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.

That's a VERY BAD Hulksmash.

http://scgwl.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=583

Your not blind, I missed putting it in there, my bad. It's edited now

::Ninja'd::


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fantasy Packet Added. Still some kinks in the 40k Packet so hopefully we get it fully posted by the end of the weekend.

AffliKtion wrote:Bah, Coachella is that same weekend.

And my wifes birthday in which I promised to take her to said show. Bah... Bah indeed!

That's right; I'm scourging the grimdark 41st millenium of hippies, 1 GT at a time.

Actually, I'm just jealous of you guys on the West Coast for having so many cool events; the mid-atlantic corridor on the east coast is a barren place to live for 40k events.

It will be good to meet you! The guys over here are all cool and fun to game with. We have some rivalries, but that is half the fun!

Is it bad that I am more excited for drinks after?

Nope!

I strongly disagree with some of the rulings in the Inat, but it is much better to have all the rulings available to all the players before the event rather than some hodge podge system where some players email questions in and get rulings for their army before the tourney and others don't know the rulings in advance unless they happened to ask the same question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They should at least post all the questions asked and their ruling on the questions for everyone to see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have played in the scgwl league and there were inconsistencies with how people played. They don't use the INAT or a home grown FAQ for that matter. They have a rules committee that you email or call for rules disputes. Not the best system in my opinion.

Were they game breaking differences? Not really, but they certainly had game impact.

Looks like the missions are available over at the SCGWL site. Interesting mix, though I've got a few questions, which I also posted over there:

1) In Mission 3, what are the dimensions of the deployment zones? (Is this meant to be Dawn of War deployment?)
2) In Mission 3, I'm guessing each player places 2 objectives (based on available points).
3) In Mission 4, how can you place objectives before knowing deployment zones? (The triangles can go either way, depending on what the player with first choice decides, and the objectives must be deployed in the no-man's-land between the two zones.)
4) In Mission 4, how many objectives are placed?
5) In Mission 4, what are the rules for "Preliminary Bombardment"?

A few quick notes from the rule pack:

Day one will have 2 hour rounds for 2000 points, so my Eldar are out (when you shoot 60 shots of strength 6 goodness, it takes a while to do the hits, the wounds and then the wound allocation and then take the saves and that does not take into account doom and guide.) Also the foot Eldar takes a while to deploy. Horde orks and IG are going to have issues.

You need to bring 2 objective markers on 40mm bases.

No FAQ, so rule judging will be done at the event by the judges (Can Ahriman shoot 3 Bolts of Change at the same target?)

Player moved (or should I say manipulated?) terrain placement which I don’t like although they did try to still keep it in certain areas.


Mission #1
Do reserves enter from the long table edge, or your deployment zone? It is Dawn of War, is the first turn nightfight?

Mission #2
The army with the most kill points alive wins? So you want to have a ton of hard to kill KP? Mech Guard for the win! So if I play a low KP army I am screwed?

Mission #4
A lot of people will tie this one. Very, very hard to get the primary against a good player.

Mission #5
I like their kill points. KP=VP/100 with troops rounding down, everything else rounding up.

Manimal wrote:I strongly disagree with some of the rulings in the Inat, but it is much better to have all the rulings available to all the players before the event rather than some hodge podge system where some players email questions in and get rulings for their army before the tourney and others don't know the rulings in advance unless they happened to ask the same question.

At least I don't need to ask about Deffrollas anymore!!

Hopefully Mawlocs are addressed in the rules pack *goes to peek*


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My own questions:

1. In your cover chart, craters are assigned a 5+ cover save. Page 21 of the rulebook explicitly assigns craters a 4+ cover save. IE, when my vehicles are exploded and leave a crater, the unit inside the new crater has a 4+ cover save. Is there any particular reason for rewriting this, or was it an oversight?

2. Will Mawlocs be allowed to deploy by placing their model on top of other models, or do they have to obey the deployment rule about staying 1" away before rolling the scatter die?

3. Does the Spirit Leech from the Doom of Malan'tai (which affects all units within 12") work against embarked units? And if it does, does the same ruling apply to exploding vehicles (which also affect all units within D6). IE, can you force leadership on embarked units with spirit leech, and can an exploding rhino hit the terminators in the land raider next to it?

4. In Scenario 1, new units that get within 3" of an objective roll a dice. On a 5+, the unit takes D6 hits. What is the strength and AP of those hits?


Final note: This is the second GT that isn't using nightfight. Yeah....on scenario 5, on turn5+ nightfight gets employed, but this is the FREAKING GRIMDARK, NOT THE FREAKING GRIMAFTERNOON OR GRIMMORNING. By turn5 in most games, there is little left on the board, and employing nightfight is pointless now.

Fights do happen at night. You are disadvantaging assault based armies by ignoring a rule that gets used in 1/3 of GW missions. Seriously, make one mission have nightfight properly, or make one game have continuous nightfight with the potential for ending, but this is like discouraging assault based armies.

I go looking through missions for the one mission where I am not disadvantaged by being an ork close combat fighter...and all you have is a game 5, turn5+ feeble attempt to appease?


*EDIT* I also can't go register for the SoCal Forums - registration seems to be broken. Hopefully someone will copy and paste this over for me?

First off let's remember this is a preliminary draft. It's why they put it up so early (over a month) so they could fix anything that comes up.

@ Janth

I sent an email yesterday asking those questions as well as a few more.

@Blackmoor

1) From what I can tell it's nightfight for turn one. But it could also be DoW with specified deployment zone. I'll send that in as well.

2) Brought that issue up in my email as well

4) Also brought up in my email yesterday

@Dash

They are using first turn night fight on the first mission Dash. The only issue is what deploys, not whether there is night fight first turn. So you have one mission that has nightfight for a turn. To much night fight actually majorly disadvantages non-imperial armies due to their lack of search lights. You'll find most imperials don't really mind it if they bring a decent number of vehicles. I'll add your other two concerns to the list I'm sending in for today

Oh and as for #4. I says later that it's d6 wounds. So you take normal armor saves but I did ask them to clear up the language to make it consistant.

I emailed all the concerns in to the guys doing the scenarios and running the tourney. I get the feeling they are going to take the initial feedback and then work on it. I'll keep this thread updated as new stuff comes to my attention

Dashofpepper wrote: I also can't go register for the SoCal Forums - registration seems to be broken. Hopefully someone will copy and paste this over for me?

I played in their league and was unable to register to the forums. They have it set up so they have to manually add you, and they have not historically been very good about doing that in a timely manner.

The group is under new management so hopefully they will be better at managing their forums.

Ah, I missed the Dawn of War for the first mission.

I hate that one too, just once someone should have a pitched battle deployment, first turn nightfight.

For posterity's sake, here's a suggestion for your game 5 when night is falling: Instead of having nightfight set in on turn5, how about a D6 every game turn to see if Nightfight sets in? Turn1: 6+, Turn2: 5+, Turn3: 4+, etc.

Also, I think that the game time limits are off.

2 hours is a challenge to complete a game of 1850, worse when you play any kind of horde or numbers army. At 2,000 points, hoping to get through a game of 40k in 2 hours with orks, tyranids, foot-guard....simply not reasonable.

Why not 2:30? Its not like there isn't time. Speaking of which, Saturday's games are slotted for 2 hours each, while Sunday's games are all 2:30. Make them *all* 2:30.

I don't like your d6 suggestion dash.

In an apocalypse game I am fine with random rules.

In a tournament I find random rules that have a large game impact to be undesirable.

A game that has night fight starting on turn 1 is very different than a game with night fight on turn 5.

I don't want a single d6 roll to have a large game impact.

It has to do with the venue hours on saturday. 2 of the games (1 and 3) are both 2 hour games. I suggested cutting lunch a little short and starting game 1 a little earlier to get us a little more time. 2k in 2 hours is doable but people need to be ready for it and bring the right armies. 90+ model armies will have issues with that format. As for the night fight pitched battle set-up that equals almost instant win for certain styles of list that will take nearly zero damage ::cough:: mech orks ::cough::

It's the preliminary packet. They'll clean it up. Be thankful we have this much time to get it cleaned up

Dash- The problem with night fight is that it highly favors assault armies, and it cripples shooting armies. It is the assault version of having heavy gravity in missions so armies can’t move at full speed.


But here is the real reason why night fight is bad…some armies have no answer for night fight, and to others (especially if they know that they are going to be using it ahead of time) don’t have much of a problem with it. For example, all of the new Imperial codexes all have searchlights on all of their vehicles, while other armies (Orks, Tyranids, and Eldar) have nothing that can help them see in the dark.

Hulksmash wrote:It has to do with the venue hours on saturday. 2 of the games (1 and 3) are both 2 hour games. I suggested cutting lunch a little short and starting game 1 a little earlier to get us a little more time. 2k in 2 hours is doable but people need to be ready for it and bring the right armies. 90+ model armies will have issues with that format. As for the night fight pitched battle set-up that equals almost instant win for certain styles of list that will take nearly zero damage ::cough:: mech orks ::cough::

It's the preliminary packet. They'll clean it up. Be thankful we have this much time to get it cleaned up

I AM thankful they got the missions up this early, and especially with the reminder on time constraints for the venue. If I bring an army with any significant infantry elements, I'll be putting together some deployment trays (plasticard + adhesive magnetic sheeting from Michaels + rare-earth magents in bases), to speed deployment/ouflanking/termigant-spawning/etc. Planning ahead can mitigate some of these concerns fairly well.

Holy smokes there are a lot of typos in that thing. They need an editor.

They're working on it

Dashofpepper wrote:

2 hours is a challenge to complete a game of 1850, worse when you play any kind of horde or numbers army. At 2,000 points, hoping to get through a game of 40k in 2 hours with orks, tyranids, foot-guard....simply not reasonable.

Why not 2:30? Its not like there isn't time. Speaking of which, Saturday's games are slotted for 2 hours each, while Sunday's games are all 2:30. Make them *all* 2:30.

I understand the logistics of time constraints in a tournament, but playing a 2000 point game in 2 hours is totally unrealistic. You can make arrangements to not take foot slogging armies in the hopes that will speed up the game, but if your opponent does you're basically at the mercy of slow play.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manimal wrote:I strongly disagree with some of the rulings in the Inat, but it is much better to have all the rulings available to all the players before the event rather than some hodge podge system where some players email questions in and get rulings for their army before the tourney and others don't know the rulings in advance unless they happened to ask the same question.

This. Q&A is a lot less efficient than a standing FAQ.

Kevin Nash wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:

2 hours is a challenge to complete a game of 1850, worse when you play any kind of horde or numbers army. At 2,000 points, hoping to get through a game of 40k in 2 hours with orks, tyranids, foot-guard....simply not reasonable.

Why not 2:30? Its not like there isn't time. Speaking of which, Saturday's games are slotted for 2 hours each, while Sunday's games are all 2:30. Make them *all* 2:30.

I understand the logistics of time constraints in a tournament, but playing a 2000 point game in 2 hours is totally unrealistic. You can make arrangements to not take foot slogging armies in the hopes that will speed up the game, but if your opponent does you're basically at the mercy of slow play.

That is why if you only have 2 hours, tournament organizers should lower the points. I understand why games stores do it. because it sells more models, but Indy GTs have nothing to gain by having a lot of points in a short amount of time.

Also if they are going with 2 games at 2 hours, and 3 games at 2.5 hours they should have games #3, 4, and 5 at 2.5 hours. If they are doing the first two pairings by comp they will already know the pairings for game #2, and we can just get to our tables early and begin playing since we do not have to wait for the scores to be calculated. This will also give us a break for lunch 30 minutes earlier.

They are going to be 2.5 hours each. They were using the hours from the previous venue. All 5 rounds will be 2.5 Hours. An Indy GT did run 2k in 2 hours last year and didn't seem to have a problem but luckily we won't have to worry about that . A more polished and perfected packet will be up by the end of the week.

Also a be all, end all FAQ is not going to be available. They will make a mini packet for major issues concerning the Tyrannid codex just in case the GW FAQ isn't up by then but there will be no comprehensive FAQ for any and all rules issues. It's just not practical for them to be able to do it in the amount of time required and they are against using the INAT FAQ which is something I actually agree with. So if there is a rule that will affect how your entire army plays that is questionable send it either to me or to the website and we'll see if we can get a ruling on a small packet. But I can't guarentee they will have the time for this either.

On a seperate note Terrain on each table will consist of 2 Buildings (decent size), 2 Hills, 2 Area Terrain, 1 Crater and some walls/fences. So it'll be a decent mix but the mix will be the same from table to table (something those of us who went to the bash can appreciate ) I'm really pushing for pre-set terrain as there is enough space between tables for people's trays and armies so it'll speed up each game. But we'll just have to see what decision they make

Hulksmash wrote:and they are against using the INAT FAQ which is something I actually agree with.

I find this position puzzling. If they don't want to put the effeort into making a faq why not use the INAT? It is not that I love the INAT but there are way too many rules issues that are unclear for it to be reasonable to expect two players who have never met to discuss all the ones that might come up before the game starts.

Once the game has started and a rules dispute happens, the judge makes a ruling and someone gets ruled against. If you are used to playing it differently than the judge, this can completely wreck your game plan.

Hulksmash wrote:So if there is a rule that will affect how your entire army plays that is questionable send it either to me or to the website and we'll see if we can get a ruling on a small packet.

Any ruling they make on any army effects how my army plays if I have to play against that army.

So should I send them every question I can think of that might come up against any army?

I was going to write an extremely long reply but I think I'll leave it at it's up to the TO on how to run the event and it's up to the TO on how they handle rules issues in their tournament. They aren't going to use the INAT. I'm merely passing along the info.

Just like any major event you have the choice in attending or not but it was a great event last year and this year is looking even better in a bigger and better venue. If not having a comprehensive FAQ about anything that could possibly come up is a deal breaker then them's the breaks. Personally I hope to see you there while I get in 5 games over a weekend

My post wasn't an ultimatum. I wasn't saying do things my way or I am not going to play you with my toy soilders.

I am already signed up.

My intent is to offer feedback about the choices they have made and present suggestions in a reasonable, logical manner.

Since I am unable to post to the scgwl forums to voice my feedback I am doing it in this thread with the hopes that they will read it or that you will pass it along.

I don't think that the INAT FAQ is necessarily better than no FAQ.

If you're read through it, there are quite a few pieces of it that dramatically alter rules, or completely negate rules and institute its own rules contrary to 40k - its a giant set of house rules that shouldn't be applied as a standard to GW events. There *are* things that need clarification, but changing a rule, or creating a rule and calling it a rules clarification when none was needed...

Well, I prefer not to play with the INAT FAQ.

I agree with all of your complaints about the INAT, however it is just as likely that a random judge will rule in a manner that negates or greatly alters the rules. After all the INAT is just a faq of how the judges at adepticon will rule.

I think it is better to know in advance what the unexpected rulings will be rather than be suprised during a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have no problem with an alternative FAQ.

I just don't like not having the rulings upfront.

I actually took your feedback in regards to the FAQ standing to the TO's today. The basic result was that they would make up front rulings on the Tyrannids that needed rulings and that the GW FAQ's should suffice for the rest. I know they appreciate the feedback and I pass along all the concerns I see here since they don't really read Dakka

We'll have to get a beer Saturday night Manimal, you won't be able to miss me or Dash

Sounds good to me.

Hulksmash wrote:
We'll have to get a beer Saturday night Manimal, you won't be able to miss me or Dash

Ahhhh.....we're going to be the KINGS OF THE DORKS! =)

Dashofpepper wrote:I don't think that the INAT FAQ is necessarily better than no FAQ.

Any FAQ is IMO better than no FAQ.

If something isn't covered in a FAQ it becomes "judges call".

I use INAT FAQ in my tourneys because I like as few "judges calls" as possible and I'm too lazy to create my own comprehensive FAQ and make sure everyone is familiar with it.

This however is not my tourney . So whatever the TO wants is how it's gonna be. Fine by me.

We extended the round times to 2.5 hours (our new venue is much more flexible) and cleaned up some of the issues with the scenarios. You can get the most current version of the rules packet at www.scgwl.com/downloads/SIS10.pdf and any future updates will be made to that link. As for FAQ usage, assuming no Nid FAQ by the time the tournament hits, here is how we are running things (tenatively) on the more hotly debated Nid items:

1) All reserve bonuses in the Nid book stack and Tyrants with Hive Commander do NOT have to be on the table to confer said bonus.
2) Doom does not affect embarked units and cover saves may be taken as normal.
3) Mawloc can be Deep Struck intentionally on enemy units, who get cover saves as is from indirect ordinance.
4) Tank Shocking Spore Pods grants a death or glory attack and then kills the pod.
5) Hive Tyrants join units of Tyrant Guard, but do not count as independant characters as such. Thus, said unit can claim cover saves like normal infantry and handles wound allocation like any other unit.

We also intend to allow the use of the new Blood Angel book, as it is largely publically available now and has very few rules ambiguities.

For those playing in the Fantasy Events:
Saturday is the Team Tournament: www.scgwl.com/downloads/SCGWLFTT.pdf
Sunday is the Warbands Tournament: www.scgwl.com/downloads/SCGWLWBT.pdf
Fees are $20 for the team tournament and $10 for the Warbands event, payable the day of.

The 40k GT can be payed via our Paypal (pay@scgwl.com) with a $3 handling fee or via check.

Army list submissions should be sent to Scott Tiveron (tiv@cox.net) along with any questions about the event.
Any questions concerning the Fantasy events, our Fantasy GT in August, or SCGWL in general can be sent to me at phazael.scgwl@gmail.com if you wish.

Hopefully this clears up most of the concerns people may have.
~Q