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.

Hello everyone
With the advent of new supplements communities around the world realized that it has to be reined in (and some of it outright banned) to keep tournaments scene viable.
For example, there seems to be general consensus that Escalation is not to be allowed into tournaments.
On Stronghold assault things are not so clear (thou since it came out together with Escalation, some just propose to ban it too without looking).
On one hand, SA contains some D-weapon models and those are not for tournaments. Option for Networked fortifications, i.e. filling your whole deployment zone with Bastions and ADL also seems too much.
But does it means that SA should be barred from tournaments altogether, or should it be “in”, just without Aquila strongpoint and Networks?
Because new fortification kits, like Firestorm redoubt and Shield generator seems nice and could really help out some lists to defend themselves from Aircraft, flying circuses and 1st turn Alpha strikes (when 1 is taken, and not 3 like in network – that would seem to be over the top).
I also like the idea of being able to set up razorwire/tanktraps/barricades around bastion – it both looks cool and doesn’t seem OP.
Also, SA contains new fortification rules, that allow empty fortifications to keep firing troops assault from bunkers, as well as putting all kind of upgrades on your bastion.
So what do you think? Should SA be Allowed in tournaments? Partially allowed? Banned altogether?

I'm actually super disappointed that both supplements are disallowed, as I think that unrestricted 40k is actually the most balanced 40k. Just my $0.02.

I think it should definitely be allowed but I agree that the 'D' weapon fortress and networks should be left out.

The book has some really good stuff in it - Updated building rules that are much improved, the Void shield generator that really helps alleviate the alphastrike, fortification upgrades and other cool stuff.

Personally I think that the only thing that should be banned from it are the 2 d weapon platforms (unless escalation is also allowed). All other fortifications and networks should be placed immediatly before army placement, that way your network will require thought and strategy to put down.
I personally think networks should be allowed due to having limits and requirements on what to take.

The idea that networks are not ok for tournaments comes from how OP 3 Void shield generators (3 shields each) crowded in one spot would be, and what rediculous amount of firepower would 2 Firestorm redaubts +4 Vengence weapon turrets would generate (althou latter would cost a bunch of points).

I would love to see a stronghold assault tourney where the objective was to see who's stronghold could last the longest.

Imagine the min-maxed optimized forts players could come up with.

Stronghold assault without escalation becomes AV15 fort and 9 void shields: the book. With Escalation, it becomes 3 void shields for your titan or 9 void shields: the book. It's good for normal use IMO, but in a tournament people will literally just spam void shields - there's no reason not to.

How do you pick and choose? One of the reasons why I quit playing 40K is because my play group I use to attend to, would say "we use all the rules in the book" then a few weeks later "this and this is not going to be used" without explanation just because they didn't like it.

Now add in Escalation and Stronghold Assault, either you let EVERYTHING in the book or NOTHING in the book. You can't pick and choose, because of the 1000s (10 000 of us? more?) we might like something in the book but because a few people say they don't like it, it should be kept out then?

We can't make everyone happy to pick and choose what GW decides to release.

If you are going to make "house rules" you better do it for the better of the game, not to make a few people happy just because they don't like it.

Only time will tell. Wasn't it about a year ago, people were screaming/crying/complaining about allies and flyers? They are still in the game and haven't been banned.

Looks like the cycle is repeating it's self again.

Most of SHA is fine, just ban the networks (most suck anyway) and the AV15 ones, everything else is fine.

Davor wrote:
How do you pick and choose? One of the reasons why I quit playing 40K is because my play group I use to attend to, would say "we use all the rules in the book" then a few weeks later "this and this is not going to be used" without explanation just because they didn't like it.

Now add in Escalation and Stronghold Assault, either you let EVERYTHING in the book or NOTHING in the book. You can't pick and choose, because of the 1000s (10 000 of us? more?) we might like something in the book but because a few people say they don't like it, it should be kept out then?

We can't make everyone happy to pick and choose what GW decides to release.

If you are going to make "house rules" you better do it for the better of the game, not to make a few people happy just because they don't like it.

Only time will tell. Wasn't it about a year ago, people were screaming/crying/complaining about allies and flyers? They are still in the game and haven't been banned.

Looks like the cycle is repeating it's self again.

Fun fact, Allies is one of the most abused and complained about things in the game currently.

The only fliers people complain about are heldrakes for being undercosted, and FMC daemons.

Besides that you can indeed pick and choose what is allowed and what isn't, if it negatively effects the game then you can remove it. For example, mysterious terrain, practically no body uses mysterious objectives are terrain because its more book keeping. If someone takes D weapons in normal 40k you will find that no one will agree to play that person over a period of time, or is not getting games fun?

 Ravenous D wrote:
Most of SHA is fine, just ban the networks (most suck anyway) and the AV15 ones, everything else is fine.

Davor wrote:
How do you pick and choose? One of the reasons why I quit playing 40K is because my play group I use to attend to, would say "we use all the rules in the book" then a few weeks later "this and this is not going to be used" without explanation just because they didn't like it.

Now add in Escalation and Stronghold Assault, either you let EVERYTHING in the book or NOTHING in the book. You can't pick and choose, because of the 1000s (10 000 of us? more?) we might like something in the book but because a few people say they don't like it, it should be kept out then?

We can't make everyone happy to pick and choose what GW decides to release.

If you are going to make "house rules" you better do it for the better of the game, not to make a few people happy just because they don't like it.

Only time will tell. Wasn't it about a year ago, people were screaming/crying/complaining about allies and flyers? They are still in the game and haven't been banned.

Looks like the cycle is repeating it's self again.

Fun fact, Allies is one of the most abused and complained about things in the game currently.

The only fliers people complain about are heldrakes for being undercosted, and FMC daemons.

Besides that you can indeed pick and choose what is allowed and what isn't, if it negatively effects the game then you can remove it. For example, mysterious terrain, practically no body uses mysterious objectives are terrain because its more book keeping. If someone takes D weapons in normal 40k you will find that no one will agree to play that person over a period of time, or is not getting games fun?

Vendettas, as well.

Them too, but they have been undercosted even before flyers

Vendettas at least have the excuse that their points values were set long before flyers were as powerful as they are now. Really thats just GW's fault for not updating all Flyers through Erratas when 6th edition was released to make sure they were all pointed appropriately with such a major rule change.

Heldrakes and FMC Daemons on the other hand are brand new rules and GW should have clearly thought a little bit longer on how to point cost those models and their wargear. The Heldrakes guns for instance are definitely not worth the same.

Edit: Yes Vendettas were still under costed in 5th but at least they could be shot down way easier and I had a lot less of a problem with them back then

While things like AV15, Vendettas, and void shields may be overpowered, the only thing I think breaks the game and takes away any cometitive value is the D weapon in normal 40k. Auto-win blasts are no bueno in my book.

Yeah but then you can't make childish "D" jokes like "That unit is about to get slapped off the table by my Titans D", think of all the Forging a Narrative potential you have of, who has the bigger D in a game of 40K!

While both supplements seem really cool. I feel that in a tournament setting, facing them would require too much tailoring which would take us awa from the "take all comers" type of lists and "normal games" would fall by the wayside.
I can see seperate tourneys where these rules are used being popular though.

Stronghold Assault isn't optional any more than Codex: Eldar is.

At the very most, I would recommend only banning the networks from tournaments/refusing to play them in friendly games, because the rules for old fortifications found in Stronghold Assault are basically updates like FAQ's and erratas that fix the current rule mistakes in the 6E rulebook.

Personally, I don't feel that the imbalance created by the new supplements warrant their exclusion from tournaments. They certainly require us to shift some of the tactics that we use, and they definitely change the metagame, but I don't think that they are the 'sky-is-falling' disaster that they are sometimes made out to be.

Friendly play, if you don't want to play against them, then more power to you, but in tournaments, as it stands right now, I don't think anything needs banning or restricting.

 Jimsolo wrote:

Friendly play, if you don't want to play against them, then more power to you, but in tournaments, as it stands right now, I don't think anything needs banning or restricting.

I almost made the (repeated) argument that when you allow escalation and stronghold none of the balanced and interesting armies with a wide variety of fluffy troops selections and only a small amount of vehicles won't stand a snowball's chance in hell against gimmick titan lists with extra void shields, and as such become completely unplayable, but then I realised that those same armies don't have a snowball's chance in hell against any competitive army in the current metagame either, so I guess it doesn't matter.

 Noir Eternal wrote:
Yeah but then you can't make childish "D" jokes like "That unit is about to get slapped off the table by my Titans D", think of all the Forging a Narrative potential you have of, who has the bigger D in a game of 40K!

True story, start slapping each other with the D then!