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.

disdainful wrote:It's a rough spot to be in, particularly since you're trying to sell tickets, and I'll be there for at least one of those September events that I have an interest in being a success!

As I see it, you're most likely to draw guys with a format that is familiar. While this has the risk of setting a trend of larger events being run basically as 5th ed. .tournaments with 6th ed. core rules, which will make the tournament scene more fractured initially, you need butts in seats from an organizers perspective, and even from a player's perspective, I think most of us would agree that we'd rather go to a larger event, especially when we're talking about something you'd likely be traveling to. No one wants to make a bunch of plans in advance, take time off of work, cash in chips with wives/families/girlfriends/etc., and generally uproot your life for weekend and show up to a tournament with 25 guys because no one was comfortable going to an event with unfamiliar rules.

That being said, I'm on team Frontline doing this as much 'business as usual' as possible.

In specific:

Basics:

Everything here is as I would do it (half the tables will forget about Mysterious anything anyway! ). Aegis Defense Lines are a non-issue and Bastions are a deathtrap with a giant target painted on it, based on our little bit of experience, everyone is comfortable with Seize and Random Game Length, and the new Night Fighting rules are actually pretty good.

I'd at least consider removing Warlord Traits altogether, since they are a random factor that could potentially unbalance things the same as Mysterious terrain. Just my thoughts.

The Mission:

I'm no fan of the BAO mission as I think it creates too much potential for draws, but everyone is very familiar with it and until a more authoritative 6th missions packet starts to take shape, it is the format I'd be most likely to commit to for a bigger event, since it's tried and true.

Hammer and Anvil being out in large events due simply to the table layout was no surprise to anyone I'm sure; I'd consider using First Blood as a bracket point instead of Preserve: First Blood is dependent on things like luck in the first turn and Seizing and so on, but a player can deploy in such a way that they minimize the risk of giving that point away, and everyone is just as much at risk of giving it up, while Preserve becomes an army-build issue where some lists are going to hand out that point like candy and some lists may not even give it up once, and it creates situations where a player could be stuck giving that point up in order to try and win. Since the bracket points determine pairings and break ties for placings, you could run into a situation where a guy gets an easier day or ends up with an award based on his opponent's army builds.

As an aside, the Relic is a joke for competitive play. I'd be shocked if I ever saw that in a tournament.

Psykers:

The BRB includes a re-roll for powers above your Mastery Level anyway, but allowing a re-roll for unusable powers seems legit.

Points:

Guys will have more experience with the game in two months, and higher points opens the Allies and Fortifications doors a bit wider, but I'd say that 1500 is the best bet. 1750 at max.

Forge World:

LOL nope! Most guys will be shouldering the yoke of still ironing out the kinks of the new system, in addition to playing a bunch of games against armies they've never squared off against, builds they've never seen, and players they don't know, in a game system they don't have a lot of experience with. Put a FW cherry on top and you're creating the potential for problems. There's enough out there for guys to have to deal with that's printed in books they can go to their LGS and buy, let alone FW stuff.

That being said, GW accualy is Dolan and I'm getting ready to not be surprised when they FAQ everything from FW into the main game, LoLLerZ!

Counts as:

Huge landmine here. It's a big event and it creates a lot of front-end work to approve counts-as stuff before game 1, but it might be necessary. Counts-as Allies are right out. If on the one hand you're going to say that the exceptionally expensive and quite difficult to acquire Forge World component enriches the game and should be allowed, and then let oddball, inaccurate models in for counts-as allies, freeing guys from having buy the models, that's Chewbacca Defense all the way. Having to remember two armies' worth of potential counts-as is just going to create rough feelings in games. It's like when Marty went to the diner in Back to the Future...

"can this wonky scratch-build be a Vendetta??"
"you want a Vendetta, pal, you gotta pay for it!"

Missing Anything?

Not really. Keep things simple and in line with the current format for now, the event will be more successful for it.

Of course, my own local events are as 6th as possible, but I'm not trying to pull in a hundred guys (yet!)

I can get on board with most of that.

The counts-as debacle that permeated the end of 5th is going to cause some major headaches for the initial 6th ed tournaments.

I would like to see a Missions packet, similar to the BAO packet, that is specifically geared toward and uses the 6th ed missions. Though admittedly probably not Relic. The BAO missions while fairly well balanced ended up becoming very stale by the end of the event. Having more variety would be nice.

pretre wrote:The problem with Forgeworld is that not everyone is familiar with all of the FW books. It adds another level of preparation.

The only ones who really need to be fully familiar with forgeworld are the tournament orginizers/judges, not every player is familiar with every codex either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RiTides wrote:Including FW allies, even?

Sure, it would be cool to have a Death Corps army call in Elysians for some air support.

vhwolf wrote:

pretre wrote:The problem with Forgeworld is that not everyone is familiar with all of the FW books. It adds another level of preparation.

The only ones who really need to be fully familiar with forgeworld are the tournament orginizers/judges, not every player is familiar with every codex either.

But it is much easier to be familiar with all the codices since you have easier access to the rules and have a higher chance of having actually played against the units from a codex as opposed to most of the FW units.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

vhwolf wrote:

pretre wrote:The problem with Forgeworld is that not everyone is familiar with all of the FW books. It adds another level of preparation.

The only ones who really need to be fully familiar with forgeworld are the tournament orginizers/judges, not every player is familiar with every codex either.

But it is much easier to be familiar with all the codices since you have easier access to the rules and have a higher chance of having actually played against the units from a codex as opposed to most of the FW units.

But why do you need to know all of the rules for everyone elses army. As long as the orginizer knows it is legal and they can show you the rules than it is a fair game.

Reecius wrote:

=Basics

We won't be using mysterious terrain. Some of these are just too unbalancing for some armies.

We won't be using mysterious objectives unless they are predetermined, which will be explained below.

We will be using Fortifications, but not Fortresses of Redemption or Skyshield Landing Pads as they are just flat out too big, particularly if both players bring one.

Warlord Traits: Frankie had the idea of rolling once and then choosing that number power on any of the three traits. This means the system is still random, but it gives you the ability to avoid rolling a worthless trait. Feedback on this one would be appreciated.

Allies are in. They bring more balance to the game as IMO, the core mechanics of the game are what now create imbalance. When everyone's power level is cranked to 10, it helps to level the playing field.

Terrain will be pre-arranged. Having players arrange terrain just isn't practical for a tournament from a time perspective.

Book Night Fighting will be in as will Random Game Length and Stealing of the Initiative.

About what I'd do, though warlord traits are still just by nature highly valuable to some armies and often worthless to others, most of this just seems like changes to make it actually possible to function which is fine.

= We will be using a "BAO" (Bay Area Open) style mission similar to what we did last year.
=Psykers

Not a fan of this particular ruleset as it gets really wonky results sometimes (played in an event once where I tabled each of my opponents with a relatively easy list, including one with an almost identical list just different upgrade weapons on two troops units, he got best general, I got nothing ) but in the end, between its own wonkiness and the 6E rules...nothing is really going to reflect much of anything appropriately so why not

If you roll a power you can't use, either because of Force Charge or the inability to use it such as a Broodlord rolling a shooting power, you can reroll till you get one you can use.

Sounds good.

Points Level

This is the one where we're really scratching our heads. We want to go with 1500 as the game really slows down and counter-intuitively, the better you are the slower it goes. Why? Every little micro-movement becomes really important. It bogs the game down a ton. We just don't see games finishing in the same time limit we had previously with 1750pt limits. Experience will be the best teacher here and it may turn out that we are wrong, but we have to post a points limit before we have any experience, hahaha! So, we're leaning towards 1500 at this point. What do you all think?

1500 at an "early edition" game is fine, I used to prefer 2000 but everything has gone topsy-turvey so 1500 works.

Forge World

We propose to allow any units with the 40K approved stamp to be allowed in the game.

personally I'd allow anything that's isn't sporting Structure Points/isn't a gargantuan creature in, as many FW units exist that are designed for normal 40k play but just don't have the stamp and likely won't get it because they don't have another book to be featured in.

=Counts As Armies and WYSIWYG

I anticipate this is going to get crazy. Can anyone say, "counts as allies?"

Personally?

I'd enforce strict WYSIWYG with exceptions only for well done conversions/scratchbuilt models to tone avoid craziness.

Thanks a ton for the excellent feedback. A lot of good ideas and opinions here.

I am really excited to see how things pan out! Golden Throne and NOVA are going to provide a lot of good data. Mathias, I think Adepticon is in a really good position to use that info to put a great format out there.

Rounds will be our standard 2hours and 15minutes, which will be WAY more than enough time for 1500 points, even with getting to know the rules. We can then start working our way back up to 1750 if it doesn't result in a lot of unfinished games.

The mission is victory conditions, where each is separate, like Adepticon. It allows for multiple paths to victory. And the Tie Breaker points are only for Bracketing, not for breaking actual ties in the game.

We actually don't have that many ties in our format. We found that less than 15% of games were ties. I think that is acceptable and it allows people to play for a tie when they get a really rough match-up.

Very few players said the games got stale (OverwatchCNC withstanding!) as it resulted in a different game every time. It also keeps things familiar and simple, which will help a lot, I think. We can then start altering it as we go to better fit 6th ed.

@Vaktathi
Hmm, in our format if you table your opponent you win....so maybe the format you played in was a modified version of ours?

Warlord traits is a weird one. I don't think dropping it is the solution, nor do I think picking them is the solution as you can combo out some really powerful armies with it. We can always easily change this if it turns out to not be the best solution.

We are open to including mysterious objectives if they are predetermined such as with skyfire. Some of them are just so powerful in certain situations that we find it to be a bit much, same with terrain. It can create really, really unbalancing situations.

I think the argument that there is too much gong on for players to include FW too is somewhat valid, but the downside to that is if we wait, then people will get used to playing it the way we do now, and then will be resistant to FW based upon the same reasons they do now! hahaha

I honestly and truly think the game will be MORE FUN with FW. We use it here all the time and find it to be neither confusing, OP or too expensive. The too expensive argument to me doesn't hold water either as unless you come to an event with every codex and WD rules supplement, there isn't much argument there. And you can get any of the rules online from a certain Bay of Pirates, or with a simple Google Search if you want to, just as you can with the Codices.

We go to FW tournaments often, and honestly, at an event (particularly 1500pts) you don't see much if any of it. At the last tournament we went to with FW I played ZERO FW units! haha.

I think all it will take will be a little bit of acclimation to it, and it will be second nature and all of a sudden we get to use twice as many toys as we did previously. I only see positives.

By requiring players to have the rules on hand, and with the long time limits, there should be plenty of time to get up to speed on what this stuff does, particularly if there are only 1 or 2 units in there to get to know.

We'll come up with a system for counts as allies, but I think a strict no proxy rule will be a definite. That is going to be a bit of an ambiguous one by its nature. We'll work it out as we go, but start with some guidelines to help people out.

Again, thanks for the feedback! Keep it coming, it really is appreciated.

Reecius wrote:By requiring players to have the rules on hand, and with the long time limits, there should be plenty of time to get up to speed on what this stuff does, particularly if there are only 1 or 2 units in there to get to know.

This would alleviate a lot of concerns. As long as there's time for me to review pre-game, I'm cool.

On the psyker thing, my army can't take any of the new psychic abillitys. A lot of the new powers are much more awsome then the original powers these models get. I think getting a useless power is part of the gamble of trying to upgrade. It feels like your taking out a mechanic that is used to balance the buff many psykers get in 6th edition because "that sucks, I got a useless power. My game is now ruined". These people need to suck it up. IMHO I think they made the game much more random so the same armys wouldnt be dominating so much. Mabey it would be fun to play that way (no matter what people say its pretty random anyways, theres just ways to mitigate that randomness which is a big part of competitive play and list building). Once people get used to it they will find was around the new random elements.

The issue is with the Psykers being super random is they become to risky to take....much like a weirdboy...

And Reece's propsoed rules only allow you to reroll if you Can't use the power. If you get a sucky power you can use you are stuck with it, or the primaris. I can see this being fair, as paying 100ish points for a model that gets shafted in a single dice roll is pretty lame.

Grimgob wrote:On the psyker thing, my army can't take any of the new psychic abillitys. A lot of the new powers are much more awsome then the original powers these models get. I think getting a useless power is part of the gamble of trying to upgrade. It feels like your taking out a mechanic that is used to balance the buff many psykers get in 6th edition because "that sucks, I got a useless power. My game is now ruined". These people need to suck it up. IMHO I think they made the game much more random so the same armys wouldnt be dominating so much. Mabey it would be fun to play that way (no matter what people say its pretty random anyways, theres just ways to mitigate that randomness which is a big part of competitive play and list building). Once people get used to it they will find was around the new random elements.

QFT. I have found many of the random elements are adding much more balance to the game than imbalance. Too bad if you get a bunk power or warlord trait! You can still win the game, of the 3 games I played in the tournament last Saturday my Warlord trait mattered once and it wasn't game changing.

The precedent was already set for rerolling an unusable power in the BRB, we just applied it to an additional set of circumstances to make it more fair is all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Pretre

That is what we were thinking. It gives plenty of time to figure out what you are up against.

Reecius wrote:=Basics

We won't be using mysterious terrain. Some of these are just too unbalancing for some armies.

Understandable, though unfortunate. Personally, I think a lot of boards could benefit from a Mysterious River running through it, but this is fine.

We won't be using mysterious objectives unless they are predetermined, which will be explained below.

I don't like this, for reasons I'll also explain below.

We will be using Fortifications, but not Fortresses of Redemption or Skyshield Landing Pads as they are just flat out too big, particularly if both players bring one.

Fine, though I wonder about the Skyshields already in your tournament terrain collection - will you be removing those, or just not using the rules for them?

Warlord Traits: Frankie had the idea of rolling once and then choosing that number power on any of the three traits. This means the system is still random, but it gives you the ability to avoid rolling a worthless trait. Feedback on this one would be appreciated.

Interesting idea; have to sit and look at the table (it's not in front of me), but that seems like it might be an okay approach. It does mitigate the risk factor a bit, though - if I choose to try and roll for "Warlord gains +1" to charge ranges," I should have to risk "Everyone w/in 12" gets Warlord's leadership in your Tyranid army."

Allies are in. They bring more balance to the game as IMO, the core mechanics of the game are what now create imbalance. When everyone's power level is cranked to 10, it helps to level the playing field.

Short term, definitely. Will be interesting to see what trends develop over time, though. I'd like to add a requirement that Allies be painted in a manner distinct from the primary army, though - I don't want to have to tell one set of unpainted Marines from their unpainted Allied Blood Angel buddies. If people really want to use Allies, make them put in the effort to do so.

Terrain will be pre-arranged. Having players arrange terrain just isn't practical for a tournament from a time perspective.

Absolutely.

Book Night Fighting will be in as will Random Game Length and Stealing of the Initiative.

Good.

= We will be using a "BAO" (Bay Area Open) style mission similar to what we did last year.

What this means is that we will essentially have a single, multi-layered mission with different deployments. What we have found is that the mission is sufficiently complex enough that when combined with differing terrain, deployment and opponents, provides for a unique play experience every game that also allows for multiple paths to victory. Playing the same mission also means that you are never left trying to figure out what to do in a given mission. You already know it and get better at it each round. It allows you to focus on playing your best instead of trying to figure out how to play.

It's also a rather different game. I don't mind the difference, but armies that are good at the BAO mission are certainly different than armies that are good at a standard book mission.

I don't like the absence of "Big Guns Never Tire" or "The Scouring" - having the occasional mission with scoring Fast Attack units (which also count against you if they die) makes for a nice change, and encourages balanced tourney lists to diversify into those areas.

The first victory condition will be 2 Capture and Control objectives on 40mm bases that can be placed anywhere in your deployment zone at least 6" from a table edge or 12" from another objective. The player controlling the most of these (as per the BRB) wins this victory condition.

There will also be 3 Seize Ground Objectives on 25mm bases which must be placed outside of either player's deployment zone, 6" from a table edge and 12" from another objective following the rules in the BRB. The player controlling the most of these (as per the BRB) wins this victory condition. We are 90% sure we will allow at least one of these to always give Skyfire to a unit within 3" of it so long as you control that objective (ANY one unit within 3", not just the scoring unit controlling it) to mitigate the threat Flyers pose to armies without a lot of counters. What are your alls feelings on this? We think it is fair as it allows armies to fight back against Flyers but it isn't a gimme. You have to get into position to use it and the other player can prevent you from doing this. We think it is a good compromise but would love some feedback.

Hell no. The "answer" to flyers isn't to hand everyone guaranteed anti-air on every table, every game. You complete negate the metagame decision at that point; everyone can just bring their normal shooty stuff, and if they happen to be fighting a flyer that game, they'll know to go park their Hive Guard/Lootas/Long Fangs on that objective.

Yes, not every army is equal against Flyers at the moment; my Tyranids are painfully aware of that, believe me. But this looks like a serious overcorrection. I'd rather you stuck with normal mysterious objective rules, so that there is always the risk to Flyers, without the guarantee.

The third victory condition will be Victory Points as in the old system. We wanted to keep KPs but due to the amount of Deathstar style units we anticipate will become prevalent in the game, the KP system becomes silly. KPs are meant to balance out MSU, which is still really powerful in 6th (if not BETTER) but now that the Draigowing style units are going to become the norm, saying destroying one of those is the equivalent of taking out a unit of Grots is not fair. So, Victory Points, while more mentally taxing at the end of a long game, seems to be the best bet. Half points if the unit is immobilized or below half strength at games end, full points if it is destroyed or broken at game's end. Whoever has more VP's wins this victory condition. An alternative to this we are considering is to say a unit is worth 1 KP for every 25 or 50 points it costs. You then put this number on your army list to make the math at the end of the game easy. The downside here though, is that it creates situations where having multiple units just over the break point can mean your army will give up a great deal more points proportionally than an opponent who has a lot of units just under the break point.

I'm not certain Draigowing will be as big a problem as you think, at least in the context of a BAO-style mission. Consider: single units can no longer hold multiple objectives. If you spend 50% of your points on a Deathstar unit, even if it is scoring, at best you'll only be able to hold 1 of the 5 objectives on the board with it. It seems like being only worth 1 KP is a valid benefit to that new limitation.

But why old-style VPs at all? Why not put The Relic in play? Add that controlling The Relic counts as controlling an objective for the purposes of only letting a unit control one at a time. Or how about the various secondary objectives defined by the rulebook? Let Fast Attack units control Seize Ground objectives, and make them worth a VP when killed. Let Heavy Support hold Capture & Control objectives, and make THEM worth a VP. For that matter, you don't mention new-style VPs at all - if you allow Warlord traits, what'll you do with the "+1 VP for killing enemy characters in challenges" ability, if you have no VPs?

We will use 3 Tie Breaker Points for bracketing purposes per the BAO style. As the old BAO Tie Breaker points were really similar to the new ones in the book, we'll largely keep these apart from First Blood which we find is just too easy for the player going first to get.

Slay the Warlord
Linebreaker
Preserve Your Focres=You get this is half or more of your scoring units, rounding up, are not destroyed or broken at game's end.

We will use the following deployments:
Dawn of War (6th ed version, was called pitched battle in 5th)
Vanguard Strike (triangle deployment)
Spearhead from 5th

We are considering Hammer and Anvil but in a tournament setting where tables are butt to butt, it can get really, really inconvenient. What do you guys think? I just don't think think it's practical and Spearhead is pretty close to it.

Agreed on logistics of Hammer & Anvil, though it's a pity - the deployment type is actually more fun than I expected.

This mission then stays very true to the book missions as we like to do, but also (hopefully) balances out some of the inequities those missions have. For example the mission in the book "The Relic" is just so unfair for shooty armies or if you have a scoring Deathstar such as Nob Bikers who can just drive forward, grab it, and then drive away. They are tough enough to just shrug off any damage.

If you kick over to "sum of VPs," rather than 3 independent missions scored win/loss, the problems seem to diminish. Nob Bikers may have the objective (keep in mind they can only drive 6" away a turn), but that means they're not scoring/contesting any of the other objective types.

=Psykers

If you roll a power you can't use, either because of Force Charge or the inability to use it such as a Broodlord rolling a shooting power, you can reroll till you get one you can use.

No. This ONLY benefits Broodlords, as they are the only psyker out there with BS 0. It guarantees them Blessings & Maledictions; as they have Infiltrate, they can actually USE Maledictions on turn 1, which is otherwise very rare (most have 24" range). Too much of a benefit for that particular model, and no effect anywhere else.

Points Level

This is the one where we're really scratching our heads. We want to go with 1500 as the game really slows down and counter-intuitively, the better you are the slower it goes. Why? Every little micro-movement becomes really important. It bogs the game down a ton. We just don't see games finishing in the same time limit we had previously with 1750pt limits. Experience will be the best teacher here and it may turn out that we are wrong, but we have to post a points limit before we have any experience, hahaha! So, we're leaning towards 1500 at this point. What do you all think?

We also find that at this points level you can't pack in all the goodies, which is good and bad. For one, most Deathstars fit in at 1500pts, and as such they can really dominate the game. On the flip side, it also means that you can't bring a deathstar AND crazy support units. We're finding it can be a bit more rock, paper, scissors at 1500pts.

We're open to non-traditional points levels too, such as 1600, or 1650. Now is a good time to throw off old traditions if they no longer fit the dynamic of the game.

Start with 1500, preferably at 2:15 or 2:30. Revise as people get better with the rules. 2 hours for 1500 was too short last weekend, but will probably be fine by next year.

Forge World

Most of you know we at Frontline love Forge World and have pushed to have it in tournaments previously but were met with a lot of community opposition.

The biggest objection previously was that FW upset the balance of the game. Well, hahaha, no worries about that now! Game balance went out the window with 6th in a big way and the power combos that the game provides don't need FW. The worst offenders that people complained about were Vehicles (Achilles, Lucious Drop Pod, Caestes Assault Ram) and those have all been hit with the NERF bat due to Hull Points, so I don't see it being as big of an issue.

Hull Points do nothing to alter the Lucious Drop Pod or the Hades Breeching Drill; the Ram actually gets BETTER (via the Flyer rules).

The second biggest objection was that most players didn't know the FW rules. Well, now everyone is relearning the rules and this is a perfect time to open the doors and broaden our horizons. I think particularly the inclusion of the FW AA units will go a long way to helping to even out some of the crazier lists. Mostly though, FW units just add a lot of character to armies and the vast majority of them are under powered if anything.

We propose to allow any units with the 40K approved stamp to be allowed in the game.

Ultimately I think FW increases the fun of the game and the diversity of toys we get to play with. What do you all think?

Relearning the core rules != learning all the FW rules. For starters, I picked up my 6e rulebook at my FLGS; I can't do the same with FW books.

I don't mind FW units, most of the time. It requires that people who want to bring them a) have the rules themselves; b) offer the rules WITHOUT PROMPTING to their opponents; and c) accept that any game w/FW units will go slower.

I don't object to your desire to bring FW more mainstream; just don't pretend that any of the underlying complaints people have are any different now than they were in June.

=Counts As Armies and WYSIWYG

I anticipate this is going to get crazy. Can anyone say, "counts as allies?"

Yeah, that is going to get bananas.

So, we'd love to hear some ideas on where to draw the line? Particularly with FW models, this gets crazy. So, what do you do when you have someone who has built an awesome AdMech army using all kinds of beautiful conversion but is using two different codices and FW models? Even worse, the guy with a bunch of half painted models or models from his and 4 friends' collections that all have different paint jobs and represent an allied army. That could very easily get confusing.

We don't want to limit people's creativity, so what are some ideas to make this easy? My thoughts were to include a hand-out for players who are doing this to give to their opponent that includes at the very least a unit to unit breakdown, ie. this unit in my army=this unit from this codex, and etc. Preferably with a brief stat breakdown.

The point of WYSIWYG is that you can look at the model, and know what you're fighting. I love Hulk's AdMech/daemon army for its appearance, but it's difficult to play against on the table. Adding Allies to it is, I think, just too much.

I'd go with a zero-tolerance stance on WYSIWYG for any army including Allies. If you want to use Allies, then you'll have to use the appropriate models, painted in a manner that lets your opponent know at a glance what he's looking at. If you aren't using Allies, then "counts as" is a little more tolerable.

I'd also go zero-tolerance on FW units; if you want to use it, you'll have to have the official model; that one is mostly for the TOs, as otherwise you get to decide case-by-case if someone's homebrew Ram is sufficiently similar. The argument for including FW rules has often fallen back on the "let me use my cool models." Fine, but you have to USE the cool models.

So Misfortune and Precognition are not upgrades to Eldars doom and fortune. So if a Divination psyker that doesnt have Reserves (and since were not rolling for mysterious) they get to reroll instead of picking primaris power because they didnt get a power they could use. how is that fair to armys that don't get any powers when every other ability on that chart is tits (no cover save, 4+ inv, overwatch at BS, reroll all failed save/to hit, and reroll any save your opponant makes)? if you give one side a win win with no risk why wouldn't you always go for it. Or maybey the random roll was put in to make you think about giving up your original ability.

Grimgob wrote:So Misfortune and Precognition are not upgrades to Eldars doom and fortune.

They weren't before. Precog only works on the Psyker, not his unit, and Misfortune is more of an upgrade for Null Zone.

Misfortune makes the target unit reroll all succesful saving throws (how is that not doom plus reroll succesful inv. saves?) and precog is still a good power.

RE: Lucious drop pod - You still can't assault from reserve, right? So what's the beef with it? Did they specifically FAQ that to work?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think if you allow forgeworld, there is no need to have static objectives. The forgeworld items that most armies can take allow for some kind of skyfire. This will actually encourage people to use the forgeworld units and learn what they do imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another question you might ask is, are forgeworld armies allowed? If so, what can they ally with? It might be easier to just leave them out, but why just disallow them and allow other things?

Whoa, I just realized what you did with the missions. Giving each player a guarateed skyfire granting objective is a terrible idea. You can buy skyfire weapons in the form of Aegis and Bastions, giving it out for free means players no longer have to make the hard choices about how to build their list to deal with flyers and instead you are just giving it away for free.

That is really bad mission design imo not good mission design. You are taking a huge part of the game, accessing skyfire and building lists to deal with flyers, and throwing it out completely. This is what I was talking about in my previous posts about changing the core rules too much and creating imbalance through trying to create balance.

This is why mysterious objectives should be included, it gives you the chance of having a skyfire objective but it is not guaranteed and therefore doesn't create a situation where people don't want to play flyers. Honestly with that mission design I will just be playing Missile Wolves or psyfleman spam again because I know I will have access to skyfire, knowing that there is no way I would want to bring Scythewing crons or SR BAs because everyone will have skyfire access and you've just effectively nerfed flyers through your mission design.

Dok wrote:RE: Lucious drop pod - You still can't assault from reserve, right? So what's the beef with it? Did they specifically FAQ that to work?

You can't Assault from Reserves unless specifically allowed to do so. The Lucius says a Dread may assault out of it; that's specific permission.

(Vanguard Vets, Ymgarl Genestealers, CSM Lesser Daemons, and Zagstruk-led Storm Boyz are, I think, the complete list of core 40k units that can assault from Reserve right now.)

If everyone is playing the same number of objectives and missions why don't you (as TO) roll for mysterious terrain (tourny wide 1 roll each trees/river) and mysterious objectives. its still random but will standardiz every table at the tournament. you would just have to have set placement for objectives each mission (but could change positions of them between each game directed per mission primer hand out. This also could help you set the tone for each mission, just anounce the mysteries when the round starts.

Janthkin wrote:

Dok wrote:RE: Lucious drop pod - You still can't assault from reserve, right? So what's the beef with it? Did they specifically FAQ that to work?

You can't Assault from Reserves unless specifically allowed to do so. The Lucius says a Dread may assault out of it; that's specific permission.

(Vanguard Vets, Ymgarl Genestealers, CSM Lesser Daemons, and Zagstruk-led Storm Boyz are, I think, the complete list of core 40k units that can assault from Reserve right now.)

Then why can't units coming on from reserve in assault vehicles assault? Like land raiders that outflank through the use of Saga of the Hunter or Khan's ability... Don't have my BRB in front of me so I am just pondering off the top of my head.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Dok wrote:RE: Lucious drop pod - You still can't assault from reserve, right? So what's the beef with it? Did they specifically FAQ that to work?

You can't Assault from Reserves unless specifically allowed to do so. The Lucius says a Dread may assault out of it; that's specific permission.

(Vanguard Vets, Ymgarl Genestealers, CSM Lesser Daemons, and Zagstruk-led Storm Boyz are, I think, the complete list of core 40k units that can assault from Reserve right now.)

Then why can't units coming on from reserve in assault vehicles assault? Like land raiders that outflank through the use of Saga of the Hunter or Khan's ability... Don't have my BRB in front of me so I am just pondering off the top of my head.

Ymgarl can "move and assault as normal" when coming in from Reserves. Assault vehicles allow units to assault after disembarking, but are silent about Reserves.

Basically, if your rules say "you can assault from Reserves," you can. Assault vehicles don't have that.

Hey guys, the proposed Skyfire objective is NOT IN EITHER PLAYERS DEPLOYMENT ZONE. I think there was some misunderstanding, there.

It would be in no-man's land and you have to control it to use it, which means the other player can stop you from controlling it by contesting it.

It is in no way a gimme. At all.

But, I hear the argument for FW AA units and Flyers as that would put everyone on a level playing field.

As for requiring the models? That opens a whole new can of worms as then people get mad because they are expensive and they can kit bash them.

The only way to fairly treat it, is to apply the same rules to them that we do for all models. If a conversion or scratch build is close to the real thing, using the same guidelines we do for normal models, it would be cool.

No Forgeworld army lists, just the units. The Army Lists get too crazy and confusing.

MVBrandt had a good idea to mitigate Hammer and Anvil, you shorten the deployment zone by 12" on one of the edges so that it is more like a distorted SPearhead. This mitigates reaching across the entire table but keeps the deployment in the game to an extent.

I think possibly including The Scouring or Big Guns Never tire in missions may be a good idea as it changes things up a bit and it is an easy inclusion.

We considered VPs but then you have weird situations. How do you score objectives compared to units? VPs for destroying units will quickly outstrip the value of objectives for some lists if you make objectives worth 3 VP each per the book, while some lists will have far less.

Keeping them separate keeps the playing field level. However, one advantage of combing them is that ties are far less likely. It is something to consider.

And the Warlord trait is an easy fix, you either simply ignore that and choose from one of the other 2, or we make the character killed in a challenge count for double VPs or something. Easy to fix.

Good ideas here though, it is good to see other people's perspectives.

Janthkin wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Dok wrote:RE: Lucious drop pod - You still can't assault from reserve, right? So what's the beef with it? Did they specifically FAQ that to work?

You can't Assault from Reserves unless specifically allowed to do so. The Lucius says a Dread may assault out of it; that's specific permission.

(Vanguard Vets, Ymgarl Genestealers, CSM Lesser Daemons, and Zagstruk-led Storm Boyz are, I think, the complete list of core 40k units that can assault from Reserve right now.)

Then why can't units coming on from reserve in assault vehicles assault? Like land raiders that outflank through the use of Saga of the Hunter or Khan's ability... Don't have my BRB in front of me so I am just pondering off the top of my head.

Ymgarl can "move and assault as normal" when coming in from Reserves. Assault vehicles allow units to assault after disembarking, but are silent about Reserves.

Basically, if your rules say "you can assault from Reserves," you can. Assault vehicles don't have that.

Thanks for the clarification.

Janthkin wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Dok wrote:RE: Lucious drop pod - You still can't assault from reserve, right? So what's the beef with it? Did they specifically FAQ that to work?

You can't Assault from Reserves unless specifically allowed to do so. The Lucius says a Dread may assault out of it; that's specific permission.

(Vanguard Vets, Ymgarl Genestealers, CSM Lesser Daemons, and Zagstruk-led Storm Boyz are, I think, the complete list of core 40k units that can assault from Reserve right now.)

Then why can't units coming on from reserve in assault vehicles assault? Like land raiders that outflank through the use of Saga of the Hunter or Khan's ability... Don't have my BRB in front of me so I am just pondering off the top of my head.

Ymgarl can "move and assault as normal" when coming in from Reserves. Assault vehicles allow units to assault after disembarking, but are silent about Reserves.

Basically, if your rules say "you can assault from Reserves," you can. Assault vehicles don't have that.

The pod has the assault vehicle special rule. It's not mentioned in the forgeworld FAQ, but I think this would just be replaced by the assault vehicle special rule in the rule book. If that's the case, then the lucious is kinda crappy.

Out of curiosity what is confusing about the FW army lists??

Dok wrote:
Another question you might ask is, are forgeworld armies allowed? If so, what can they ally with? It might be easier to just leave them out, but why just disallow them and allow other things?

FYI: FW already released an ally matrix for all FW lists.

That's why I like forgeworld. They keep their business tight. They always have the updates ready to go when they need to be.

For those that are curious.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/a/allies.pdf

FW released an ally matrix? No kidding, I missed that.

ForgeWorld models is my only concern. If a opponent provides the material to view on the FW model in question then people properly prepare and see what that model can do. If not then that is an unfair advantage to those people who do not pick up FW books.

So perhaps an open list would solve the problem all together?

Adam LongWalker wrote:ForgeWorld models is my only concern. If a opponent provides the material to view on the FW model in question then people properly prepare and see what that model can do. If not then that is an unfair advantage to those people who do not pick up FW books.

So perhaps an open list would solve the problem all together?

So by that logic it is an unfair advantage to play Orks against someone who has not bought the ork codex. Everyone should always bring the rules for anything they are playing to any game if not they do have an unfair advantage.