Switch Theme:

8th Ed Tournament Guidelines??  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Thinking of Joining a Davinite Loge





Western Australia

Speaking as a TO here in Australia...

We will stick to matched play format for most things - use the detachment limit based on points, require the whole army share at least one key word and so on.

On points, every test I have run so far has seen army points go up...

1500 in 7th became just shy of 1850 in 8th
1750 in 7th became 2000-2100 in 8th
1850 in 7th became just shy of 2250 in 8th
2000 in 7th became 2500ish in 8th

right now, we will likely stick to 1850 or 2k in 8th while we all settle in to the game.

Visit my 40k blog - http://objectivesecured.com.au/

Worlds End Radio Co-Host 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Is the general consensus to use the Advanced Rules for Terrain in Tournaments?

Base rules say, if it looks like you have cover you get cover.

Advanced rules has things like "If an Infantry unit is in ruins wholly, they get cover."

This makes a big difference as one is line of sight, the other is based off what's on the table and assumes the model can duck down in rocks.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




egh?
the base rules state
"If a unit is entirely on or within any terrain feature, add 1 to its models' saving throws against shooting attacks to represent the cover received from the terrain."
It doesn't even state just infantry it says any unit entirely within any terrain feature; only under advance rules does it discriminate just infantry units or models. Its actually different rules depending on the terrain type under advanced rules.

The advance rules contain things like charging through craters and forests (not ruins) reduce your charge range -2", etc.
Still interesting to see if this will be the norm for tournaments since they effect many builds.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/07 21:14:20


 
   
Made in us
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant





 kodos wrote:
Eyjio wrote:

So it's not that the list is actually cheaper, it's that you've altered it for 8th which makes it come out cheaper? That's pretty different to claiming that most 1850 lists come down to 1500.

it is different, of course, but no 7th list will be played exactly the same in 8th as new rules need new army lists
a 1:1 transfer gives you more points that are maybe wasted (why to buy 2 expensive Rhinos if one does the same job) or is illegal (no pods for dreads any more, a 100 points saved) or is not effective as you miss something you need now

just saying I calculated my old list, and ended up with 500 points more, so the total number of points need to be higher, but it is illegal now and I would never play it because it is really bad in 8th too (and my new list with the same style and more models cost less than in would have in 7th)


So what your saying here is "if I actually take the same models I took in 7e my list is 500 points more in 8th." But "I can take fewer models and pay less points for them". ? Almost no army I have built for multiple factions has more models than 7th for the same points. I mean you complain about people taking 3 wraithknights they are 500 points each now, so you won't have much of an army remaining afterward. Essentially what I'm getting from you is you have traded vehicles for infantry and thus more models, but also fewer units. I've seen many breakdowns of points for units and almost everything went up in points. Armies will be smaller at 2k in 8th than they were at 1850 in 7th, generally by quite a bit.
   
Made in us
Swift Swooping Hawk





Omaha, NE

Im curious about the different types of tournaments we can now have. We played a match today using the battle points system. Much better than a traditional points value match. Our game got started in under 15 minutes. Soooo much better than 6th or 7th ed. I know alot of tournament players will balk at this, but this is actually a better format for competitive play. We will no longer hear the whiny tit cry babies going on about "this point cost is wrong" or " he tooled his list" . Lets see how well you marshall your forces, not how well you min/max.

-3500+
-1850+
-2500+
-3500+
--3500+ 
   
Made in at
Battlefield Professional




Austria

Breng77 wrote:
I mean you complain about people taking 3 wraithknights they are 500 points each now, so you won't have much of an army remaining afterward. Essentially what I'm getting from you is you have traded vehicles for infantry and thus more models, but also fewer units.

to some it up yes
or at least the lists I have got working with the available leaks and testing for now end up with less units (no MSU concept), but more models than in 7th (because of using meat shield units instead of 2 Knights or equivalent for support, but I am also working on a Dread only Space Wolves list that would use much less models than my Blood Claw list in the first trials)

But the local TO already decided to use 1500 points for 1 day tournaments until everybody gets used to 8th and than keep the familiar 1850 points for 2 day events

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/11 12:43:59


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Rough Rider with Boomstick




USA

So far what I know is NOVA is modifying their missions for 8th ed. What I love so much about NOVA missions are that they can benefit low model count armies as much as high model count ones. No singular Army style can dominate over another in NOVA depending on the mission.

ITC is going by straight out of the book missions... which I think is a mistake.
   
Made in gb
Sybarite Swinging an Agonizer




Kazakhstan

I can see the ETC guys putting in +1 VP for destroyed units and shifting 8th ed tournaments towards more elite armies. It's a top down system and it's off putting to most new-comers.

   
Made in us
Rough Rider with Boomstick




USA

 iddy00711 wrote:
I can see the ETC guys putting in +1 VP for destroyed units and shifting 8th ed tournaments towards more elite armies. It's a top down system and it's off putting to most new-comers.



Maybe for KP missions, but for heavy multiple objective missions Elite armies will struggle some.
   
Made in gb
Sybarite Swinging an Agonizer




Kazakhstan

ETC tournaments have KP in EVERY mission, with a cap at 8+ . Originally It was to limit summoning and spamming, but by doing so they favored death stars. In turn they lifted the ban on super heavies, which polarized the meta even more.

It really made the tournaments overly complex and extremely unfun. Personally I'd like to see them either putting the player's experience first or banning ETC in open tournaments all together.
   
Made in us
Rough Rider with Boomstick




USA

 iddy00711 wrote:
ETC tournaments have KP in EVERY mission, with a cap at 8+ . Originally It was to limit summoning and spamming, but by doing so they favored death stars. In turn they lifted the ban on super heavies, which polarized the meta even more.

It really made the tournaments overly complex and extremely unfun. Personally I'd like to see them either putting the player's experience first or banning ETC in open tournaments all together.


Hmm interesting, good thing I don't live in Europe. Everyone should just use NOVA missions, they are the most well balanced and fun to play.
   
Made in at
Battlefield Professional




Austria

Not all tournaments in Europe using ETC, but most top players want to have tournaments to train and some national teams want to get their team players by being top ten of a league (or similar) and therefore the tournaments need to be as close to the ETC as possible.

the other thing is that most here prefer a 20:0 system (direct difference in VP) over a fixed win/loss/draw point system


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






gungo wrote:
egh?
the base rules state
"If a unit is entirely on or within any terrain feature, add 1 to its models' saving throws against shooting attacks to represent the cover received from the terrain."
It doesn't even state just infantry it says any unit entirely within any terrain feature; only under advance rules does it discriminate just infantry units or models. Its actually different rules depending on the terrain type under advanced rules.

The advance rules contain things like charging through craters and forests (not ruins) reduce your charge range -2", etc.
Still interesting to see if this will be the norm for tournaments since they effect many builds.



And Gungo this is why the advanced rules for terrain are necessary.

Vehicals would almost in no case get a cover save because the basic rules ignore "Obscuring" a unit, which the Advanced rules do not. In the base rule the only time a unit gets a cover save if its "fully" within the terrain piece. That's almost inpossible for Vehicals to do and they would never get to shoot.

The rules for Woods and Ruins.. with craters to a lesser extent seem to be the way most terrain features will be described in 8th.
Even a Hill (which gives Zero cover now) can be given the "woods" rule ..if a TO wanted to so a Hill would provide "Obscurity" to a Vehical, MC or infantry unit.

 
   
Made in us
Bounding Assault Marine




Philadelphia, PA, USA

I'm very optimistic about this edition and think it will be great fun. But I think it's reasonable to be skeptical that there is or will be no need for basic FAQs or other adjustment ASAP. Immediately upon cracking open the new book there are non-trivial issues within the first three paragraphs of the core rules that can be resolved relatively easily but very much seem to be disappointing, obvious oversights. Concrete examples and thoughts about game design here:

http://www.rocketshipgames.com/blogs/tjkopena/2017/06/40k-8th-edition-isnt-any-less-messy-but-could-be-at-least-as-great/

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/16 16:13:02


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'm fairly certain gw is releasing a day 1 FAQ as hinted at by playtesters.

Also I think there will be minor tournament adjustments to certain matched play rules such as who goes first, objective placement, and missions.

But beyond that I think the idea is for gw to do a lot of community feedback and continually post new FAQs based on feedback. In fact the first chapter approved compendium is due nov/dec of this year and according to the lead designer in his video yesterday is suppose to already have any nerfs/buffs/points/rule changes. This is not FAQs which are supposed to be on the community page but full on changes.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Why would you change who goes first? The underdog going first is a tactical decision.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Ottawa Ontario Canada

gungo wrote:
I'm fairly certain gw is releasing a day 1 FAQ as hinted at by playtesters.

Also I think there will be minor tournament adjustments to certain matched play rules such as who goes first, objective placement, and missions.

But beyond that I think the idea is for gw to do a lot of community feedback and continually post new FAQs based on feedback. In fact the first chapter approved compendium is due nov/dec of this year and according to the lead designer in his video yesterday is suppose to already have any nerfs/buffs/points/rule changes. This is not FAQs which are supposed to be on the community page but full on changes.



The faq didn't answer much, it also arrogantly ignored errors like in the terrain section for ruins and just re-asserted the methodology for units taking cover in trees, which doesn't change the wording for ruins which needs fixing. It read like jervis wrote it. Still no adressing the crucial stuff for los, a lot of people are already sick of banners and swords being used for los.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's a day 1 FAQ. It answers a bit and the FAQ is suppose to be updated constantly. Considering the game just came out literally today. AlSo someone arguing banner for line of site is an asshat. It was already clarified wings and such are not used for line of site puposes.
   
Made in us
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos






Since many of these tourney honchos have been helping with playtesting already, it would be nice if we could just play the game the way it is written for just a bit perhaps without a bunch of what amount to glorified house rules
From ITC and such...

Personally I hope they don't feel the need to impose a bunch of draconian and arbitrary army build restrictions which I think got out of hand previously tbh...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/18 01:42:00


++ Death In The Dark++ A Zone Mortalis Hobby Project Log: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/663090.page#8712701
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 CT GAMER wrote:
Since many of these tourney honchos have been helping with playtesting already, it would be nice if we could just play the game the way it is written for just a bit perhaps without a bunch of what amount to glorified house rules
From ITC and such...

Personally I hope they don't feel the need to impose a bunch of draconian and arbitrary army build restrictions which I think got out of hand previously tbh...

Um all the "draconian" army building restrictions from 7th are now OFFICIAL. Point limit, detachment limit, keyword limit, army limit, etc. even super heavies are limited by detachment.
And I fully expect gw to start placing unit limits on certain spam units in the future. The tournament organizers don't really need to do it themselves as they are in direct contact with gw and can recommend unit limits as needed. And according to gw they are listening to them and everyone else. Everyone is playing the game as designed and only talking about minor changes to Missions and pregame setups.
   
Made in us
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant





gungo wrote:
 CT GAMER wrote:
Since many of these tourney honchos have been helping with playtesting already, it would be nice if we could just play the game the way it is written for just a bit perhaps without a bunch of what amount to glorified house rules
From ITC and such...

Personally I hope they don't feel the need to impose a bunch of draconian and arbitrary army build restrictions which I think got out of hand previously tbh...

Um all the "draconian" army building restrictions from 7th are now OFFICIAL. Point limit, detachment limit, keyword limit, army limit, etc. even super heavies are limited by detachment.
And I fully expect gw to start placing unit limits on certain spam units in the future. The tournament organizers don't really need to do it themselves as they are in direct contact with gw and can recommend unit limits as needed. And according to gw they are listening to them and everyone else. Everyone is playing the game as designed and only talking about minor changes to Missions and pregame setups.


I hope they don't put limits on units, I'd rather see them adjust points on units that are "too good" which would be a better solution for units getting spammed because they are too good.
   
Made in at
Battlefield Professional




Austria

than they would need to add an increased cost for for using more units of the same type
increasing the points so that 12 units of Horrors are not worth it, also kills the unit for those that just wanted to take 2.

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant





 kodos wrote:
than they would need to add an increased cost for for using more units of the same type
increasing the points so that 12 units of Horrors are not worth it, also kills the unit for those that just wanted to take 2.


Not true. Increasing the points cost of a unit of Horrors to the point where it is a balanced option with everything else will result in fewer people spamming it. Some people still might because they like the army. Most spam is a result of one option being more points efficient than others. So if you limit Horrors to 4 choices then people will still take 4. If you limit it to 3 they'll take 3. Because it is still the best unit at its role. If it is priced comparably to other units with a similar function, it will get taken if someone wants to take it, but not because it is the better option than other valid options. What you are suggesting is that no points cost exists where it is a good idea to take 1 or 2 of something, but taking 10 will gimp your army because you will need to leave other good units out.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




In a vacuum that analogy works Breng the problem comes in an army list where for example increasing the model cost by 1 pt can drssticly throw off that balance.
Say for instance everyone's favorite punching bag right now conscripts. They cost 3 pts and a basic guardsmen is 5. Your example is to make it cost 4pts a model. Which will defintely cause them to not be spammed but will also make them not be played much at all since guardsmen are significantly better for 1pt.
Then thier is the issue of scion command squads were people are spamming them for deepstriking plasma guns there is several issues there plasma is 7pts and very cheap and command squads allow everyone to take a special making them Very efficient. You can increase the cost of the unit but it makes them not worth it compared to scion squads. You might say just increase the cost of plasma but that might just swing the pendulum to melta spam (probably not), imho you should probably limit scion command squads to the amount of scion primes in the list since that's the entire point of command squads. And it still is in effect a hard limit since no one will spam scion primes. Balance is good this edition but there is no one thing that baalnces a unit. It might be rules changes, it might be points drops, or it might be limits in what you can take. I can't just take an army of bomb squigs, you really shouldn't be able to take an army of plasma scion vets at 16ppm in squads of 4. You can fit 125 deepstriking plasma scion vets into a 2k list

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/19 21:31:33


 
   
Made in us
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant





gungo wrote:
In a vacuum that analogy works Breng the problem comes in an army list where for example increasing the model cost by 1 pt can drssticly throw off that balance.
Say for instance everyone's favorite punching bag right now conscripts. They cost 3 pts and a basic guardsmen is 5. Your example is to make it cost 4pts a model. Which will defintely cause them to not be spammed but will also make them not be played much at all since guardsmen are significantly better for 1pt.
Then thier is the issue of scion command squads were people are spamming them for deepstriking plasma guns there is several issues there plasma is 7pts and very cheap and command squads allow everyone to take a special making them Very efficient. You can increase the cost of the unit but it makes them not worth it compared to scion squads. You might say just increase the cost of plasma but that might just swing the pendulum to melta spam (probably not), imho you should probably limit scion command squads to the amount of scion primes in the list since that's the entire point of command squads. And it still is in effect a hard limit since no one will spam scion primes. Balance is good this edition but there is no one thing that baalnces a unit. It might be rules changes, it might be points drops, or it might be limits in what you can take. I can't just take an army of bomb squigs, you really shouldn't be able to take an army of plasma scion vets at 16ppm in squads of 4. You can fit 125 deepstriking plasma scion vets into a 2k list


I'm not sure I buy the "no one would take conscripts at 4 ppm." Guardsman can no longer blob up. I think people would take
Them
But maybe one squad of 30 instead of 3 squads. As for
Scions if plasma is the issue bump the price on plasma.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Breng77 wrote:
gungo wrote:
In a vacuum that analogy works Breng the problem comes in an army list where for example increasing the model cost by 1 pt can drssticly throw off that balance.
Say for instance everyone's favorite punching bag right now conscripts. They cost 3 pts and a basic guardsmen is 5. Your example is to make it cost 4pts a model. Which will defintely cause them to not be spammed but will also make them not be played much at all since guardsmen are significantly better for 1pt.
Then thier is the issue of scion command squads were people are spamming them for deepstriking plasma guns there is several issues there plasma is 7pts and very cheap and command squads allow everyone to take a special making them Very efficient. You can increase the cost of the unit but it makes them not worth it compared to scion squads. You might say just increase the cost of plasma but that might just swing the pendulum to melta spam (probably not), imho you should probably limit scion command squads to the amount of scion primes in the list since that's the entire point of command squads. And it still is in effect a hard limit since no one will spam scion primes. Balance is good this edition but there is no one thing that baalnces a unit. It might be rules changes, it might be points drops, or it might be limits in what you can take. I can't just take an army of bomb squigs, you really shouldn't be able to take an army of plasma scion vets at 16ppm in squads of 4. You can fit 125 deepstriking plasma scion vets into a 2k list


I'm not sure I buy the "no one would take conscripts at 4 ppm." Guardsman can no longer blob up. I think people would take
Them
But maybe one squad of 30 instead of 3 squads. As for
Scions if plasma is the issue bump the price on plasma.

Would that stop people from taking command squads?
Scions are 9ppm regardless if it's a command squad or scion squad.
However a command squad is 4 deepstrike models all of which can take a special weapon.
The scion squad is 4 scions and a tempestor only 2 of which can take specials and the unit costs more.
Even raising the cost of plasma won't change the fact you'd still take command squads although raise the price of plasma enough and people will just spam volley or meltaguns instead. Raise the price of everything enough and people will just take something else. Imho the only change needed is to limit scion command squads to tempestor primes. Something as simple as for each tempestor prime you can take 1 or 2 command squads. Conscripts I'm not even sure they are a problem other then theory hammering but people want to complain about them because they are annoying.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/19 22:39:07


 
   
Made in us
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant





By your argument we may as well not have points because at people will always take the most cost efficient models. If the command squad is better than standard scions just raise their points. I can see you reasoning but that is not a solution that works well for many units. As for weapon points, plasma is far better for deepstrike than melts in most cases, or any other option for that matter.

My argument is that in general I would rather see GW address imbalance through points rather than through other arbitrary restrictions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/19 22:42:43


 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: