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.

Valhallan42nd wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:I've been dicking around on Army Builder for the last few days pretty constantly when I'm not at work and I've found allies rather hard to break and keep a solid core to an army.

Same here. One decent troops and an HQ tend to be at least 200-400 points, and that's a heavy price to pay just to add some other additional unit to an army. Then factor in the recent FAQs, which nerf many cross-codex rules sharing gambits...

I say "mono codex" for the most part.

I got to agree. I have been trying to add a chaos marine detachment to my orks and I can't get out the door for less than 600 points... but I feel like all 3 units added by allies would bring large beneficial additions to my army but sacrifices core aspects of my existing army.

I think I am going to do orks only for the GT but use an ally for the Narrative or vice versa (if I can get some models done in time)

Forums up for 6ed/NOVA6ed questions:
http://nova.tlsconline.com/index.php

Mike, I realise it's probably too soon to the tournament to be proposing this, but how would you feel on lowering the points level of NOVA to say 1750? This does 3 majorly beneficial things and one other side thing:

1) Ends the controversy over using 1 FOC as opposed to 2. 1750 with one FOC is alot more straightforward than 1999+1 (I saw there was an argument on the NOVA forum going on about this).
2) Games finishing on time. With an entirely new ruleset, it's going to be fairly hard to get 2000 point games done. 1750 might be more manageable. People couldn't get games done last year at 2000 points with a rulebook that'd been out for several years. This one'll have been out for 2 months.
3) Lowering possibility of allies and fortification shenanigans. At lower points, you simply won't have as many points to spend on taking the more ridiculous combinations while still having a solid primary army.
4) Many people I've heard from are starting new armies for 6th ed and thus NOVA. This would make it much easier to build and paint said armies.

What are your thoughts on this?

My thought: No matter how well you advertise such a change, someone will not get the memo.

I'd bet good money that there will be at least one person thinking the event will be held as a 5th ed tourney. A change to 1750 this close to go time, while a good idea, will bite someone in the ass. And while you might say that a person can just edit their list on the fly, we both know how well that goes in reality.

I'd prefer it to stay 2K, personally. 1999 wouldn't kill me, but 2K (i.e. MVB's "1999 + 1") is a nice round number

As Mike points out on the forum, it literally makes no sense that armies are fine with 1 FOC at 1999, but adding another point somehow requires a whole 2nd FOC.

GW should've scaled it, as someone suggested: every next 500 points opens up one extra slot in each category, or the like.

So, imo there's no "controversy" about allowing 2 FOC... I highly doubt we'll see any tournies doing so anytime soon, other than perhaps something like the Gladiator at Adepticon...

Tyranids allying with themselves is an interesting idea, but imo not needed. The fewer changes to the base rules at this stage, the better!

Nova Staff,

I understand that the grand tourney is garnering time and effort right now... However,

Is the narrative still 2000 pts., single force org, IA approved allowed, etc...

Are lists still due by the 31st of July?

Are we to include if we would prefer the casual or competitive setting?

Thanks...

Widows - I'll get answers to that, and a lot more info about the Narrative scoring mechanisms and flow by - at the latest - early next week.

The Narrative is actually a REALLY exciting focal point for me and several others this year ... and I actually encourage EVERY GT attendee to play in it. You'll get to play more games, you'll get to play peers, and you'll get to play on some of the BEST LOOKING terrain pieces literally anywhere, fully LED lit and everything.

Plus the story is pretty cool.

In fact, just to re-link that while I get back to work here ... here's the intro teaser newsletter (read first) and teaser story (Earth perspecitve) for the Narrative.

Teaser "newsletter"
http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Newsletter-v3.pdf


And story:
http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-Narrative-Begins-7-2-12.pdf

Ugh. If you were to scale it down, 1850 and not 1750. Evan Lougheed came up with the 1750 number just to mess with people, not for any "scientific" reason such as game time etc. It's an awful point level....Every single army I've ever made at 1750 has lacked something, but once you bounce to 1850 it's all good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Widowsbane wrote:Nova Staff,

I understand that the grand tourney is garnering time and effort right now... However,

Is the narrative still 2000 pts., single force org, IA approved allowed, etc...

Are lists still due by the 31st of July?

Are we to include if we would prefer the casual or competitive setting?

Thanks...

Wait what???? We're supposed to send lists in???????

Only for narrative. Matches are tuned to rough list and attitude/play goals parity.

MVBrandt wrote:
In fact, just to re-link that while I get back to work here ... here's the intro teaser newsletter (read first) and teaser story (Earth perspecitve) for the Narrative.

Teaser "newsletter"
http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Newsletter-v3.pdf


And story:
http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-Narrative-Begins-7-2-12.pdf

This is really neat! Sounds like some xenos are going to show up and wreck up the joint.

FYI -

We'll formalize with Primers tomorrow most likely, but here's what we're looking at presently:

GT:
Allies - Yes
Fortifications - Aegis, Bastion ONLY (Fortress/Skyfire illegal due to logistics)
Points - 1999/1 (or, 1997/3)
Mysterious TERRAIN (i.e. Forests/Water Features) - NO

Here are a couple of things we're playtesting, but NOT decided on:
Mysterious Objectives:
Option A) - Standard, per rulebook
Option B) - Revealed at event, fixed as all of one type each round (i.e., Round 1 they're Skyfire, Round 2 they're Sabotaged, etc., but attendees would not know until event-time, so would not be able to tune based upon mission pairings)
Option C) No mysterious objectives at all

Option B is currently being tested

...........................

Warlord Traits
Option A) Standard per the rulebook
Option B) You select 2 of the 3 branches, and roll ONCE on each, then pick which of the 2 results you'd like to use (so, cannot roll twice on one of the trees)

Currently playtesting Option B



The NARRATIVE, with its three hour rounds, and pairings based upon list strength and competitive bent of the players, will be rolling with more like the following:

Points - 2,000; Additional Detachments legal
All random effects standard where applicable (i.e. Warlord Traits, Mysterious Objectives, Mysterious Terrain, etc.)
Allies - Yes
Forgeworld - Yes, no Super Heavies, always Ask before committing to any potential questionables

Input and feedback continuously welcome

MVBrandt wrote:GT:
Allies - Yes
Fortifications - Aegis, Bastion ONLY (Fortress/Skyfire illegal due to logistics)
Points - 1999/1 (or, 1997/3)
Mysterious TERRAIN (i.e. Forests/Water Features) - NO

Here are a couple of things we're playtesting, but NOT decided on:
Mysterious Objectives:
Option A) - Standard, per rulebook
Option B) - Revealed at event, fixed as all of one type each round (i.e., Round 1 they're Skyfire, Round 2 they're Sabotaged, etc., but attendees would not know until event-time, so would not be able to tune based upon mission pairings)
Option C) No mysterious objectives at all

Option B is currently being tested

...........................

Warlord Traits
Option A) Standard per the rulebook
Option B) You select 2 of the 3 branches, and roll ONCE on each, then pick which of the 2 results you'd like to use (so, cannot roll twice on one of the trees)

Currently playtesting Option B

I think all of this is spot-on with what I'd like to see at the event... so, awesome . Option B for both items still being considered look quite reasonable to me.

I am partial to C, then B. Just my opinion/vote.

B & B look good. Though honestly I think straight book Mysterious Objectives would be fine. Especially since, with pre-measuring movement, you'll almost never be forced to get hit by a booby-trapped objective.

We may GO with straight Mysterious. We really are trying to LIMIT the changes this first time around.

We're also ensuring that the Narrative (which is designed to appeal to competitive gamers as well, and doesn't require a different points size) is almost identical to the book with very little exception (if any), so that people can play unfiltered 6th as well, across 3 hour rounds.

Mike since it appears that FW that has the 40K stamp may be built for regular play do you guys intend on allowing these units?

Until GW says FW is no longer generally opponent permission / out there (and I know there are rumors that's going to happen), I can't jump the gun on the GT and legalize it.

That said, FW is totally legal for the Narrative. Give me a day or two and we'll have an answer/update for Trios as well.

Hi Mike

Is it a fair assumption that your rules determinations for the GT (allies, forts, etc) extend to the Invitational?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
Nate

It is. We'll have more formal everything within the next 24-48 hours.

My brother is planning on bringing a counts-as army, is there an official way to make sure it gets approved?

I would start by PM'ing MVBrandt with specifics (several good, large pictures, a description of the army and conversions, and what it counts as... particularly addressing if base size and weapons are correctly represented, as they will need to be).

This is what I did, and I got a clear answer on what to do with my counts-as models (knights counts-as dreadnoughts) . Now just have to finish painting the rest of them... only 7.5 weeks left!

Cheers all.

My name is Kevin. I work with Mike on the NOVA as the score master. I'm also helping with paint judging and anything else that the group needs. I just wanted to say hello and say how much I'm looking forward to this event.

As we finish up the 40k primer ...

The NOVA's Quarters Goal will be changing so that only Scoring and Denial units count toward the points totals for capturing Quarters.

Fortifications look like Aegis and Bastion, where the Aegis must be a continuous loop. No placing fortification selections on existing terrain pieces.

Random tidbits to chew on..


A note that we are actually selling Hobby Seminars by Secret Weapon Miniatures at a pretty good pace. We've scheduled them such that ANYONE can participate, even if they are in the 40k GT, Warmachine/Hordes main events, Flames of War Tournaments, Infinity Tournament, and/or Fantasy GT. Check it out, they're affordable and awesome ways to up your artistic game.


Additionally, the NOVA Open's independent paint competition is now a QUALIFIER for the Crystal Brush at AdeptiCon 2013. The winner will have their airfare covered by Cool Mini or Not for flight to and from AdeptiCon 2013.

MVBrandt wrote: where the Aegis must be a continuous loop. No placing fortification selections on existing terrain pieces.
AdeptiCon 2013.

This is a good clarification as I was thinking I could give cover to my entire army with one Aegis kit. Someone running multiple small units who only needs a 2 section to cover an entire unit, I could see it getting out of hand really quick. So it sounds like a good restriction.

MVBrandt wrote:As we finish up the 40k primer ...

The NOVA's Quarters Goal will be changing so that only Scoring and Denial units count toward the points totals for capturing Quarters.

Fortifications look like Aegis and Bastion, where the Aegis must be a continuous loop. No placing fortification selections on existing terrain pieces.

I dont understand the Loop part of this, in the rules it says that each section must be touching at least 1 other section of the Line, It would be impossible for someone to stretch this from one side to the other. There are 8 pieces, 4 long and 4 short What was the reason for the continuous loop ruling?

Spidey0804 wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:As we finish up the 40k primer ...

The NOVA's Quarters Goal will be changing so that only Scoring and Denial units count toward the points totals for capturing Quarters.

Fortifications look like Aegis and Bastion, where the Aegis must be a continuous loop. No placing fortification selections on existing terrain pieces.

I dont understand the Loop part of this, in the rules it says that each section must be touching at least 1 other section of the Line, It would be impossible for someone to stretch this from one side to the other. There are 8 pieces, 4 long and 4 short What was the reason for the continuous loop ruling?

This seems weird to me too. Mike stated that his goal is to change as little of the rules as possible, but this runs contrary to the existing rules and completely changes the function of the Aegis Defense Line. Prior to this, the changes made to 6th thus far seem to be in an effort to eliminate small sample size variability from determining game outcomes (e.g., eliminating mysterious terrain), but this seems to be an attempt to alter game balance.

It's a change we're "fenced" on ... and one we're likely NOT to stick with for this year.

That's to say, our current playtest is with closed circuit Aegis, but it's not something we're feeling is necessary, given the inability to place fortifications on existing terrain anyway, in relation to how our standard tourney terrain is in place.

Danny - NOT an attempt to alter game balance; more unwieldiness / etc., and also just checking out various permutations through what has been a pretty exhaustive(ing) test period so far


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.crystalbrush.com/2012/07/crystal-brush-qualifications-at-the-nova-open/

Splash mission primer newsletter.

40k primer included within
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=8i9inqiab&v=0010iyGwPSeYAE3rbC42e1_ohHmhNuCOa2Z_fl0-_yHv5pgCwtO1rHeTS7bvQ8cl42p82icnNoIK3oEXODphd_vkyxdZ-6O7ug-1eSEPoJ3PNg%3D

Mike,

just a small clarification on the ruins rules. As per the book we are to use ruins with bases as 4+ for the actual ruin and 5+ for the base its on ? Having played a number of games im wondering if this is a good idea in a tourny setting. Keeping the whole thing as 4+ ruins seems to be a simple solution.


Also regarding the ageis. having used it a few times im on the fence as to keeping it a closed loop. It does restrict it a little but with placed terrain (the format ive used) its not really an issue. you could go either way.

Mike, what does changing the deployment in Hammer and Anvil accomplish? I'm sure there must be a reason I just can't figure it out.