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.

Fetterkey wrote:

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:words words words

These strike me as sweeping and unnecessary changes, and honestly the types of thing that we really want to AVOID in the new edition. At this point it's basically houserulehammer and not representative of the way the game is actually played under most contexts. In particular, the psychic power changes are basically complete rewrites, allowing selected Warlord traits is very unbalanced, and removing mysterious objectives is not necessary. Since 2/3 of the results on the mysterious objective table are positive, this table encourages players to move out onto the area.

Realistically, the goal of TOs should be to run events that are competitive and fun while also being as close to "mainline" 40k as possible. Obviously, some things will have to change-- fortifications deploy after other terrain instead of before it, for instance-- but making huge overhauls should be avoided.

It's not really houserulehammer, it just allows use of some the additions of the new edition while continuing to make them viable. For Example: Warlord Traits have the ability to swing heavily in favor to 1 side with pre-game dice rolls. If I get the trait to reroll my reserves, when I have none, while my opponent gets to make his HQ an additional scoring unit in a game with 6 objectives how is that fun or balanced, better yet, competitive? Being able to select the trait opens tactics and allows for more opportunities for different army builds, which I think is essential for high level events. I will agree that Adepticon is a corner case example of 1 codex dominating the armies present, but there are a lot of similarities in top lists across the country at most major events. I cannot see how adding more diversity is a bad thing, and that's all that selecting your warlord trait does. It does not really unbalance things becuase everyone has the options to select the same things (as of now, I know there is a mention of future tables being added in Codex's so my stance on this may change) but if everyone has the same 18 options, it's a lot more fair than getting shafted with 1 of those options you don't want and your opponent getting exactly what he wants.

The same with purchasing or selecting your spells. A dice roll (on top of all the others you are forced to make as a psyker) can completely negate your HQ selection? Randomly getting a spell that you have no reason to take is ridiculously lame. For example. In my last game, I played an allied Primaris Psyker, and I rolled Hallucination and Warp Speed. I couldn't cast Hallucination, and Warp Speed is essentially useless on a Primaris. I was then force to take smite and psychic shriek which aren't that great. It made my allied HQ selection non-viable. The idea that people use random spells in Fantasy is fine. I get that. There is a lot more development in place for that to work in that system. More lores to chose from, more base spells to default to. I do not play fantasy, but I have heard from quite a few TO's and store owners that 8th crippled competitive WHFB. I am not here to compare 40k to WHFB either. Psykers and Wizards different roles. (Magic defense is a lot different than Psychic defense.)

The idea of removing Fortifications is a simple matter of logistics. I have no idea how you could allow a Fortress of Redemption to be allowed in tournament play. It is too big, requires removal of terrain and too much effort on the TO's part. Here is a scenerio that is unlikely but possible: Everyone takes a Fortress of Redemption. What does that do to the timing of an event? When all the tables need to be re-terrained (I cannot think of a better word for this) every round after Fortresses are placed. It's easier to remove them than deal with the consequences of not.

Battlefield Debris and Mystical Terrian are similar. Tables will be required to have items, in balance, based on all deployment types, of debris and terrain that can be mystical. These will need to be kept track of in game. This is an added amount of book keeping in a environment that is already pressed for time and demanding of your attention. In the games I have played, it hasn't really added anything to the game. There are more positives than negatives, as was pointed out, so it needs to be balanced in regards to availability and I just don't see a reasonable way to do this on a massive scale. Alternatively, if your event has the staff to re-organize tables based on the mission / deployment, then it is a value-add to your event and can be mentioned before hand. It's not something that can be planned for, therefore adding it / taking it away doesn't affect lists or pre-game tactics.

Random value objectives are ridiculous for competitive play, Yakface posted his thoughts on them. I agree something has to be done about them. Missions are not something I am particularly good at coming up with though, and most major events all have their own ideas for missions, (a long with people to come up with them) so I left this up to the TO and his staff. Also, I think its worth noting that I think TO's should have their own missions. I don't think anyone wants to play the same missions at every event across the country.

Hulksmash wrote:@thehod

I disagree. I outside of the purchasable terrain I feel like this one is going to be better for competitive play. It's certainly a boost to Xenos armies off the bat. And the Allies system is ridiculously hard to break outside of the daemon/chaos alliance because for some reason they didn't write it to affect only units from the same codex.

I hope this turns out to be true! (That it will be, if anything, better for competitive play)

For fantasy, I felt like thehod did for the current edition. But for 40k I think it could work out well. Either way, I'm going to think so and be optimistic

Also, I love the allies rules thus far, and agree with Hulk that they are hard to break, with the notable exceptions mentioned so far that should be easily FAQ'ed.

How do people feel about the new deployment type with the short table edges? I personally think it tends to give to much of an advantage to long range shooting armies and makes it difficult in scenarios that are objective based. I am a strong advocate for sticking to the diagonal, "Dawn of War" (formerly Pitched battle), and bringing back Spearhead. I just think the long table edge is too much an advantage for shooting armies.

The Epidimus problem may go away with the release of a new CSM Codex.

All it would take is units to no longer have "mark of" in their unit entry. So plague marines would be just plague marines, they wouldn't have a special mark. Drop the "Mark Of Nurgle" from the PM unit entry, and the problem goes away.

inquisitorlewis wrote:The Epidimus problem may go away with the release of a new CSM Codex.

All it would take is units to no longer have "mark of" in their unit entry. So plague marines would be just plague marines, they wouldn't have a special mark. Drop the "Mark Of Nurgle" from the PM unit entry, and the problem goes away.

welp that would make alot of sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:@thehod

I disagree. I outside of the purchasable terrain I feel like this one is going to be better for competitive play. It's certainly a boost to Xenos armies off the bat. And the Allies system is ridiculously hard to break outside of the daemon/chaos alliance because for some reason they didn't write it to affect only units from the same codex.

WarWalkers + Broadsides

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:

The idea of removing Fortifications is a simple matter of logistics. I have no idea how you could allow a Fortress of Redemption to be allowed in tournament play. It is too big, requires removal of terrain and too much effort on the TO's part. Here is a scenerio that is unlikely but possible: Everyone takes a Fortress of Redemption. What does that do to the timing of an event? When all the tables need to be re-terrained (I cannot think of a better word for this) every round after Fortresses are placed. It's easier to remove them than deal with the consequences of

I don't understand how terrain placement has become so sanctimonious that it is a cornerstone of the gaming world. I have yet to go to a tournament where all the terrain on a table hasn't been bunched up in the corner as guys move it out of the way for their display boards and armies to get judged on painting. Then in the next round I go to a table with terrain jammed into the corners. Hey just move it. Put the fortress down on the table and any terrain that is moved is taken off the table. No problem and no delays in the game. It's 220+ points taken away from your army that the enemy can grab and use on their own.

Every game in a tournament is imbalancing. From the matchups to the missions to the terrain, every game has a different balance from the last one you just played. Go play in a tournament with all the same army if you are looking for true balance. I don't understand how an imbalancing thing can take away from a tournament? The imbalance provides a challenge that wasn't there before and needs to be dealt with. If all the objectives are in your opponents deployment zone, then you should have brought some units to handle that situation. Don't redefine the game to eliminate the situation you don't want to plan for.

As for the chaos/ daemon allies, as long as the PBS can still reduce Fateweavers leadership to 2, I don't think he's the threat everyone makes him out to be. Just chill out and play the game.

CajunMan550 wrote:
That doesn't mean I have to tell you what psychic powers I am taking, if my unit has some form of grenades, purchased abilities, psychic hoods, what is in reserve( I can just say I have stuff in reserve I don't have to tell you what it is), all that and more.

Your grenades must be modeled. Your Psychic hood must be modeled, And you can't hide your stuff in reserve. Your version of the game never gets played as the game is unplayable this way.

I will never play a game of 6th edition with any form of 'secrecy' as 'not sharing lists' is not the same as 'guess what I got in my hidden box and BOOM crazy wargear surprise'. You Are making up rules for secrecy which don't exist.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:

The idea of removing Fortifications is a simple matter of logistics. I have no idea how you could allow a Fortress of Redemption to be allowed in tournament play. It is too big, requires removal of terrain and too much effort on the TO's part. Here is a scenerio that is unlikely but possible: Everyone takes a Fortress of Redemption. What does that do to the timing of an event? When all the tables need to be re-terrained (I cannot think of a better word for this) every round after Fortresses are placed. It's easier to remove them than deal with the consequences of

I don't understand how terrain placement has become so sanctimonious that it is a cornerstone of the gaming world. I have yet to go to a tournament where all the terrain on a table hasn't been bunched up in the corner as guys move it out of the way for their display boards and armies to get judged on painting. Then in the next round I go to a table with terrain jammed into the corners. Hey just move it. Put the fortress down on the table and any terrain that is moved is taken off the table. No problem and no delays in the game. It's 220+ points taken away from your army that the enemy can grab and use on their own.

Every game in a tournament is imbalancing. From the matchups to the missions to the terrain, every game has a different balance from the last one you just played. Go play in a tournament with all the same army if you are looking for true balance. I don't understand how an imbalancing thing can take away from a tournament? The imbalance provides a challenge that wasn't there before and needs to be dealt with. If all the objectives are in your opponents deployment zone, then you should have brought some units to handle that situation. Don't redefine the game to eliminate the situation you don't want to plan for.

I am taking from this you have never played in a Major GT. All of the major events have very defined terrain deployment that is balanced. Nova, Adepticon, all Frontline gaming events on the West Coast. (forgive me if I leave any out) All preset, and all meant to bring balance to the game. The reason for this is game balance. All of these events realized this, and have made the move. My FLGS places terrain before the event and you are not allowed to move it. It is placed by the TO's standards in what he feels will be best for a fair game.

Tournament games aren't imbalancing. Understanding match up's and missions is part of what makes the game competitive. Generally, the people that understand how to beat their opponent, given the current scenario and table in front of them, should win the game. The idea I am getting at is: You play versus your opponent on a level playing field. No, random tables making your HQ's awesome or not. No random table to make your Psyker good or useless. You play your opponent, not the table.

Smitty0305 wrote:

inquisitorlewis wrote:The Epidimus problem may go away with the release of a new CSM Codex.

All it would take is units to no longer have "mark of" in their unit entry. So plague marines would be just plague marines, they wouldn't have a special mark. Drop the "Mark Of Nurgle" from the PM unit entry, and the problem goes away.

welp that would make alot of sense.

It just seems that they would have FAQd all of that a bit better if there wasn't major sweeping changes coming to the CSM list. For the most part Chaos has been all recycled goods in the codexes. They developed the Marks system well past their usefulness. Hopefully we will see a codex that totally goes away from the Chaos books of old.

Hopefully a lot of the FAQs are totally squashed as the new codexes release. I like the Allies rule. It may seem broken, but it now allows every force to be broken (excluding nids of course)

I'm not sure about fortifications yet. It seems that if some are allowed, they should all be allowed. I need to thoroughly read the new rules, but am still waiting on my book to arrive. (thanks GW Direct)

I'm really hoping "Hammer and Anvil" deployment doesn't see much use in tournament play, if just for practicality's sake. A lot of events I've attended wind up with most tables with a short edge against the wall (apparently it's difficult to fit sixteen 6x4 tables into a cramped space). Now, if that's your board edge...it's not going to be a fun time.

So here is my stance on Tournament Rules:

With the current edition I have put together my collection of rules/ things allowed in tournaments. This is in order to make a more fair and balanced game for all players and I would love to hear people’s feedback.

-As it stands I will be keeping tournament level armies at 1850pts I think this solves the second FOC problem.

-Fortifications will NOT be allowed as it will mess with the pre set up tournament terrain and slow down over all game play.

-Tournaments will still be 2-2.5hours depending on the venue

-You will not be required to roll for warlord traits but will simply determine in advance of the tournament what Warlord trait you will use (this will be the only warlord trait used by you for the entire tournament and must be denoted on your army list)

-We will use diagonal, "Dawn of War" (formerly Pitched battle), and bringing back Spearhead deployments. I will not be using Hammer and Anvil.

-Random objectives will be modified to exclude exploding/dangerous objectives

-Night Fight will be set at turn 1 if used, not randomly determined.

-Charge/ Assault will be determined in the same manner it was for 5th edition (no random charge range unless through cover). You will still have to undergo the stage of declaring assaults then Overwatch shooting and wound allocation before determining if you are in range for assault. Otherwise again it really is detrimental to assault based armies under the new rules. Since you declare if you’re charging then the enemy shoots at and then if you roll poorly on your charge range you just don’t get into assault range. That heavily favors shooting VS assault armies as they are getting free shots on units already and it would be even worse if you get hosed by dice and roll double 1 for charging. There is a lot of argument supporting it staying though.

All other rules will be used from the 6th edition codex.

Seriously curios of peoples opinions to these.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whigwam wrote:I'm really hoping "Hammer and Anvil" deployment doesn't see much use in tournament play, if just for practicality's sake. A lot of events I've attended wind up with most tables with a short edge against the wall (apparently it's difficult to fit sixteen 6x4 tables into a cramped space). Now, if that's your board edge...it's not going to be a fun time.

Agreed there is both a logistics problem in tournaments using this deployment as well as a fundamental balance problem in my opinion it really can make lopsided scenarios for long range VS assault armies.

As for logistics issue most tournaments (especially GT's) I have attended usually boards are crammed one next to the other and that makes this deployment hard and space rental for venues financially troubling to TO's. I mean you need a LOT more space to viably use this deployment for people.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:I am taking from this you have never played in a Major GT. All of the major events have very defined terrain deployment that is balanced. Nova, Adepticon, all Frontline gaming events on the West Coast. (forgive me if I leave any out) All preset, and all meant to bring balance to the game. The reason for this is game balance. All of these events realized this, and have made the move. My FLGS places terrain before the event and you are not allowed to move it. It is placed by the TO's standards in what he feels will be best for a fair game.

I hate to disillusion, but I helped set up terrain for both Adepticon and the BAO this year. I can tell you that a) I (and others) placed more for aesthetics than for sterile balance; b) the TOs didn't disturb the arrangements I had made; and c) by round 2, none of the tables I set up looked exactly like I had arranged them. Things get bumped, or moved to set down display boards, and they never get put back in exactly the same spots.

As it happens, my FLGS often uses fixed terrain, as in the terrain is fixed to the board and is immovable.

Denied wrote:So here is my stance on Tournament Rules:




-Night Fight will be set at turn 1 if used, not randomly determined.

-Charge/ Assault will be determined in the same manner it was for 5th edition (no random charge range unless through cover). You will still have to undergo the stage of declaring assaults then Overwatch shooting and wound allocation before determining if you are in range for assault. Otherwise again it really is detrimental to assault based armies under the new rules. Since you declare if you’re charging then the enemy shoots at and then if you roll poorly on your charge range you just don’t get into assault range. That heavily favors shooting VS assault armies as they are getting free shots on units already and it would be even worse if you get hosed by dice and roll double 1 for charging. There is a lot of argument supporting it staying though.


Agreed there is both a logistics problem in tournaments using this deployment as well as a fundamental balance problem in my opinion it really can make lopsided scenarios for long range VS assault armies.

As for logistics issue most tournaments (especially GT's) I have attended usually boards are crammed one next to the other and that makes this deployment hard and space rental for venues financially troubling to TO's. I mean you need a LOT more space to viably use this deployment for people.

Here comes some arguments!

Firstly I agree with the no Hammer and Anvil in most cases. Even at events like the Bay Area Open where tables are separate, they are not placed for people to be standing on the ends. It's a matter of Logistics.

I strongly disagree with the change to charge distances though. The change to that mechanic is in place and we need to learn to play with it. It gives a distinct advantage to units that are dedicated to assault (Fleet, Jump Packs, Beasts) and it makes charging through terrain less appealing as it should be. There were too many ways to game the old system of charging through terrain, and with pre-measuring, it will be even easier. I strongly suggest you revisit this idea. I know people hate coming up short on charges, but that happened in 5e also. I am not going to call it risk management, because Reecius will yell at me... but there is a certain an average you play with, and that average becomes more concrete with things like Fleet, and Jump packs.

Has anyone considered allowing Tyranids to have the same extra FOC that allies can have in an effort to balance out their "fluff" handicap? It seems wrong that every other army besides Tyranids is allowed to have four of any slot and up to eight troop selections. I don't see Tyranids having four Elites or Heavy Support choices to be OT. I don't think anyway.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:

Here comes some arguments!

Firstly I agree with the no Hammer and Anvil in most cases. Even at events like the Bay Area Open where tables are separate, they are not placed for people to be standing on the ends. It's a matter of Logistics.

I strongly disagree with the change to charge distances though. The change to that mechanic is in place and we need to learn to play with it. It gives a distinct advantage to units that are dedicated to assault (Fleet, Jump Packs, Beasts) and it makes charging through terrain less appealing as it should be. There were too many ways to game the old system of charging through terrain, and with pre-measuring, it will be even easier. I strongly suggest you revisit this idea. I know people hate coming up short on charges, but that happened in 5e also. I am not going to call it risk management, because Reecius will yell at me... but there is a certain an average you play with, and that average becomes more concrete with things like Fleet, and Jump packs.

I don't disagree the random charge rule is fundamental to a lot of other rules in the the book currently.. I really personally don't like it because dice can mess with a lot and I feel the assault armies in this edition are already way too gimped compared to long range shooting. I like dynamic games where things move around on the board but this edition seems a lot like the top table at adepticon this year where people stand their ground and its all about who brought the biggest guns. That being said someone pointed out to me a suggestion I think Mr. Yakface had which I liked which is people have the option of choosing to use standard 6" or attempt to get further with random charge roll. How do people feel about the option to always just go 6"?

Denied wrote:So here is my stance on Tournament Rules:

-Charge/ Assault will be determined in the same manner it was for 5th edition (no random charge range unless through cover). You will still have to undergo the stage of declaring assaults then Overwatch shooting and wound allocation before determining if you are in range for assault. Otherwise again it really is detrimental to assault based armies under the new rules. Since you declare if you’re charging then the enemy shoots at and then if you roll poorly on your charge range you just don’t get into assault range. That heavily favors shooting VS assault armies as they are getting free shots on units already and it would be even worse if you get hosed by dice and roll double 1 for charging. There is a lot of argument supporting it staying though.

So you play an assault army?

Tournaments cant arbritrarily change rule sets, they can change situations and variables, but not the rules themselves. 5th is dead.

whoadirty wrote:Has anyone considered allowing Tyranids to have the same extra FOC that allies can have in an effort to balance out their "fluff" handicap? It seems wrong that every other army besides Tyranids is allowed to have four of any slot and up to eight troop selections.

That is how Im structuring my 6th edition events actually. I feel that Allies is basically +1HQ +1 Troop at minimum so either I disallow all allies or make them equal for everyone.

Denied wrote:How do people feel about the option to always just go 6"?

About the same as I would about a change to always let you take a '3' on any given d6 roll.

I play Tyranids almost exclusively. I still like the random charge distance. Yes, you may suffer from the occasional snake eyes roll, but you also gain the possibility of making previously-impossible charges. If you want to partially mitigate the risk, you'll want more Fleet units, or to use Jump units, or both.

That is still a massive change to the base rule set.

I think the idea that shooting isn't balanced vs. Assault is over stated quite a bit.

Assault can be the deadliest phase and in a lot of cases cannot be mitigated by outside forces. I am going to mess up my explanation of this, so bear with me.

Tau can shoot the pants off people, but cover, night fighting, line of sight and I am sure there are other things that greatly affect how effective shooting can be. Aside from actually getting to assault, there are very few limited mitigating factors to assault (Being out rolled is not a factor, as it is intangible.) Also, Assault is the only reliable way for a single unit to damage/kill more than 1enemy unit in a turn. In 5e I would multi-Assault my nobs into 2-3 enemy units regularly, and end up killing all of them. Shooting, for the most part can never do this. Shooting is at a glance stronger, but the applied effects are a lot different, though with Snap fire overwatch, that may change. But I am sure at this point in the lifecycle, it is impossible to tell.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:That is still a massive change to the base rule set.

I think the idea that shooting isn't balanced vs. Assault is over stated quite a bit.

Assault can be the deadliest phase and in a lot of cases cannot be mitigated by outside forces. I am going to mess up my explanation of this, so bear with me.

Tau can shoot the pants off people, but cover, night fighting, line of sight and I am sure there are other things that greatly affect how effective shooting can be. Aside from actually getting to assault, there are very few limited mitigating factors to assault (Being out rolled is not a factor, as it is intangible.) Also, Assault is the only reliable way for a single unit to damage/kill more than 1enemy unit in a turn. In 5e I would multi-Assault my nobs into 2-3 enemy units regularly, and end up killing all of them. Shooting, for the most part can never do this. Shooting is at a glance stronger, but the applied effects are a lot different, though with Snap fire overwatch, that may change. But I am sure at this point in the lifecycle, it is impossible to tell.

Is this your first rulebook changeover?

No.

I been playing since 2e.

Denied wrote:-You will not be required to roll for warlord traits but will simply determine in advance of the tournament what Warlord trait you will use (this will be the only warlord trait used by you for the entire tournament and must be denoted on your army list)

-Charge/ Assault will be determined in the same manner it was for 5th edition (no random charge range unless through cover).

I think those are way too major to go through with. Maybe as a sort of "5.5 edition" tourney, but not true 6th edition.

My reasons are the following:

1. Warlord traits not being determined randomly. Some of these traits are NASTY, and are only really offset by the fact that you can't guarantee that you will get them. Guaranteeing that you get the one you want is... well, a significant change that takes away the balancing handicap built into the rule.

2. Charge/Assault not being random- I don't know if you can allow premeasuring, and then make assault distances fixed. Again, it takes away the natural handicap of the rule, that you can't guarantee making it into assault or know exactly how far the enemy can assault. With premeasuring and fixed assault distances, you're throwing that mechanic out of whack.

And, of course, like I said before... making it more of a "5.5 edition" tourney, since everyone else will be switching to rolling assault distances. I'm not saying I'm in love with the rule- but it's the rule, and changing that or making warlord traits not random is not the same as disallowing a giant fortress due to space considerations, for example. Rather, it's changing a somewhat core rule that will effect army construction (warlord trait) or gameplay (charge length) very significantly.

So, I am not a fan of those two changes as you describe them at all...

Denied wrote:So here is my stance on Tournament Rules:

With the current edition I have put together my collection of rules/ things allowed in tournaments. This is in order to make a more fair and balanced game for all players and I would love to hear people’s feedback.

-As it stands I will be keeping tournament level armies at 1850pts I think this solves the second FOC problem.

-Fortifications will NOT be allowed as it will mess with the pre set up tournament terrain and slow down over all game play.

-Tournaments will still be 2-2.5hours depending on the venue

-You will not be required to roll for warlord traits but will simply determine in advance of the tournament what Warlord trait you will use (this will be the only warlord trait used by you for the entire tournament and must be denoted on your army list)

-We will use diagonal, "Dawn of War" (formerly Pitched battle), and bringing back Spearhead deployments. I will not be using Hammer and Anvil.

-Random objectives will be modified to exclude exploding/dangerous objectives

-Night Fight will be set at turn 1 if used, not randomly determined.

-Charge/ Assault will be determined in the same manner it was for 5th edition (no random charge range unless through cover). You will still have to undergo the stage of declaring assaults then Overwatch shooting and wound allocation before determining if you are in range for assault. Otherwise again it really is detrimental to assault based armies under the new rules. Since you declare if you’re charging then the enemy shoots at and then if you roll poorly on your charge range you just don’t get into assault range. That heavily favors shooting VS assault armies as they are getting free shots on units already and it would be even worse if you get hosed by dice and roll double 1 for charging. There is a lot of argument supporting it staying though.

All other rules will be used from the 6th edition codex.

Seriously curios of peoples opinions to these.

This is like saying in Chess that when you play at my place. Bishops can move diagonally and jump over intervening pieces. In other words...you just made it a different game. I would not play at your tournaments because when I go to another venue that plays by the real rules, I'd be at a disadvantage. Assault was meant to be gimped in this game. Deal with it.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:The same with purchasing or selecting your spells. A dice roll (on top of all the others you are forced to make as a psyker) can completely negate your HQ selection? Randomly getting a spell that you have no reason to take is ridiculously lame. For example. In my last game, I played an allied Primaris Psyker, and I rolled Hallucination and Warp Speed. I couldn't cast Hallucination, and Warp Speed is essentially useless on a Primaris.

I'm really truly not trying to pick on you, but this is an example of what I'm talking about when I say people need to play more games and adapt to the rules more before suggesting changes. The issue you describe is actually covered by the rules; if you get a spell that you can't cast, you're allowed to reroll it. This makes the Psyker system much more reliable than people give it credit for.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:The idea of removing Fortifications is a simple matter of logistics. I have no idea how you could allow a Fortress of Redemption to be allowed in tournament play. It is too big, requires removal of terrain and too much effort on the TO's part. Here is a scenerio that is unlikely but possible: Everyone takes a Fortress of Redemption. What does that do to the timing of an event? When all the tables need to be re-terrained (I cannot think of a better word for this) every round after Fortresses are placed. It's easier to remove them than deal with the consequences of not.

As I said earlier, the Fortress of Redemption might need to be banned for simple logistical reasons. I think, though, that the Bastion and Aegis Defense Line at the very least should be allowed. It turns out that most tournaments don't have a problem with too much terrain crowding the field and requiring players to remove some-- they have the exact opposite problem, where there is not enough terrain for players to use. Allowing fortifications mitigates this disadvantage. From a balance perspective, fortifications are also an important check on the power of Flyers and flying Monstrous Creatures. I believe that they definitely need to stay.

I agree with you on the Fortress and I mentioned that Defense lines and Bastions could be an option because of thier footprint.

It will also need to be clarified that if Aegis Defense lines are allowed, the minimum and Maximum number of wall sections / length height that should be used since some people will be getting these from sources that aren't the standard boxes and or scratch building them. Modeling for advantage could run rampant in these regards if not made clear.

In the example above, even if I was allowed to reroll the Hallucination spell, I was still stuck with the other, which was bad.

I won't say I am not going to play an event that uses the random spells, I will say that I am going to use armies that do not roll on this table though, and in some cases it will be to my advantage. I am not good enough at this game to start with a handicap.

Bastion and Aegis Defense Line at the very least should be allowed.

The next tournament I'm going to first announced that fortications aren't allowed, but then after taking a closer look at the rules allowed one per 2000 points. They're not allowing the desperate allies, but battle brothers and allies of convenience are allowed.

I don't really have a problem with allies. I don't intend to use any myself and I can't really see how they would even benefit the style of army that I play. If that's the case, then they have to be 'sort of' balanced, with a few exceptions. As far as the fortifications are concerned I do have some concerns. I can't see any army in the game being ever at a disadvantage if they took the Aegis Defence Line with either a comms relay or a quad gun. It's simply too good for 70 or 100 points and that makes it a no brainer always taken. Things that are always taken aren't interesting at all and can might as well be banned. I mean, imagine a 200 player GT where every single player had an Aegis Defence Line. It would look idiotic to say the least. If cover is an issue then the TO should just use more terrain.

Naturally this doesn't hurt any player in particular because everyone can take it, including myself, but I still don't like it. The quad gun is the best weapon in the game, and likewise anyone who uses reserves will benefit immensely from the comms relay. As far as cover is concerned 50 points gives your entire army (vehicles included) 4+ saves which get further improved during night and gets even better if you go to ground.

I'm willing to give it a try of course, but I wouldn't mind if the tournaments had an even split of those that allowed fortifications such as the Aegis Defence Line and those that didn't.

Just my two cents, but I say that random charge distance stays in. I feel like removing that changes the game from being 6th edition to 5.5 edition. Honestly, if tournaments go and modify the rules, I am hoping they leave the core mechanics intact and only mess with things like warlord traits/ fortifications/ missions.

would TOs consider (for 2000+ points games) allowing the expanded FOC for Tyranids if they are going to allow allies for everyone else?

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:It will also need to be clarified that if Aegis Defense lines are allowed, the minimum and Maximum number of wall sections / length height that should be used since some people will be getting these from sources that aren't the standard boxes and or scratch building them. Modeling for advantage could run rampant in these regards if not made clear.

Again, this is defined in the rulebook.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:In the example above, even if I was allowed to reroll the Hallucination spell, I was still stuck with the other, which was bad.

Then don't roll on tables that you can't use effectively? The key to selecting a lore is to look at all the spells and determine how many of them are useful to you. You want to select a lore that has the highest possible chance of generating useful spells. Note that, if the Primaris power is sufficiently good, every spell is useful.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:I won't say I am not going to play an event that uses the random spells, I will say that I am going to use armies that do not roll on this table though, and in some cases it will be to my advantage. I am not good enough at this game to start with a handicap.

A reasonable decision. I know that my Space Marine Librarian will often stick with Null Zone and Gate of Infinity rather than rolls on the table.

Fetterkey wrote:

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:It will also need to be clarified that if Aegis Defense lines are allowed, the minimum and Maximum number of wall sections / length height that should be used since some people will be getting these from sources that aren't the standard boxes and or scratch building them. Modeling for advantage could run rampant in these regards if not made clear.

Again, this is defined in the rulebook.

correct, and as part of the terrain discussion for the BFS Tournament we have brought up that if we allow the defense line that it has to be deployed with no open ends, thus you would have to create it in some sort of shape. circle, rectangle,square ect ect. This way its allowed yet limited to being streatched across a board.

- Also we have brought up the options of allowing the bastion and pad. One suggestion that we are actually considering is if used( since our terrain is pre placed) that it could only be used to replace a piece of terrain in your deployment zone of equal or bigger size. The pad creates a slightly bigger issue since thats a pretty big piece so we need to look at our terrain. We are also testing to see if when replacing that terrain if it needs to go exactly where the terrain was( to retain table balance). or allow it to be moved. Also do we want our terrain manhandled ?

So far i cant even see the fort of Redem being an option for tourny play.

not settled however, still in major discussion.