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

Reecius wrote:@Janthkin

2 hours 15minutes for 1500pts is plenty of time, I doubt we will have any issues. That is exactly why we are giving so much time at low points levels, for people to acclimate to the new core rules, any FW stuff, etc.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I've helped run the Gladiator at Adepticon for the past couple years; I've seen how long it takes people to read FW rules (much less understand) in a tournament scene. And I expect you're getting pretty quick with your 6e games, given significant practice; I'm not playing up to my normal speed with my Tyranids yet, and I don't even have complex units with LoS! to worry about.

And yes, we are allowing people to scratch build stuff. That gets around the arguments of not being able to afford FW.

And, if someone slaps some multi-meltas and a thunderfire cannon barrel on a Land Raider and says it's an Achilles, so what? Close enough to the real thing.

A lot of the Characters in the books such as the Baddab war, don't have a model and can be easily modeled up with conversions.

If someone has a normal drop pod and tries to use it as a Lucius, we'll say no go (just as it says in the tournament guidelines). We will not allow abuses in modeling. So don't worry about that.

Yak's point was that allowing FW in tournaments lets people use their really cool models. You're not requiring that the people actually HAVE the really cool models to use; that makes Yak's point somewhat less telling.

But on the whole, relax! You guys have to make some decisions right now, where most of us are living in hypothetical land. I do appreciate the chance to offer feedback before you've set everything in stone. When you're ready, pick your direction, post it, and see what happens. Much like our prior discussions of desirable venues, you're not going to please everyone all the time, and trying will just cost you (more) hair.

$.02 as we've gone through the final mission packet production for the NOVA:

One of the more frustrating components of KP in the past was less the imbalance of grots = paladins, and more the very arbitrary way in which close fought games would end ... i.e., "I need 1 kp to win? There's dangerous key units in front of me? I'm going to shoot that there Rhino." Wins "by 1" were always a frustrating thing about the KP game, in terms of feeling like the results were meaningful.

While I rather admire / like the simplification of old school victory points into "round-up" points, there's still the nagging annoyance of .... close games being determined by killing a couple grots or a trukk or something. I'd encourage some kind of margin (a la original VP in RTT's/etc.) for the difference between winning such a mission, and tying one. Having it be all or nothing off a single point becomes even more exacerbated in "feel" (in test, as we've fiddled with this one, also) than it otherwise would.

Reecius, we were discussing this in a broader sense, not just for the BAO... It's fine that you've already made your decision but you have been talking about 6th ed in general so it naturally led to this. I think you're over reacting a bit. A lot of fine points have been made, not just "bring the rules" which is a baseline. Your saying no one noticed you had that requirement makes me wonder if you fully read the above posts!

Imo it's a great discussion, and I'm happy you opened it. I think discussing this is the first step and you should actually be happy about it. And certainly, there are going to be a range of views, and one event into 6e won't settle this... nor should it, since what works for one TO might not for another.

But again, it's a healthy discussion, chill out man . Where's that SoCal vibe when I need it!

Janthkin wrote:
But on the whole, relax! You guys have to make some decisions right now, where most of us are living in hypothetical land. I do appreciate the chance to offer feedback before you've set everything in stone. When you're ready, pick your direction, post it, and see what happens. Much like our prior discussions of desirable venues, you're not going to please everyone all the time, and trying will just cost you (more) hair.

Hahaha, burn! I may be losing my hair, but I like to think that I am energy efficient! My bald spots are solar panels, I am warmed by the sun! Being from California, we like to be as green as possible! hahahaha

@Thread

Ah OK, I admit, I lost my temper, and you guys are right, I need to chill out! hahaha, sorry about that. Sometimes it gets hard to stand up to criticisms on multiple fronts (we have lots of interactive media we operate in) when you feel like you'e repeating yourself over and over.

Sorry guys. You're input here seriously is valuable as you guys really do know what you're talking about and help us to see things from perspectives we had not considered.

@MVBrandt

I can see that argument, for sure. The way we get around it in our format is to minimize the impact KP/VP have by having multiple victory conditions (as you do). My only concern when you need a KP differential to win, is when you come up against the ultra low KP armies in a KP match (Draigowing) and you essentially have to table them to win.

I understand both sides of the argument and I think both are valid concerns. Honestly, I don't see a "best" answer, merely the lesser of evils. I think the closest thing to a best answer is to come up with a system that you and your attendees are happy with and then stay consistent in order to allow players to anticipate what is to come and plan accordingly.

Reece - the flipside to that Draigo argument is they also have a much harder time winning. In "standard" KP a Draigo list can get a KP or three - your eaiest ones - even if you try desperately to hide the easy ones (reserves eventually have to come on), and you have to completely eliminate large units to counteract this ... something hard to guarantee full accomplishment of (especially as tourneys have more and more of appropriate levels of LOS blocking terrain for the 5th/6th TLOS environment).

In this situation, a Draigo type list has to fully commit itself to the game to earn enough KP to actually WIN on KP, whereas it is still risking itself with too much of a heavy-handed build in broader objectives. Still, just $.02

PS - I agree completely with your last sentiment. There's NEVER a best tournament format, nor should people strive for one. There's the best for any given individual, and for some individuals (or many) the "best" is "variety." Just adding my own feedback, as we've playtested out a lot of KP variants.

What we'll probably stick with is tertiary suppression of KP as a goal, and maintenance of the 3-margin for it, possibly with occasional missions where the margin increases, making Points the de-facto Tertiary.

Cheers for the thoughtful responses, guys (both yak and Reecius). I look forward to all the sweet events coming up through the rest of this year! And seeing how 6th ends up translating to large tournaments, and what the armies look like that do well at them .

@MVBrandt.

When your event is over, could you post online your opinion on the positives and the negatives of what transpired using the new rule set. Time constraints is one of my major concerns with 6th at Higher point levels.


Thanks.

Adam LongWalker wrote:

I have already posted my situations dealing with people with FW, models. My comment still stands.

In my case I will enforce the person making a copy of the rule set of the FW model in question If I decide to bring them in the tournaments I run. I own many of the FW books. That is not the problem. The problem is that people including myself have been stung by people using FW models without complete reference material in a tournament. Too many people on the interwebs have made this same complaint to the point that it is a valid concern.

That is the nature of the beast for some people to win at all costs. Any angle that they can get. One angle is the use of FW models without the relevant information to give to your opponent or TO in question.

That is how I am going to deal with FW and in my case there is no exceptions. No printout/copy of the rule set for FW equates to no model getting into that tournament.

As I have posted previously Reecus's format satisfies most of my complaints and am interested to see how it all goes down with his tournament.

This is purely a rules logistics issue for the tournament, and it would similarly apply if a player didn't bring a codex for the army he's playing and his opponent is unfamiliar with the codex and asks to see a copy of the rules.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a tournament absolutely requiring players that are using Imperial Armor units to come with a copy of the rules for their units and to disallow them from using said units if they don't have those rules on them.

Simply enforcing that rule will solve this problem completely, but ultimately this has nothing to do with IA unbalancing the game, which is the primary reason people tend to claim that these rules should not be allowed.

Janthkin wrote:
I can tell you that my primary concern about including FW rules stems from Adepticon (both the TT and the Gladiator, from playing against, playing with, and helping to run a tournament), and it's solely time-driven. Adding FW units makes games take longer. People aren't used to seeing them, so have to read the rules beforehand. They take longer thinking about how to deal with the FW units. Often, the owning player takes longer, because he's not as familiar with the unit. And given how hard it is to play a game to its natural conclusion under time pressure in any tournament, much less 6e right now, I'd rather not have to deal with the complications.

But to that argument I'd say that its a self-fulfilling issue. Probably the main reason tournament players are unfamiliar with IA units is because they don't see them in most tournaments and then the reason they're not allowed in tournaments is because players are unfamiliar with the IA rules?

Again, that problem only tends to exist as long as the myth about Imperial Armor being unsuitable persists. Once that's dropped and these units are allowed in more tournament games then people will get familiar with them and then this whole issue will become increasingly less prevalent.

And on top of that, I really do think there is a massive difference between the IA units allowed in regular games and those that are found in the Gladiator (the big boys). The latter really have much more complex rules that absolutely take more time to work through if you're unfamiliar with them...but 95% of the regular IA units don't really have rules that take more than a cursory glance to comprehend.

I am still strongly against Forge World and I think allowing these units will likely mess up the game. That being said I am certainly down with seeing how it goes-- I just won't participate (or at least won't play to win) in the first few events that allow Forge World stuff. Overall, I'd be happy to be proven wrong, as I have several Forge World models that I would like to field myself, but I really do think that allowing this stuff in regular tournaments will not prove to be good for the game.