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.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

6) Players then roll for Warlord Traits.

7) Players then roll for psychic powers if necessary.

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

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

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

yakface wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

6) Players then roll for Warlord Traits.

7) Players then roll for psychic powers if necessary.

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

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

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

My name is mortetvie and I endorse this message.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will you be in tonight to play?

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

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

Then crack that whip and make them get it done!

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

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

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

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

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

OverwatchCNC wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MCs from Chaos Demons are FLying MC's

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

OverwatchCNC wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Yak! Hopefully your party went ok without me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case in point:

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

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

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

Come on GW!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*waits for rabble to die down

*still waiting

*removes Global Warming casualties

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

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

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

*waits for rabble to die down

*still waiting

*removes Global Warming casualties

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

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

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

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

WYSIWYG question for the tournament...

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

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

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

Thoughts?

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