster this way seems perfectly reaonsable to me personally.

yakface wrote:Sometime in August is what I think was said at the GW Open day, although I can't recall if they said late or early August (or nothing at all).

And on the Tervigon, you have to buy Crushing Claws, which aren't that cheap AND get lucky enough to roll Warp Speed, which means you're not taking the atuo-feel no pain rule that the Tervigon comes with (which is a massively important power to the Tyranids).

So turning the Tervigon into a ocmbat monster this way seems perfectly reaonsable to me personally.

Are you going to be in attendance again? 2 in a row! I won't be playing GK this time around

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Are you going to be in attendance again? 2 in a row! I won't be playing GK this time around

Most likely not.

6th edition doesn't speak much to my soul. For example, my Tau/Ork combo just doesn't give me enjoyment seeing them on the field together. And I frankly don't look forward to facing the ever increasing amount of allies I'm sure we'll be seeing, again just from the fact that the primary thing I liked about 40K was the 'movie' of the games that I imagined inside of my head while I played.

6th edition has generally killed that movie in my head, so I just don't have the same kind of enthusiasm to play.

If the tournament was allowing Imperial Armor, I might go just to get to use my Tetras in a Tau army (as I've gotten so few chances to do so over the years) and/or maybe try to take as many Firewarriors as I can to see what happens, but that's pretty unlikely at least for this event.

yakface wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Are you going to be in attendance again? 2 in a row! I won't be playing GK this time around

Most likely not.

6th edition doesn't speak much to my soul. For example, my Tau/Ork combo just doesn't give me enjoyment seeing them on the field together. And I frankly don't look forward to facing the ever increasing amount of allies I'm sure we'll be seeing, again just from the fact that the primary thing I liked about 40K was the 'movie' of the games that I imagined inside of my head while I played.

6th edition has generally killed that movie in my head, so I just don't have the same kind of enthusiasm to play.

If the tournament was allowing Imperial Armor, I might go just to get to use my Tetras in a Tau army (as I've gotten so few chances to do so over the years) and/or maybe try to take as many Firewarriors as I can to see what happens, but that's pretty unlikely at least for this event.

That's too bad you feel that way.

For future reference, if we are going to allow FW then I just want to state here and now I think that the actual FW model needs to be used. No proxies, no counts as, no scratch built, and therefore no problems.

yakface wrote:Most likely not.

Aww, c'mon! I'll give you a free candy and soda!

As for FW, if we do end up starting to allow it, which, again, I am totally open to but need to research further, having the actual FW model would be a hard-and-fast rule, of course.

Even for Orks!

I'm just wondering what is the decision behind not including Mysterious Objectives considering you've generally been using most everything else?

The reason I ask is because unlike say Mysterious Terrain, it seems like the Mysterious Objectives add two crucial elements into the game:


1) They kind of counter-balance some of the Warlord Traits. For example, the Traits that give you bonuses for shooting at enemy units within range of an objective are complimented by the Mysterious Objective rules which kind of give people reasons to sit on Objectives early.

Wthout the bonuses given my the Mysterious Objectives, when people see that you're got that Warlord trait they'll purposely stay 3" away from the objectives until turn 5 to deny you that bonus. But when M.O.s are in play, then there is a tough choice to make in those cases.


2) M.O.s are clearly a way to get more Skyfire into the game, which cannot be a bad thing. As the rulebook does not categorize M.O.s as being something up to the players' discretion like Mysterious Terrain, it really seems wrong to not utilize them when you're including so much else of the 6th edition framework.


It just seems like if you're using Warlord Traits, then you should probably be using Mysterious Objectives as well.

The decision was made to go without Mysterious Objectives this time around so that we can see how an event runs in 6th with nothing mysterious. I'm still experimenting with some elements of the new game from a tournament point of view, so I want to see how it is without them this time around. There are a two Warlord Traits that interact with objectives, and MO does throw the chance of some extra Skyfire into the game, but both elements are random and can't be quantified in any significant way. I'm looking at making sure that everyone gets another round of tournament play to iron out whatever wrinkles they may have remaining with the core rules and have a good time doing it, and having some guy who's still figuring things out end up with all sabotaged objectives in game two doesn't necessarily make for a fun time.

And high-concept headspace notwithstanding, I know a bunch of guys forgot to roll for MOs anyway last time, because they were busy figuring out how far their units moved and forgetting to Overwatch! That being said, we'll probably use MOs next month, and I'll figure out something suitably draconian about what happens if players forget to determine what they are!

As the format is starting to come into focus, I'm feeling like Warlord Traits and Mysterious Objectives are probably going to end up in most events, Mysterious Terrain probably less so despite being non-optional itself (players may decide in what manner they determine and treat various pieces of Mysterious Terrain, but it's not optional by the rules whether to use it or not, at least by my reading).

We shall see. I'm not convinced that blanket random effects like the various Mysteriouses are good for competitive play, since 'least-likely-most-unbalanced-configuration-possible' is almost a guarantee in an event by the laws of the universe, and the NPE it creates is bad for any event. The problem is, coming up with some mechanism for players to get re-rolls or somehow determine things on terms other than the single d6 roll raises the spectre of heavy-handed house ruling, and we all here on this forum know just how troublesome the various "(name)hammer" epithets can be, no matter how they are used.

On a lighter note, Ork Nobz are the best. Take that, silly Terminators! Sadly though, all of my scads of Slugga Boyz are sad. So, so sad.

disdainful wrote:The decision was made to go without Mysterious Objectives this time around so that we can see how an event runs in 6th with nothing mysterious. I'm still experimenting with some elements of the new game from a tournament point of view, so I want to see how it is without them this time around. There are a two Warlord Traits that interact with objectives, and MO does throw the chance of some extra Skyfire into the game, but both elements are random and can't be quantified in any significant way. I'm looking at making sure that everyone gets another round of tournament play to iron out whatever wrinkles they may have remaining with the core rules and have a good time doing it, and having some guy who's still figuring things out end up with all sabotaged objectives in game two doesn't necessarily make for a fun time.

And high-concept headspace notwithstanding, I know a bunch of guys forgot to roll for MOs anyway last time, because they were busy figuring out how far their units moved and forgetting to Overwatch! That being said, we'll probably use MOs next month, and I'll figure out something suitably draconian about what happens if players forget to determine what they are!

As the format is starting to come into focus, I'm feeling like Warlord Traits and Mysterious Objectives are probably going to end up in most events, Mysterious Terrain probably less so despite being non-optional itself (players may decide in what manner they determine and treat various pieces of Mysterious Terrain, but it's not optional by the rules whether to use it or not, at least by my reading).

We shall see. I'm not convinced that blanket random effects like the various Mysteriouses are good for competitive play, since 'least-likely-most-unbalanced-configuration-possible' is almost a guarantee in an event by the laws of the universe, and the NPE it creates is bad for any event. The problem is, coming up with some mechanism for players to get re-rolls or somehow determine things on terms other than the single d6 roll raises the spectre of heavy-handed house ruling, and we all here on this forum know just how troublesome the various "(name)hammer" epithets can be, no matter how they are used.

On a lighter note, Ork Nobz are the best. Take that, silly Terminators! Sadly though, all of my scads of Slugga Boyz are sad. So, so sad. :'(

You can't have it all!

A note about the mysterious objectives. I bought the GW objective and vehicle maker sets. The vehicle markers are garbage for game play but since I've been using the objective markers I havn't forgot to use the mysterious objectives in a game once.

Grimgob wrote:A note about the mysterious objectives. I bought the GW objective and vehicle maker sets. The vehicle markers are garbage for game play but since I've been using the objective markers I havn't forgot to use the mysterious objectives in a game once.

Very true. I'm a big fan of my set as well. It keeps things organized quite well.

I'm not a stick in the mud (at least about most things! ). If the general consensus is Mysterious Objectives are legit, I'm ok with including them.

So what do you think, gents?

disdainful wrote:

Grimgob wrote:A note about the mysterious objectives. I bought the GW objective and vehicle maker sets. The vehicle markers are garbage for game play but since I've been using the objective markers I havn't forgot to use the mysterious objectives in a game once.

Very true. I'm a big fan of my set as well. It keeps things organized quite well.

I'm not a stick in the mud (at least about most things! ). If the general consensus is Mysterious Objectives are legit, I'm ok with including them.

So what do you think, gents?

I agree, they just needed to add a mysterious river and forest dice also (would have been better then the vehicle markers). I myself like the all the random bits in the game (albiet I've lost to 4 tau suits charging 30 boys and other such nonsense), I've had some really fun games even though wierd stuff happens sometimes.

I vote Mysterious Objectives in. Like Yakface has said, they go hand-in-hand with a number of the Warlord traits, and provide a boon to the unit securing it, giving them a thematic reason to hunker down and control the objective for the whole game.

Since you're taking opinions on things, let me speak up now. Allowing FW, on the other hand, would quickly remove me from wanting to come to the tournaments in the future (or at the very least think twice about coming). I'm already passing on the one at the LA Convention Center because of it. It's hard enough keeping up with all the current codexes, white dwarf units, white dwarf armies, etc. With allies, it's now even much more important to know the codexes you don't own/play with yourself. How many IA books are there now, 8? 9? I really don't know. Trying to keep up with all of that on top of everything else, forget it. Not to mention that the chance of seeing it in a one-off game to practice against is VERY small. The models are also much more expensive, making $$ a limiting factor for most. M:TG became like that, pay to win. No thanks.

Sure, some will say that I must not know much about IA at all, since some units are terrible or overcosted. So are some units in the Dark Angels codex! Not all the things in those books are terrible or overcosted.

I guess you could say I'm a purist at heart. Hell, if I could find a tourney that didn't allow allies I'd love it. I don't see that happening, so I grudgingly accept them.

I vote for mysterious objectives. I forgot them in one game I played last tournament but I do like them quite a bit.

As for FW, if people absolutely will not come to tournaments because of them I find no reason to allow them all the time. The store has 12 tournaments a year, you use varying points levels, formats, scoring, and missions through out those 12 months. I see no reason why allowing FW in every 3rd or 4th tournament or even just twice a year wouldn't be fine too. Is there any reason the inclusion of FW has to be all or nothing at the store? In the end if the events that allow FW end up being consistently and obviously under attended you can always scrap the idea altogether. Nothing is written in stone for a store that runs so many tournaments in a year!

yakface wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Are you going to be in attendance again? 2 in a row! I won't be playing GK this time around

Most likely not.

6th edition doesn't speak much to my soul. For example, my Tau/Ork combo just doesn't give me enjoyment seeing them on the field together. And I frankly don't look forward to facing the ever increasing amount of allies I'm sure we'll be seeing, again just from the fact that the primary thing I liked about 40K was the 'movie' of the games that I imagined inside of my head while I played.

6th edition has generally killed that movie in my head, so I just don't have the same kind of enthusiasm to play.

If the tournament was allowing Imperial Armor, I might go just to get to use my Tetras in a Tau army (as I've gotten so few chances to do so over the years) and/or maybe try to take as many Firewarriors as I can to see what happens, but that's pretty unlikely at least for this event.

Seeing as you're not attending the tournament (nor enjoying 6th edition), I'm left wondering why you're still posting in this tournament thread. Actually, here are the only two reasons I can find for continually dredging up disagreements with the tournament prompt: 1. Malicious trolling. "Yakface has issues with the event, therefore the event must not be good." 2. Concern for the well-being of an event that you aren't attending. You're not happy with the game - we all got that. Let's leave the discussion to players that are actually interested in playing in this tournament and 6th edition.

Well, it seems Mysterious Objectives are the people's choice! I've got a few more folks to talk to and some more opinions to hear, but if the response is similar to this then I think Mysterious it will be.

Lormax wrote:ISince you're taking opinions on things, let me speak up now. Allowing FW, on the other hand, would quickly remove me from wanting to come to the tournaments in the future (or at the very least think twice about coming). I'm already passing on the one at the LA Convention Center because of it. It's hard enough keeping up with all the current codexes, white dwarf units, white dwarf armies, etc. With allies, it's now even much more important to know the codexes you don't own/play with yourself. How many IA books are there now, 8? 9? I really don't know. Trying to keep up with all of that on top of everything else, forget it. Not to mention that the chance of seeing it in a one-off game to practice against is VERY small. The models are also much more expensive, making $$ a limiting factor for most. M:TG became like that, pay to win. No thanks.

I very much appreciate the feedback; in the end I want to run an event that people want to come to. I know the often negative reaction that FW talk generates. For the record, my position is that if GW says FW is in, it's in. If not, then it probably will become a sometimes food. In the end, a tournament is a product (a very hard to produce product, often!) and I'm not in the business of making a product people don't want. That being said, I'm ready and willing to embrace the chaos if the floodgates open, and even if not, roll it in occasionally.

OverwatchCNC wrote:I vote for mysterious objectives. I forgot them in one game I played last tournament but I do like them quite a bit.

As for FW, if people absolutely will not come to tournaments because of them I find no reason to allow them all the time. The store has 12 tournaments a year, you use varying points levels, formats, scoring, and missions through out those 12 months. I see no reason why allowing FW in every 3rd or 4th tournament or even just twice a year wouldn't be fine too. Is there any reason the inclusion of FW has to be all or nothing at the store? In the end if the events that allow FW end up being consistently and obviously under attended you can always scrap the idea altogether. Nothing is written in stone for a store that runs so many tournaments in a year!

We are insulated somewhat with the knowledge that if the event in month X didn't go so well, there's always month Y. That being said, there's guys I only see once a year and I want to make sure they don't show up on a Month X as often as possible!

Although I totally forgot to roll for every Mysterious Objective in the last tournament, I still do think they are an integral part of the 6th edition rules as a whole package and therefore should be included if you're including fortifications & Warlord Traits. If you want to go down like a limited route and cut out a bunch of the stranger stuff then I think its fine to cut out MOs, but seems wrong to selectively cut them out when using most of the other rules as well.

But as I'm probably not attending, obviously I'm just expressing an opinion that doesn't matter as much as the people who will be playing.

Lormax wrote:
Since you're taking opinions on things, let me speak up now. Allowing FW, on the other hand, would quickly remove me from wanting to come to the tournaments in the future (or at the very least think twice about coming). I'm already passing on the one at the LA Convention Center because of it. It's hard enough keeping up with all the current codexes, white dwarf units, white dwarf armies, etc. With allies, it's now even much more important to know the codexes you don't own/play with yourself. How many IA books are there now, 8? 9? I really don't know. Trying to keep up with all of that on top of everything else, forget it. Not to mention that the chance of seeing it in a one-off game to practice against is VERY small. The models are also much more expensive, making $$ a limiting factor for most. M:TG became like that, pay to win. No thanks.

Sure, some will say that I must not know much about IA at all, since some units are terrible or overcosted. So are some units in the Dark Angels codex! Not all the things in those books are terrible or overcosted.

I guess you could say I'm a purist at heart. Hell, if I could find a tourney that didn't allow allies I'd love it. I don't see that happening, so I grudgingly accept them.

You could definitely run some tournaments allowing FW and some without as a way to gauge interest, but I do have to say that treating the Imperial Armor rules this way only helps to strengthen the concept of people who are ignorant of the Imperial Armor rules being able to refuse to even see what the rules are like and then use this as a tool to try to get Imperial Armor disallowed.

I think this post above by Lormax is a perfect example of this. Not trying to single you out, but this is the exact attitude I see so much from people that is based purely on conjecture of how bad things might be that you're not even willing to chance playing against it.

The reality is, even when Forgeworld is allowed you still won't see them used in most games, and those that you do, if you're the kind of person who keeps up with every unit in every codex, then I guarantee that looking over the rules for an Imperial Armor unit before the game will give you all the information you need to know to combat it...there's no IA units allowed in standard games of 40K that are so crazy out of the box that you won't have any idea what to do against them. And if that's still not enough, I think you'll find if you ask any player who uses an Imperial Armor unit what kind of nasty tricks the IA unit they have in their army is able to pull off before the game starts, they will be happy to give you an overview.

And if you're not the kind of player who knows every rule for every unit in the codexes, then playing against an Imperial Armor unit is exactly the same as any other unit. You have to ask your opponent what it does and look at the rules ahead of time if necessary just as you would with any other unit.

In addition, the argument that somehow the inclusion of Forgeworld somehow turns the game into who can spend the most $, is frankly baseless as this point. GW's prices have crept up to the point where they are ridiculously close to Forgeworld's anyway. But looking at Magic the Gathering, their rare cards are powerful and therefore cost a lot of money and are hard to come by otherwise. So in other words, you're paying for rarity & power. Forgeworld, although not as easy to purchase as regular GW kits in stores, can be ordered by anyone with access to the internet and a credit card, so its not rare. The cost is based on what GW charges for the model based on a variety of criteria, but effectiveness of the unit does not seem to be one of those criteria (at least not intentionally).

So, let's just say a super-effective Tyranid army is one that has 2 Tyrants, 4 Tervigons & 3 Trygons. Each of these kits cost around $60 now, so we're looking at over $500 for that army. If that's what happens to be the most effective build, is this 'unfair' to people who can't afford this army? Or what about if maxed-out Dark Eldar Beast Packs were super-powerful? Would the fact that they cost hundreds of dollars per unit make them unfair?

I'd argue that probably the most over-powered Forgeworld unit they have is the meager Hades Breaching Drill which is only £27...not even close to as expensive as the most costly core GW kits.

The only thing you can ever know for sure if you deny yourself the chance to ever play against Imperial Armor is that you will always be afraid of what they possibly can do to you, instead of actually looking at it from the perspective of how it can actually enrich your army and the game in general.

Once you can accept that yes you may see some IA units in a tournament and yes those units might be used to beat you, but really that's not the end of the world because there's nothing that can't be countered with good generalship, you might actually start looking at Forgeworld models and saying: 'wow, there's some really cool stuff out there that would be FUN for me to include in my army!'

But as long as you choose to keep yourself in the dark and never even give it a shot to see just how 'bad' it is, your worst fears will always be your reality. You will always think that Forgeworld turns 40K into a $$$ game, and you will always think that the IA rules are too tough to keep up with and therefore put you at a big disadvantage, etc, etc, etc. In other words, you put yourself in a position where your beliefs can never be proven wrong, because you won't even give them a chance to be tested in the waters of reality.

And if you go and find out that your fears are correct, then by all means boycott any tournament that allows Imperial Armor and lobby to get more tournaments to keep them off the table. But to make that stand before even running into the negative effects that you're afraid of just seems like such a shame to me.

yakface wrote:

Although I totally forgot to roll for every Mysterious Objective in the last tournament, I still do think they are an integral part of the 6th edition rules as a whole package and therefore should be included if you're including fortifications & Warlord Traits. If you want to go down like a limited route and cut out a bunch of the stranger stuff then I think its fine to cut out MOs, but seems wrong to selectively cut them out when using most of the other rules as well.

But as I'm probably not attending, obviously I'm just expressing an opinion that doesn't matter as much as the people who will be playing.

Lormax wrote:
Since you're taking opinions on things, let me speak up now. Allowing FW, on the other hand, would quickly remove me from wanting to come to the tournaments in the future (or at the very least think twice about coming). I'm already passing on the one at the LA Convention Center because of it. It's hard enough keeping up with all the current codexes, white dwarf units, white dwarf armies, etc. With allies, it's now even much more important to know the codexes you don't own/play with yourself. How many IA books are there now, 8? 9? I really don't know. Trying to keep up with all of that on top of everything else, forget it. Not to mention that the chance of seeing it in a one-off game to practice against is VERY small. The models are also much more expensive, making $$ a limiting factor for most. M:TG became like that, pay to win. No thanks.

Sure, some will say that I must not know much about IA at all, since some units are terrible or overcosted. So are some units in the Dark Angels codex! Not all the things in those books are terrible or overcosted.

I guess you could say I'm a purist at heart. Hell, if I could find a tourney that didn't allow allies I'd love it. I don't see that happening, so I grudgingly accept them.

You could definitely run some tournaments allowing FW and some without as a way to gauge interest, but I do have to say that treating the Imperial Armor rules this way only helps to strengthen the concept of people who are ignorant of the Imperial Armor rules being able to refuse to even see what the rules are like and then use this as a tool to try to get Imperial Armor disallowed.

I think this post above by Lormax is a perfect example of this. Not trying to single you out, but this is the exact attitude I see so much from people that is based purely on conjecture of how bad things might be that you're not even willing to chance playing against it.

The reality is, even when Forgeworld is allowed you still won't see them used in most games, and those that you do, if you're the kind of person who keeps up with every unit in every codex, then I guarantee that looking over the rules for an Imperial Armor unit before the game will give you all the information you need to know to combat it...there's no IA units allowed in standard games of 40K that are so crazy out of the box that you won't have any idea what to do against them. And if that's still not enough, I think you'll find if you ask any player who uses an Imperial Armor unit what kind of nasty tricks the IA unit they have in their army is able to pull off before the game starts, they will be happy to give you an overview.

And if you're not the kind of player who knows every rule for every unit in the codexes, then playing against an Imperial Armor unit is exactly the same as any other unit. You have to ask your opponent what it does and look at the rules ahead of time if necessary just as you would with any other unit.

In addition, the argument that somehow the inclusion of Forgeworld somehow turns the game into who can spend the most $, is frankly baseless as this point. GW's prices have crept up to the point where they are ridiculously close to Forgeworld's anyway. But looking at Magic the Gathering, their rare cards are powerful and therefore cost a lot of money and are hard to come by otherwise. So in other words, you're paying for rarity & power. Forgeworld, although not as easy to purchase as regular GW kits in stores, can be ordered by anyone with access to the internet and a credit card, so its not rare. The cost is based on what GW charges for the model based on a variety of criteria, but effectiveness of the unit does not seem to be one of those criteria (at least not intentionally).

So, let's just say a super-effective Tyranid army is one that has 2 Tyrants, 4 Tervigons & 3 Trygons. Each of these kits cost around $60 now, so we're looking at over $500 for that army. If that's what happens to be the most effective build, is this 'unfair' to people who can't afford this army? Or what about if maxed-out Dark Eldar Beast Packs were super-powerful? Would the fact that they cost hundreds of dollars per unit make them unfair?

I'd argue that probably the most over-powered Forgeworld unit they have is the meager Hades Breaching Drill which is only £27...not even close to as expensive as the most costly core GW kits.

The only thing you can ever know for sure if you deny yourself the chance to ever play against Imperial Armor is that you will always be afraid of what they possibly can do to you, instead of actually looking at it from the perspective of how it can actually enrich your army and the game in general.

Once you can accept that yes you may see some IA units in a tournament and yes those units might be used to beat you, but really that's not the end of the world because there's nothing that can't be countered with good generalship, you might actually start looking at Forgeworld models and saying: 'wow, there's some really cool stuff out there that would be FUN for me to include in my army!'

But as long as you choose to keep yourself in the dark and never even give it a shot to see just how 'bad' it is, your worst fears will always be your reality. You will always think that Forgeworld turns 40K into a $$$ game, and you will always think that the IA rules are too tough to keep up with and therefore put you at a big disadvantage, etc, etc, etc. In other words, you put yourself in a position where your beliefs can never be proven wrong, because you won't even give them a chance to be tested in the waters of reality.

And if you go and find out that your fears are correct, then by all means boycott any tournament that allows Imperial Armor and lobby to get more tournaments to keep them off the table. But to make that stand before even running into the negative effects that you're afraid of just seems like such a shame to me.

I wish I could type "tl;dr"; unfortunately, I slogged through this post hoping to find something relevant to the tournament prompt. Well, having past the first few lines, I realized that would not be the case. So far, I've found most of Yakface's posts to be largely unconcerned with the actual tournament and more concerned with the application of 6th edition rules, providing broad, sweeping claims regarding what is "integral," or inherently 6th edition. Your concern does not rest with the tournament and the people playing in it. Your concern lies in solely your experience with this game, and how you want to play it. Talk of Imperial Armor and Forgeworld are largely irrelevant to this thread. If you want to discuss whether or not they should be included in tournaments, the discussion should not be in a specific game store's advertising thread. Might I suggest 40k You Make Da Call, or 40k Proposed Rules? Lastly, I will say that I did find a few sentences particularly poignant from your above post. I took the liberty of editing them, explaining my general reaction to your continued grieving of 6th edition.

I think this post above by Yakface is a perfect example of this. Not trying to single you out, but this is the exact attitude I see so much from people that is based purely on conjecture of how bad things might be that you're not even willing to chance playing 6th edition.

But as long as you choose to keep yourself in the dark and never even give it a shot to see just how 'bad' it is, your worst fears will always be your reality. You will always think that 6th edition turns 40K into a bad game, and you will always think that the new rules for each edition are too tough to keep up with and therefore put you at a big disadvantage, etc, etc, etc. In other words, you put yourself in a position where your beliefs can never be proven wrong, because you won't even give them a chance to be tested in the waters of reality.

And if you go and find out that your fears are correct, then by all means boycott any 6th edition tournament and lobby to get more 5th edition tournaments with Imperial Armor to keep them off the table. But to make that stand before even running into the negative effects that you're afraid of just seems like such a shame to me.

Rather than continually scrounging up every rules contradiction or "black hole" that you can find while poring over your 6th edition rulebook, perhaps you should take a moment to pause and reflect on the struggles that we all faced at the dawn of 5th edition. Recall the reason why you and others organized to create INAT and this forum. Take a read of 6th edition with a positive lens rather than the decidedly negative tone of authority that you wield (sub, abuse) with such ease. Allow other players the time to voice their positive and negative interactions with the game.

I'm sorry that this game doesn't speak to your soul, but it doesn't need to. The game doesn't speak to my soul, yet I enjoy it and endeavor to let others enjoy it as well.

Hallowed Aria

Lormax wrote:I vote Mysterious Objectives in. Like Yakface has said, they go hand-in-hand with a number of the Warlord traits, and provide a boon to the unit securing it, giving them a thematic reason to hunker down and control the objective for the whole game.

Since you're taking opinions on things, let me speak up now. Allowing FW, on the other hand, would quickly remove me from wanting to come to the tournaments in the future (or at the very least think twice about coming). I'm already passing on the one at the LA Convention Center because of it. It's hard enough keeping up with all the current codexes, white dwarf units, white dwarf armies, etc. With allies, it's now even much more important to know the codexes you don't own/play with yourself. How many IA books are there now, 8? 9? I really don't know. Trying to keep up with all of that on top of everything else, forget it. Not to mention that the chance of seeing it in a one-off game to practice against is VERY small. The models are also much more expensive, making $$ a limiting factor for most. M:TG became like that, pay to win. No thanks.

Sure, some will say that I must not know much about IA at all, since some units are terrible or overcosted. So are some units in the Dark Angels codex! Not all the things in those books are terrible or overcosted.

I guess you could say I'm a purist at heart. Hell, if I could find a tourney that didn't allow allies I'd love it. I don't see that happening, so I grudgingly accept them.

I'm a purest in heart as well.

But after what I have seen in discussion on another topic. I am willing to allow FW models provided that those people with the models provide copies of the rule set of those models in question to the opponent and to the TO (namely me) in the tournament. Generally speaking 3 copies + 1 to the TO. To me this solves a crucial problem without access to FW books.

HallowedAria wrote:
I wish I could type "tl;dr"; unfortunately, I slogged through this post hoping to find something relevant to the tournament prompt. Well, having past the first few lines, I realized that would not be the case. So far, I've found most of Yakface's posts to be largely unconcerned with the actual tournament and more concerned with the application of 6th edition rules, providing broad, sweeping claims regarding what is "integral," or inherently 6th edition. Your concern does not rest with the tournament and the people playing in it. Your concern lies in solely your experience with this game, and how you want to play it. Talk of Imperial Armor and Forgeworld are largely irrelevant to this thread. If you want to discuss whether or not they should be included in tournaments, the discussion should not be in a specific game store's advertising thread. Might I suggest 40k You Make Da Call, or 40k Proposed Rules? Lastly, I will say that I did find a few sentences particularly poignant from your above post. I took the liberty of editing them, explaining my general reaction to your continued grieving of 6th edition.

I think this post above by Yakface is a perfect example of this. Not trying to single you out, but this is the exact attitude I see so much from people that is based purely on conjecture of how bad things might be that you're not even willing to chance playing 6th edition.

But as long as you choose to keep yourself in the dark and never even give it a shot to see just how 'bad' it is, your worst fears will always be your reality. You will always think that 6th edition turns 40K into a bad game, and you will always think that the new rules for each edition are too tough to keep up with and therefore put you at a big disadvantage, etc, etc, etc. In other words, you put yourself in a position where your beliefs can never be proven wrong, because you won't even give them a chance to be tested in the waters of reality.

And if you go and find out that your fears are correct, then by all means boycott any 6th edition tournament and lobby to get more 5th edition tournaments with Imperial Armor to keep them off the table. But to make that stand before even running into the negative effects that you're afraid of just seems like such a shame to me.

Rather than continually scrounging up every rules contradiction or "black hole" that you can find while poring over your 6th edition rulebook, perhaps you should take a moment to pause and reflect on the struggles that we all faced at the dawn of 5th edition. Recall the reason why you and others organized to create INAT and this forum. Take a read of 6th edition with a positive lens rather than the decidedly negative tone of authority that you wield (sub, abuse) with such ease. Allow other players the time to voice their positive and negative interactions with the game.

I'm sorry that this game doesn't speak to your soul, but it doesn't need to. The game doesn't speak to my soul, yet I enjoy it and endeavor to let others enjoy it as well.

Hallowed Aria

I'm sorry you slogged through reading my post and feel it contained no pertinent information to the topic at hand. Let me clarify a few things though:


1) I am not giving up playing 40k and I don't hate 6th edition by any stretch of the imagination. Just because I feel that 6th edition kind of went in a different direction than the direction I liked in 3rd-5th edition does not mean I'm incapable of recognizing a lot of the positive elements that 6th edition does provide. I guarantee that I will be attending some 40k events, and given that Game Empire tends to run the best 40k events in the area I live in and as the T.O. is always looking for comments and feedback about his events (as any good organizer does), I give him my opinions, and that's it. While I may not be attending this next tournament (and who knows I may just change my mind and attend anyway), I may make the next one or the next one after that, etc, so giving feedback about the format is entirely reasonable IMHO.


2) I have never claimed that my opinion carries anymore weight than any other player's opinion. You will never see me posting that way or claiming otherwise. If anyone attributes me to having some sort of authority, that's entirely on them. I have not, and will never, feel or act that way. All of the opinions I express are just my opinions and can be taken or ignored at the organizer's whim, just as he does with feedback he gets from every other player.


3) Imperial Armor has nothing to do with 5th edition vs. 6th edition. The inclusion of Imperial Armor in a tournament has absolutely zero to do with shying away from the 6th edition rules...it is an entirely separate conversation. Now, its no secret that I'm a big fan of allowing Imperial Armor simply from the viewpoint that I think there are a ton of cool models in the line and a bunch of interesting rules and its a shame that people cannot utilize them in more tournaments IMHO. So yes, while I am effectively lobbying to get those rules allowed, as a player who wants to use his Tau Tetras in a Tau army, my point has been and will continue to be: I'm okay with Imperial Armor being disallowed because it causes some defined problem that has been encountered. However, I think disallowing Imperial Armor without even ever giving it a shot to see if it IS EVEN A PROBLEM, is silly and self-fulfilling.


4) Finally, I don't see how me expressing my opinions somehow prevents other players from voicing theirs. This is a public forum and people can and will always be able to post their own opinions...you can choose to agree, disagree, ignore or not ignore any of them.

Yak I think the issue here is you've expressed several times, to me in person even, that you aren't going to play 40k tournaments because you aren't a big fan of how 6th edition works. It is those sort of statements that, I believe, are leading people to think your posts are more just sour grapes than anything else.

I am glad to know you aren't completely swearing off tournaments and 6th edition in general, I honestly had gotten the impression you had.

2. I know you've never claimed it, but you have to recognize at some level that you are a sort of paragon to the community. Your opinion naturally tends to carry more weight than others, certainly more than mine!

3. I agree that the time has come for us to try out the IA rules . In the other thread by Dis about GE rulings I stated that I would like to see a few tournaments each year at GE run FW allowed events. I think if Dis does a good enough job with a standard year long schedule and promoting the events then there should be few "gotcha" type moments when players show up for a tournament unprepared to face FW. I also am a stalwart proponent that all armies including FW units must have the actual FW models. No scratch built, no conversions, no counts as . It is either the FW model or not at all, there will be enough chances for confusion and "sour grapes" feelings by introducing units people are unfamiliar with we don't need to add in the layer of potential modeling for advantage or model confusion for advantage.

I do hope you decide to come this month or next to the GE tournament, you're a great competitor and opponent.

To the thread at large: This is looking to be a really big one again, make sure to come and bring your friends! I would love if we could make the monthly 40k tournaments as big, or bigger, than the monthly Warmahordes tournaments. No offense Dis !

Offense!? Ha! Big events are my bread and butter! If I could run a 50-player Carcassonne Tournament I would!

I think one of the reasons the WM/H events grew so large is two-fold:

1. Privateer is just better than GW at official support. 3-4 big official leagues in the store along with well-done stuff like Summer Rampage and the supplement book release events means that players see a lot of cool stuff going on and want to get involved. Combine all that with a very well-done and consistent free tournament product in the Steamroller rules, and you have a big draw for players looking to be involved in something organized, official, and competitive.

2. WM/H is cheaper to start. We all know that the minis hobby is expensive (a 'boutique' hobby, you might say), and, truth be told, I'd say someone has a much greater potential to spend more on WM/H since it's so easy to have a bunch of armies, but that smaller initial investment is a big part of the draw. Sure, one faction costs around $300 to buy in to, but most guys I know have at least two factions, and often three or more!

It's just a different game that offers a different experience. That being said, I'd say that on average both games have a similar draw. The WM/H events in the store pretty reliably bring in about 20 players. 40k events have a lot more variance, with 16-20 being the likely average. We've hosted 30+ super smashes, and 10-man friends-and-family type events.

What I'm really happy about is that, at least at my store, there's no friction or negative draw between the two groups. There's guys that play and enjoy both, guys that are primarily one and happily dabble in the other, and guys that are strictly one or the other who'll still talk shop with players of either. And I don't see the 40k events suffering when a new WM book comes out, or the WM attendance drop when something big for 40k drops.

The WM group is big and strong and healthy, and I'll take a little credit for building it up, sure. I'm really excited about 40k with 6th edition, now, too, and I'm looking forward to a lot of good stuff ahead with the game. I'm in the somewhat unique position of being able to give lots of attention to each (since it's my job, after all!) to make sure that no matter what game you prefer, you can come to my store and play it with a fun group of players.

I understand Where Yak is coming from, though. Edition changes can be very rough, and it seems like this thing you've put so much of yourself into is now moving beyond your grasp. If FFG came out with a really bad new edition of Descent, you can just keep on playing the older version you like, and if you end up dumping the game and playing Small World or Memoir '44, all you've lost is some money, the investment of which might not be that big of a deal depending on how much time you got to play anyway. It's not so easy with a game like 40k, where you've spent time building, painting, converting, learning, playing with, etc, one or more armies that are full of things that might not work like they used to anymore in a game that isn't quite what you signed up for, and it's really hard to just play an older edition; good luck finding a pick-up game, let alone a tournament or league!

Full disclosure: I was really unhappy with 40k at the end of 5th. My Orks had gathered a lot of dust, and not the 'of a thousand worlds' kind! For my part, I think 6th is awesome. As a player i get to look at everything with fresh eyes; I finally built a unit of Big Gunz for my Orks and that was a blast! And as a TO/Organizer it gives me a lot of options and tools for my events. If Iwant to run something lean and competitive I can, and I can do fun fluff/storyline stuff just as well, and everything in between. I think it's going to be a good time for the game, and hopefully the events I run will reflect that.

All that heavy headspace stuff aside, I am looking forward to another big, awesome 40k event. And I promise no crazy surprises like battlefield-wide effects thrown in at random. Yet!

Yak, thanks for your reply to my post. I can definitely count on you to have a very well thought out and constructive reply, and could even dissuade my current opinion.

With that said, being able to experience the IA rules outside of a tournament setting is pretty much impossible for me. I'm going to go on a limb and say that a decent majority won't have access to the rules to try out. Nobody in the gaming groups I'm able to frequent have the models or the books. Putting the $$ to invest in the books or models because MAYBE tournies will allow them just isn't reasonable.

Tournament settings are highly competitive, and they bring that type of player. Almost all tournaments have an entrance fee. I don't know about others, but I have no interest in paying the entrance fee to get my first experience with IA handed to me. I know of at least 4 of us in my immediate group that has passed on Comikaze all together because of FW allowances. If that's where the 'big' tournaments are headed, so be it, I'll pass on those and stick my local tournaments. I know I speak selflishly a bit, but it would be a shame to see the smaller local ones go that way as well.

As you've probably gathered from my post (especially based on your reply Yak), and from what I've talked over with others in my group, it's largely because of the lack of exposure to the IA units and rules. So, what can be done to increase exposure, outside of a tournament setting?

Lormax wrote:Yak, thanks for your reply to my post. I can definitely count on you to have a very well thought out and constructive reply, and could even dissuade my current opinion.

With that said, being able to experience the IA rules outside of a tournament setting is pretty much impossible for me. I'm going to go on a limb and say that a decent majority won't have access to the rules to try out. Nobody in the gaming groups I'm able to frequent have the models or the books. Putting the $$ to invest in the books or models because MAYBE tournies will allow them just isn't reasonable.

Tournament settings are highly competitive, and they bring that type of player. Almost all tournaments have an entrance fee. I don't know about others, but I have no interest in paying the entrance fee to get my first experience with IA handed to me. I know of at least 4 of us in my immediate group that has passed on Comikaze all together because of FW allowances. If that's where the 'big' tournaments are headed, so be it, I'll pass on those and stick my local tournaments. I know I speak selflishly a bit, but it would be a shame to see the smaller local ones go that way as well.

As you've probably gathered from my post (especially based on your reply Yak), and from what I've talked over with others in my group, it's largely because of the lack of exposure to the IA units and rules. So, what can be done to increase exposure, outside of a tournament setting?

I totally hear what you're saying and I get it, I really do. I sadly don't have the perfect answer for you except to say that exactly as you point out, you guys are unwilling to consider shelling out money on Forgeworld books and models because you're unsure that you'd be able to use them in events. The problem is that then it sounds like you guys are unwilling to attend tournaments that DO allow Imperial Armor because you're afraid of 'wasting' your entrance on game where you get beat because of some Imperial Armor unit. So then when you make your position known (I won't attend a tournament that has Imperial Armor), you help to convince tournament organizers NOT to include Imperial Armor, which helps to make sure that players are unsure as to whether or not tournaments will allow Imperial Armor, so this then helps to further convince players like yourself to not spend the money on Imperial Armor!

It is a viscous never-ending cycle that essentially punishes those players who have taken the plunge on buying and painting Imperial Armor units and would love to use them in their tournament games along with the rest of their army.

Really, I think it comes down to one person in a gaming group breaking through and buying an Imperial Armor model because they really like it. Then they start to badger their friends into allowing them into using it because they bought the darn thing and they want to play with it! Once that door is open and people start playing against one thing they realize that these are just MORE units, not something that makes the game in general melt-down and become unplayable. And once that damn is broken and the water starts to pour through then before you know it you're looking at the Forgeworld line just like you would any other models.

Honestly, in your guys' particular case I really think that you just need to step up and try out something like Comikazee just to see if you theory is true and the fact that you might play some games against some Imperial Armor will suddenly ruin your tournament experience. If you guys decide to go based on my recommendation, I'd personally be willing to comp 1/2 any of your Comikazee entry fees if after the tournament is over you feel like you had a bad experience specifically because of some Imperial Armor units.

yakface wrote:

Lormax wrote:Yak, thanks for your reply to my post. I can definitely count on you to have a very well thought out and constructive reply, and could even dissuade my current opinion.

With that said, being able to experience the IA rules outside of a tournament setting is pretty much impossible for me. I'm going to go on a limb and say that a decent majority won't have access to the rules to try out. Nobody in the gaming groups I'm able to frequent have the models or the books. Putting the $$ to invest in the books or models because MAYBE tournies will allow them just isn't reasonable.

Tournament settings are highly competitive, and they bring that type of player. Almost all tournaments have an entrance fee. I don't know about others, but I have no interest in paying the entrance fee to get my first experience with IA handed to me. I know of at least 4 of us in my immediate group that has passed on Comikaze all together because of FW allowances. If that's where the 'big' tournaments are headed, so be it, I'll pass on those and stick my local tournaments. I know I speak selflishly a bit, but it would be a shame to see the smaller local ones go that way as well.

As you've probably gathered from my post (especially based on your reply Yak), and from what I've talked over with others in my group, it's largely because of the lack of exposure to the IA units and rules. So, what can be done to increase exposure, outside of a tournament setting?

I totally hear what you're saying and I get it, I really do. I sadly don't have the perfect answer for you except to say that exactly as you point out, you guys are unwilling to consider shelling out money on Forgeworld books and models because you're unsure that you'd be able to use them in events. The problem is that then it sounds like you guys are unwilling to attend tournaments that DO allow Imperial Armor because you're afraid of 'wasting' your entrance on game where you get beat because of some Imperial Armor unit. So then when you make your position known (I won't attend a tournament that has Imperial Armor), you help to convince tournament organizers NOT to include Imperial Armor, which helps to make sure that players are unsure as to whether or not tournaments will allow Imperial Armor, so this then helps to further convince players like yourself to not spend the money on Imperial Armor!

It is a viscous never-ending cycle that essentially punishes those players who have taken the plunge on buying and painting Imperial Armor units and would love to use them in their tournament games along with the rest of their army.

Really, I think it comes down to one person in a gaming group breaking through and buying an Imperial Armor model because they really like it. Then they start to badger their friends into allowing them into using it because they bought the darn thing and they want to play with it! Once that door is open and people start playing against one thing they realize that these are just MORE units, not something that makes the game in general melt-down and become unplayable. And once that damn is broken and the water starts to pour through then before you know it you're looking at the Forgeworld line just like you would any other models.

Honestly, in your guys' particular case I really think that you just need to step up and try out something like Comikazee just to see if you theory is true and the fact that you might play some games against some Imperial Armor will suddenly ruin your tournament experience. If you guys decide to go based on my recommendation, I'd personally be willing to comp 1/2 any of your Comikazee entry fees if after the tournament is over you feel like you had a bad experience specifically because of some Imperial Armor units.

Honestly I agree with Yakface on that. You can't really know what it is like, or even if you like or hate it, if you don't at least try an IA event once. Comikaze is cheap enough that it provides a good venue to try it out. It is also large enough that you should run into someone running a FW unit at some point. At least I am pretty sure you would, obviously it isn't guaranteed.

Plus if you go to Comi-Kaze and don't win, there are loads of other types of things to do there that will make it worth your money.

The people on the fringe of not liking Forgeworld in tournaments consider what will happen if GW "officially sanctions" FW armies and units.

I put that in quotes, because I have no idea what else to call it, but the word on the street is, it's all going to be legit, and not allowing it will be like not allowing a specific codex and we have seen above that TO is all about it if GW gives the green light.

You can chose to skip 80% of the GTs in Cali, and then chose to skip the biggest and baddest RTT in So Cal because of Forgeworld, or... you can accept that your super expensive army man game just got more expensive.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:Plus if you go to Comi-Kaze and don't win, there are loads of other types of things to do there that will make it worth your money.

The people on the fringe of not liking Forgeworld in tournaments consider what will happen if GW "officially sanctions" FW armies and units.

I put that in quotes, because I have no idea what else to call it, but the word on the street is, it's all going to be legit, and not allowing it will be like not allowing a specific codex and we have seen above that TO is all about it if GW gives the green light.

You can chose to skip 80% of the GTs in Cali, and then chose to skip the biggest and baddest RTT in So Cal because of Forgeworld, or... you can accept that your super expensive army man game just got more expensive.

Nothing says you have to buy and play FW to be competitive. I feel my current Necron, GK, and SW lists are all very powerful and none of them utilize allies let alone FW units!

Although the GE Pasadena RTs are definitely the biggest and baddest in So Cal

Regarding allowing forgeworld, why is everyone so hard up on only using the official forgeworld models to represent the forgeworld unit.

As far as I am able to tell "Counts As" armies are still allowed and conversions from one kit to another are allowed, such as those who converted Tervigons out of carnifexes, as long as the TO sees the model before hand and gives his approval.

Forgeworld cannot be bought anywhere but through official GW channels so it can't be an attempt to increase sales through GE or any other store running those events.

I could see an arguement because of the possibility of confusion arrising from uncommon rules being used with a slightly different model.

However, in my experience, the Sisters White Dwarf codex is incredibly difficult to find these days and significantly more difficult to locate than just about any currently "legal" forgeworld book. I imagine a well done "Counts As" sisters army would be acceptable or a converted immolator or exorcist so long as the model was the appropriate size and was fairly obvious about what it was. I don't see how this is any different from being required to use the actual ForgeWorld models.

Considering that Forgeworld cannot be bought in LGS and therefore the TO doesn't get any kickback from requring it and no other types of units requires the actual model to be used why require the official model?

If it is to decrease confusion

Was just wondering, if sportsmanship scores can be altered a bit to decrease the potential for a large gap/misuse? Or either just make it thumbs up or thumbs down?

Don't get me wrong, the orginal scoring works well, if done right. However, if someone has bad feelings after losing a game or because a debate/argument arose in game, the probability of giving a 0 - 2 will greatly affect the scores of the other player. Also, another thing is that some other players who knows more people than others, and been playing with other people for a long time. How does this compare to playing a player who isn't as talkative or just tends to think instead of chatting with their opponent? What I'm getting at is a known player can be scored a 6 easily whereas playing a silent/thinker player can be given 4 easy as well.

Just curious what the community thinks.
Thanks and I look forward to playing in this tournament!

mikkoboi wrote:Was just wondering, if sportsmanship scores can be altered a bit to decrease the potential for a large gap/misuse? Or either just make it thumbs up or thumbs down?
Don't get me wrong, the orginal scoring works well, if done right. However, if someone has bad feelings after losing a game or because a debate/argument arose in game, the probability of giving a 0 - 2 will greatly affect the scores of the other player.

This part is, and always has been, a built in weakness of *any* Sportsmanship scoring. Yeah, the TO will inquire about zeros given, but you're right. A '2' effectively sinks a player's chance at a Best Sports award. Not much to be done about a sore player giving vindictive ratings.

James Bond beats the tar out of you, regardless of what game, and he does it with style, great sportsmanship and elegance, as 007 will do in any endeavor. The guy probably poops elegantly. Bond still ought to get the '6', seeing as, you know, it's James does everything with style like a gentleman Bond.

The petty villain gives him a '0'. Oh, well. 007 earned the '6', but hatuhs gonna h8.

mikkoboi wrote:Also, another thing is that some other players who knows more people than others, and been playing with other people for a long time. How does this compare to playing a player who isn't as talkative or just tends to think instead of chatting with their opponent? What I'm getting at is a known player can be scored a 6 easily whereas playing a silent/thinker player can be given 4 easy as well.

Last month's RTT, I played 3 strangers, not regulars from GE Pasadena. I was given Best Sports for the event. It's happened a few times; players who I haven't met before giving me high marks for Sportsmanship. I've received it playing a mix of known guys and strangers, too.

I don't think it has much to do with familiarity as much as just ... being a good sport.

As for the quiet guy thing:
Two guys, Quiet Quincy compared to Gregarious/out Going Guy, Greg:
1. Both give in to the same fudgy Line-Of-Sight call the opponent (Ollie) brings up, in the Ollie's favor
2. Both are cool enough to allow Ollie to 'take back' something or declare a charge after having completely fought another h2h
3. Both Quincy and Greg give Ollie a lot of leeway.
4. Both guys are really good sports when Ollie slow-plays and pulls some shenanigans. They point it out, but each does so very politely and nicely, giving Ollie a Face Saving way to recover, so there's no 'uncomfortable moments'.

Quincy is a quiet guy, while Greg talks pleasantly, throughout. Ollie, while being a douche, actually has more fun because of atmosphere and conversation in the game with Greg. I easily see Ollie giving Greg a 6 and Quincy a 4. It is a social game, so being more social makes it a better experience, yes?

I'd bring up McKayla Maroney's sour-puss mew when she got Silver ... I'm not sure how it fits in here, but if she was all smiles and chatty, then we'd all think a wee bit better of her attitude. Dang, man, just think if the Olympics had Sportsmanship as part of its scoring!

Brothererekose wrote:

mikkoboi wrote:Was just wondering, if sportsmanship scores can be altered a bit to decrease the potential for a large gap/misuse? Or either just make it thumbs up or thumbs down?
Don't get me wrong, the orginal scoring works well, if done right. However, if someone has bad feelings after losing a game or because a debate/argument arose in game, the probability of giving a 0 - 2 will greatly affect the scores of the other player.

This part is, and always has been, a built in weakness of *any* Sportsmanship scoring. Yeah, the TO will inquire about zeros given, but you're right. A '2' effectively sinks a player's chance at a Best Sports award. Not much to be done about a sore player giving vindictive ratings.

James Bond beats the tar out of you, regardless of what game, and he does it with style, great sportsmanship and elegance, as 007 will do in any endeavor. The guy probably poops elegantly. Bond still ought to get the '6', seeing as, you know, it's James does everything with style like a gentleman Bond.

The petty villain gives him a '0'. Oh, well. 007 earned the '6', but hatuhs gonna h8.

mikkoboi wrote:Also, another thing is that some other players who knows more people than others, and been playing with other people for a long time. How does this compare to playing a player who isn't as talkative or just tends to think instead of chatting with their opponent? What I'm getting at is a known player can be scored a 6 easily whereas playing a silent/thinker player can be given 4 easy as well.

Last month's RTT, I played 3 strangers, not regulars from GE Pasadena. I was given Best Sports for the event. It's happened a few times; players who I haven't met before giving me high marks for Sportsmanship. I've received it playing a mix of known guys and strangers, too.

I don't think it has much to do with familiarity as much as just ... being a good sport.

As for the quiet guy thing:
Two guys, Quiet Quincy compared to Gregarious/out Going Guy, Greg:
1. Both give in to the same fudgy Line-Of-Sight call the opponent (Ollie) brings up, in the Ollie's favor
2. Both are cool enough to allow Ollie to 'take back' something or declare a charge after having completely fought another h2h
3. Both Quincy and Greg give Ollie a lot of leeway.
4. Both guys are really good sports when Ollie slow-plays and pulls some shenanigans. They point it out, but each does so very politely and nicely, giving Ollie a Face Saving way to recover, so there's no 'uncomfortable moments'.

Quincy is a quiet guy, while Greg talks pleasantly, throughout. Ollie, while being a douche, actually has more fun because of atmosphere and conversation in the game with Greg. I easily see Ollie giving Greg a 6 and Quincy a 4. It is a social game, so being more social makes it a better experience, yes?

I'd bring up McKayla Maroney's sour-puss mew when she got Silver ... I'm not sure how it fits in here, but if she was all smiles and chatty, then we'd all think a wee bit better of her attitude. Dang, man, just think if the Olympics had Sportsmanship as part of its scoring!

Yeah she took that really hard, both the fall and the silver... But that is a legit emotion since and I would say she had all the right to show that sour-puss face as you have mentioned. She just lost her gold!!

That aside, the way I interpret your response is that it should be in and it is fine as it is, with no changes/alterations needed. I assume this since I really didn't get a direct answer aside from the humorous examples you had laid out.

I get it that you got Best Sports several times. That's good for you, but what I'm talking about is the overall score being affected by numeric Sportsmanship scores. In my opinion it would be better to have a thumbs up/thumbs down or 0/1 for the sake of Overall Scoring, and separate the 0/2/4/6 for the Best Sports.

You are right that it is a social game, but when the social aspect greatly affects the Overall Scores, it becomes subjective. On your first paragraph you mentioned that there's nothing to be done against a sore player giving a low sportsman score against his winning opponent, in my opinion, there is. The suggestions that I have thought up above, I think makes it more streamlined and that issue about someone giving a low Sportsman Score can be eliminated in terms of the Overall Score.

That's all I can say. I am merely expressing an opinion and you may not agree to it, but that's just how I think about it. Again, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not bashing the tournament scoring, and I'd still play because it's just a lot of fun. I just thought I'd throw that out there for people to talk about.

Thanks.

In my experience with thumbs up / thumbs down scoring for sportsmanship, it's just not a big enough deal. After many events trying lots of different scoring styles, I've come to the conclusion that I want the Sportsmanship score to matter.

In the case of an 0/1 scale, douchemanbro goes 3-0 leveraging every janky thing he can get away with that won't get him outright DQ'd, and each of his opponents zero him out on Sports. So he's down three points. Which means there needs to be another guy who went 3-0 with equivalent battle points to even be in the running to keep TFG out of the top spot.

In the case of a broader scale, TFG goes 3-0 but gets 2s and 0s from his opponent for Sports, meaning that another player who went 3-0 *and* was a good opponent has a much better chance of overtaking TFG in in the final tally.

Every system has its lumps, the system outlined in the format above has the lumps I'm most comfortable with. As for being worried about low scores due to a more reserved demeanor, I have never seen anyone in my events get less than a four for sportsmanship for anything other than having a relatively rough game, and I've entered every sportsmanship score that's ever been scribbled on a sheet at this store! I've tried to make sure that the tournament crowd around here knows that the sportsmanship score is about how the player's attitude affects the game, not the player themselves. If someone's attitude or actions result in a bad game that a player isn't happy with, then I expect to see a lower score. If the game is a fine time with no significant rough spots, its usually a 4 or 6 regardless of how the players conducted themselves specifically. That being said, simple stuff like introducing yourself with handshake at the beginning of the game goes a long way, and if its something that's come up in the past, why not mention it in the beginning, that you tend to be on the quiet side during the game so you can concentrate, and its not because you're trying to be standoffish.

Just my take, though.

disdainful wrote:In my experience with thumbs up / thumbs down scoring for sportsmanship, it's just not a big enough deal. After many events trying lots of different scoring styles, I've come to the conclusion that I want the Sportsmanship score to matter.

In the case of an 0/1 scale, douchemanbro goes 3-0 leveraging every janky thing he can get away with that won't get him outright DQ'd, and each of his opponents zero him out on Sports. So he's down three points. Which means there needs to be another guy who went 3-0 with equivalent battle points to even be in the running to keep TFG out of the top spot.

In the case of a broader scale, TFG goes 3-0 but gets 2s and 0s from his opponent for Sports, meaning that another player who went 3-0 *and* was a good opponent has a much better chance of overtaking TFG in in the final tally.

Every system has its lumps, the system outlined in the format above has the lumps I'm most comfortable with. As for being worried about low scores due to a more reserved demeanor, I have never seen anyone in my events get less than a four for sportsmanship for anything other than having a relatively rough game, and I've entered every sportsmanship score that's ever been scribbled on a sheet at this store! I've tried to make sure that the tournament crowd around here knows that the sportsmanship score is about how the player's attitude affects the game, not the player themselves. If someone's attitude or actions result in a bad game that a player isn't happy with, then I expect to see a lower score. If the game is a fine time with no significant rough spots, its usually a 4 or 6 regardless of how the players conducted themselves specifically. That being said, simple stuff like introducing yourself with handshake at the beginning of the game goes a long way, and if its something that's come up in the past, why not mention it in the beginning, that you tend to be on the quiet side during the game so you can concentrate, and its not because you're trying to be standoffish.

Just my take, though.

Fair enough. I respect the system and It's not a problem at all. It's just one of those things that are constatnly being talked about in tournaments and when trying to figure out formats.

Thanks to those who responded and I'll see you guys saturday!

Based on feedback from here on Dakka, conversations in the store, and response from our events page on Facebook, it has been decided to include Mysterious Objectives. Mysterious Terrain is still out.

The OP has been updated to reflect this, and includes a link to the Tournament Rulings thread here on Dakka for all the rulings on known issues.

Getting close now, looking forward to seeing everyone Saturday!

How are you ruling Vibro Cannons and flyers

Ppl quote the rule in the BRB that shots resolved against flyers must be done as snap shots and artillery weapons cannot fire snap shots...however...

Vibro cannons are not blast/template weapons (which is important to point out) and they do not pick a target to roll to hit, things that the line pass through are simply hit indiscriminately and if a flyer happens to be in the line, so be it.

IMO, specific codex rules>BRB rules and in this case I think Vibro Cannons can hit flyers but I want your ruling on it to decide if I bring any at all if I go Sat =).

mortetvie wrote:How are you ruling Vibro Cannons and flyers

Ppl quote the rule in the BRB that shots resolved against flyers must be done as snap shots and artillery weapons cannot fire snap shots...however...

Vibro cannons are not blast/template weapons (which is important to point out) and they do not pick a target to roll to hit, things that the line pass through are simply hit indiscriminately and if a flyer happens to be in the line, so be it.

IMO, specific codex rules>BRB rules and in this case I think Vibro Cannons can hit flyers but I want your ruling on it to decide if I bring any at all if I go Sat =).

Also posted here in this forum, and answers this question:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/467314.page

Woot, thanks for the link.

I will be attending this glorious event. I don't really know how to play this game though, so bear with me.

Have fun all, not going to be able to make the trip again. I predict Necrons win.

BladeWalker wrote:Have fun all, not going to be able to make the trip again. I predict Necrons win.

I hope so

Too bad you can't make it, hopefully see you at the next one!

Are we allowed to adjust our Army List between games? E.g. Have 150 points of alternates that can be swapped in / out? thanks!

chewish wrote:Are we allowed to adjust our Army List between games? E.g. Have 150 points of alternates that can be swapped in / out? thanks!

No, most tournaments force one list for the event. It is best to Assume as much unless the rules explicitly state otherwise.

chewish wrote:Are we allowed to adjust our Army List between games? E.g. Have 150 points of alternates that can be swapped in / out? thanks!

Having been going to GE's tourneys for more than a year, no. Same list for all three games, TAC being my best advice.

chewish wrote:Are we allowed to adjust our Army List between games? E.g. Have 150 points of alternates that can be swapped in / out? thanks!

I've been playing in GE 40k tournaments regularly (6-10 out of 12 a year) since the store opened and started running them. They have never allowed this so I would assume no.

chewish wrote:Are we allowed to adjust our Army List between games? E.g. Have 150 points of alternates that can be swapped in / out? thanks!

I have been to every 6th edition tournament that GE has held and you have to play the same list every round.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

BladeWalker wrote:Have fun all, not going to be able to make the trip again. I predict Necrons win.

I predict that you are wrong in your prediction.

Official confirmation: everyone above is correct. One List to Rule Them All!

It's never been a part of the format to allow a 'sideboard' so to speak of alt models. That being said, one of the ideas I've been mulling over is to utilize the new Allies rules in a format that allows players an alternate list that includes allies that may be played once per tournament.

The basic idea is that you'd have your 'Primaris Force' which would be an army chosen solely from your codex as normal (i.e, a 1750-point SM army), and then your 'Secundus Force', a variant of that list that included an Allied Detachment (say, SM with Allied IG for more firepower). During the event, you can elect to use the variant list once (assuming a 3-round, 1-day event), after you and your opponent have exchanged lists and read the mission.

It's a borrow from WM tourneys, where players bring 2 lists to each event and pick one before each round after seeing their opponent's lists and the mission. It's in place primarily to avoid the match-up issues you can experience in that game that are absolutely crippling.

Before anyone freaks out, you don't get to look at your opponent's lists, see what he's going to take, and then cherry-pick the one of yours that is best suited, each player reveals their list for the game simultaneously.

The other option would be that you have both lists available all day, with the possible restriction that you have to play each one at least once.

A two-list format was never really suited for 40k due to the logistics of moving so many potential models around an event, but the Allies addition means that its more of a possibility, since you'd just have your regular army to cart around, along with a handful of alternate Allied models.

Obviously I won't be doing anything like this anytime soon, but it's something I'm interested in trying out at some point once 6th has settled in a bit more.

In any case, tomorrow is one list only, no alternate models, and its going to be here in a flash! Somebody bring donuts!

Does anyone have a Hellion and 10 Dark Eldar Warrior models with one Splinter Cannon I can borrow for tomorrow? =)

We are under way! Round one is about halfway over and it's a packed house. We got 28 this time, which is two more than the last one!

Here's the army breakdown:

Tyranids x6
Imperial Guard x5
Space Wolves x3
Dark Eldar
Space Marines x3
Grey Knights x3
Necrons x4
Eldar x2
Chaos Marines

I've been compiling a list of all the noteworthy questions that have arisen so far, which will be posted and added to the rulings thread once I've had time to organize and format them properly.

Had a great time. Congradulations to all the winners. Thanks for running the tourney.

Yep, great tournament as always Dis! It was interesting to see that in the final break down of Overall points I was 2nd, only 8 behind Ish, even thought I lost my 1st game! Fully Painted ftw apparently, now if only I could have beaten Blackmoor and his dreaded Draigowing round 1...

6th is a fantastic edition, I think the fact that so many players come out, and the same ones continue, to come out for these events speaks volumes about the edition. At this stage in 5th we were struggling hard just to keep 5 tables full!

I posted up my synopsis, which includes a little video, on capture and control.

http://www.captureandcontrol.com/2012/08/40k-6th-edition-tournament-report.html

Great time with huge turn out, i cant believe how many nid players there were. I went 2-1 with my improved dual flyrant and 9 hive guard list.

Had a blast. Was my first tournament but am looking forward to more in the future.

Thanks to everyone for coming! It was a blast and great fun, and I'm glad to hear guys had a good time.

Congrats to the winners:

Overall - Ismael
General - Andy
Army - Paul
Sportsman - Scott

and to Chris and Evan for winning the 'shortest game' and 'epic tale' awards.

I'll post up the full finish for those who are interested when I get back to the shop tomorrow. We'll be doing it all again in September on the 8th, so mark your calendars!

Thanks for another fun tournament Dis and everyone that came, see everyone in October.

This tournament taught me that I need more lascannons. And that fliers are really good if you can roll over a 3 to get them on the board. Also, That nid list with Doom and the zoanthropes is awesome.

P.S. Andy's a cheater.
P.P.S Grats to everyone that won.

Dok wrote:This tournament taught me that I need more lascannons. And that fliers are really good if you can roll over a 3 to get them on the board. Also, That nid list with Doom and the zoanthropes is awesome.

P.S. Andy's a cheater.
P.P.S Grats to everyone that won.

and

Last edition was Missile Launchers this edition will need a mix of ML and LC. Str 9 is a lot better in this edition primarily because it is normally accompanied by AP2 or better.

Any updates on what the winning armies/lists were?

Stoffer wrote:Any updates on what the winning armies/lists were?

Overall- SW LF and Razorspam with Aegis Defense line as well.
Best General- IG

Best general was running mech guard. X3 vets in chimeras, pbs in chinera and a company command squad in a chimera. As well as 2 vendettas and a pair of exterminators.

My mech guard is pretty standard, no room at 1500 for manticores. One small correction - executioners not exterminators. No qualms about sharing anything, let me know and I'll email you a copy of the list. Also i cheat pretty rampantly as Dok suggests, I've found that D10s really help me hit better

Tuff Love wrote:My mech guard is pretty standard, no room at 1500 for manticores. One small correction - executioners not exterminators. No qualms about sharing anything, let me know and I'll email you a copy of the list. Also i cheat pretty rampantly as Dok suggests, I've found that D10s really help me hit better

I prefer to just roll twice the amount of dice I am supposed to and then pick which results I want. Comes in handy.

If your opponent calls you on your D10's just dice it off!

4+ I get to use D10's!!!

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:If your opponent calls you on your D10's just dice it off!

4+ I get to use D10's!!!

Ha! I think my Space Marines are BS6 and have a 2+ re-rollable invulnerable save. Do you agree? You don't?! Better dice it off; 4+ I'm right!

On a serious note, here's the breakdowns:

Overall (including BPs, Painting, and Sportsmanship) scores:
1. Ismael C. - Space Wolves (88) - Best Overall
2. John W. - Necrons (80)
3. Michael S. - Eldar / Dark Eldar (78)
4. Ken K. - Imperial Guard (77)
5. Erick K. - Imperial Guard (76)
6. Andy V. - Imperial Guard (74) - Best General
7. Andrew W. - Tyranids (74)
8. Josh S. - Grey Knights (74)
9. Allan H. - Grey Knights (73)
10. Paul B. - Imperial Fists (72) - Best Army
11.Chris T. - Imperial Guard (70)
12. Ryan D. - Space Wolves (69)
13. Phil T. - Tyranids (65)
14. Anthony G. - Tyranids (63)
15. Kory G. - Dark Eldar (61)
16. Dean H. - Tyranids (59)
17. Chris H. - Dark Angels (58)
18. Danny R. - Tyranids (57)
19. Steve M. - Tyranids (55)
20. Chris M. - Necrons (54)
21. Evan B. - Chaos Marines (53)
22. Scott E. - Imperial Guard (49)
23. Chris A. - Grey Knights (49)
24. Scott S. - Imperial Fist All Bikes (47) - Best Sportsman
25. Justin S. - Eldar (46)
26. Scott W. - Necrons (45)
27. Casey H. - Space Wolves (43)
28. Daryl P. - Necrons (39)

And Battle Points Only:

1. Ismael C. (58)
2. Andy V. (56)
3. Andrew W. (55)
4. Chris T. (55)
5. Michael S. (45)
6. Phil T. (44)
7. Josh S. (43)
8. Ken K. (42)
9. John W. (42)
10. Erick K. (41)
11. Allan H. (41)
12. Ryan D. (40)
13. Dean H. (38)
14. Evan B. (31)
15. Chris M. (31)
16. Anthony G. (30)
17. Kory G. (28)
18. Chris H. (27)
19. Paul B. (27)
20. Danny R. (27)
21. Chris A. (26)
22. Steve M. (26)
23. Scott E. (26)
24. Scott W. (26)
25. Daryl P. (15)
26. Justin S. (14)
27. Casey H. (13)
28. Scott S. (12)

Thanks again to everyone for coming! Stay tuned for the next one in September on the 8th! I spoke with some of the guys after the event about the possibility of upping the points level to 1750 and there was some reticence to increasing the points, with the rationale that we're still ironing out the kinks in 6th and more points could cause games to have a harder time reaching a conclusion. I'm not necessarily convinced that we need to stay at 1500 for another month... I've talked to a few guys who are starting to look ahead to larger games and have implored me to increase the points. What do you all think?

disdainful wrote:

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:If your opponent calls you on your D10's just dice it off!

4+ I get to use D10's!!!

Ha! I think my Space Marines are BS6 and have a 2+ re-rollable invulnerable save. Do you agree? You don't?! Better dice it off; 4+ I'm right!

On a serious note, here's the breakdowns:

Overall (including BPs, Painting, and Sportsmanship) scores:
1. Ismael C. - Space Wolves (88) - Best Overall
2. John W. - Necrons (80)
3. Michael S. - Eldar / Dark Eldar (78)
4. Ken K. - Imperial Guard (77)
5. Erick K. - Imperial Guard (76)
6. Andy V. - Imperial Guard (74) - Best General
7. Andrew W. - Tyranids (74)
8. Josh S. - Grey Knights (74)
9. Allan H. - Grey Knights (73)
10. Paul B. - Imperial Fists (72) - Best Army
11.Chris T. - Imperial Guard (70)
12. Ryan D. - Space Wolves (69)
13. Phil T. - Tyranids (65)
14. Anthony G. - Tyranids (63)
15. Kory G. - Dark Eldar (61)
16. Dean H. - Tyranids (59)
17. Chris H. - Dark Angels (58)
18. Danny R. - Tyranids (57)
19. Steve M. - Tyranids (55)
20. Chris M. - Necrons (54)
21. Evan B. - Chaos Marines (53)
22. Scott E. - Imperial Guard (49)
23. Chris A. - Grey Knights (49)
24. Scott S. - Imperial Fist All Bikes (47) - Best Sportsman
25. Justin S. - Eldar (46)
26. Scott W. - Necrons (45)
27. Casey H. - Space Wolves (43)
28. Daryl P. - Necrons (39)

And Battle Points Only:

1. Ismael C. (58)
2. Andy V. (56)
3. Andrew W. (55)
4. Chris T. (55)
5. Michael S. (45)
6. Phil T. (44)
7. Josh S. (43)
8. Ken K. (42)
9. John W. (42)
10. Erick K. (41)
11. Allan H. (41)
12. Ryan D. (40)
13. Dean H. (38)
14. Evan B. (31)
15. Chris M. (31)
16. Anthony G. (30)
17. Kory G. (28)
18. Chris H. (27)
19. Paul B. (27)
20. Danny R. (27)
21. Chris A. (26)
22. Steve M. (26)
23. Scott E. (26)
24. Scott W. (26)
25. Daryl P. (15)
26. Justin S. (14)
27. Casey H. (13)
28. Scott S. (12)

Thanks again to everyone for coming! Stay tuned for the next one in September on the 8th! I spoke with some of the guys after the event about the possibility of upping the points level to 1750 and there was some reticence to increasing the points, with the rationale that we're still ironing out the kinks in 6th and more points could cause games to have a harder time reaching a conclusion. I'm not necessarily convinced that we need to stay at 1500 for another month... I've talked to a few guys who are starting to look ahead to larger games and have implored me to increase the points. What do you all think?

Congrats to all winners.
Thanks for hosting Dis.

Regarding the points, in my opinion, maybe giving it about a couple or months more until all kinks have been straightened would be a good idea before increasing to 1,750. But that's just me. Maybe you can get a survey as to how many people finished the games before turn 5 and base it on that. The more people struggling to finish the game, the less of a priority it is to increase max points. Unless game duration is increased by another 15 mins.

Then again, I'd always wanted to field more stuff. But as of right now, it is what it is... please let us know at least 2 weeks before if you decide to bump it up to 1,750 pts.

Thanks!

More points would definitely increase the possibility for allies. I'm looking at running a BA/DA AngelBros list that kinda needs more points to work effectively. But I won't be at the next one anyway most likely. I'm gonna have a mouth full of blood and a head full of Vicodin.

My position is that it seemed like a number of tables kept finishing late. This is mostly due to all the pre game shenninanigans that 6th requires, but until people become acustomed to it I recommend keeping the game at 1,500.

If you do decide to increase it I echo the previous request to give a few weeks heads up.

walledin wrote:My position is that it seemed like a number of tables kept finishing late. This is mostly due to all the pre game shenninanigans that 6th requires, but until people become acustomed to it I recommend keeping the game at 1,500.

If you do decide to increase it I echo the previous request to give a few weeks heads up.

I agree with keeping it at 1500 for the moment. My rationale is simple. There were games, including some of the "top table" games that did not reach completion on time. Until that is rectified at 1500, or certain players learn the rules and stop slow playing (you know who you are), then we can't really move on to higher points levels. Had the "slow" players who were "unfamiliar" with the rules not finished so highly in the BP standings I wouldn't care as much. I was firmly in the camp of let's go to 1750 or 1850 but Saturday changed my mind. I think 1 more month at 1500 is necessary. Just my $0.02, if we do go higher then I would also appreciate several weeks heads up to play higher point games in 6th since I haven't played a single game past 1500.

I don't even know what 6th edition is and I finished all my games on time. I was trying to tap my dreadknight for colorless mana!

Dok wrote:I don't even know what 6th edition is and I finished all my games on time. I was trying to tap my dreadknight for colorless mana!

So that's what you were doing!

I have to cast my sol ring somehow...

I talked a bit about my impressions of the tournament format and how my Grey Knights held up here http://www.3forint.com/2012/08/my-first-6th-edition-tournament.html
As always, it's tough to field grey knights at 1500 points. If the dice go cold, you start losing effectiveness really fast.