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.

"AFAIK they have removed the 40k approved stamp from FW units/models"

I have not seen that. It's in the last couple of books I have purchased. The newest has not arrived to my door yet but I understand it's there as well.

Did I miss something?

This is really good Reecius .

@Panzer Leader

Yeah, shoot it to me. Honestly, comp is low on the possibility list of what may come, but I am always open to new ideas.

We get really good variety in our events now and traditionally have had a really nice spread (for whatever reason) but what concerns me now is in "official 40K" getting the following:

Player 1: Tau Formation, IG Main, Wolf Allies, Inquisitor, Baneblade

vs.

Player 2: Dark Eldar/Eldar/Space Marine Formation/D Weapon firing Fortification/Data Slate character

Like, what game is that?! Haha, that boggles my mind!

@Dozer

Thanks! I think it will give us a decent indication of where the community is at at this point in time.

I cant even begin to wonder how you TOs will wrap your head around this TBH. So much stuff about how rules will iteract

That is why they are trying to hash this out now, to alleviate the stress of it by taking it out of their hands and putting it into the community's hands to see what they should start preparing for. It's brilliant.

Largo39 wrote:
Rules to tweak: [snip]
ICs with MCs: lets just stop this one, it really doesnt seem like what was intended, and is kind of silly. If the MC itself is itself IC then go for it, but otherwise no ICs with MCs.

Though I personally don't find it necessary, I'm sure others will mention joining IC's to Riptides so I want to make sure everyone is aware of this distinction - Joining an IC to a unit of multi-model MCs is 100% legal and listed in the BRB as a valid ability, so normal MC units (for example Canoptek Spyders) should not be touched by any changes. The contention with the Riptide is whether his ability to take drones makes him a multi-model unit, RAW it is until GW says otherwise so that's why it's been played that way so far. If players feel strongly that Riptides should not be able to join ICs, address that specifically but don't penalize other units of MCs in the process for doing something they were intended to do.

Again, I don't think this is a change that needs to be made. I just wanted to clarify it to other players who don't use multi-model MC units in their army.

@hotsauceman1

We'll work it out, but thanks for the sympathy! Haha, it is nice to hear that others aren't just demanding it the way they want it as often happens.

@Garner

You see right through our schemes! haha, but yes, that is the point. See what everyone is thinking and then give them that or very close to that. Democracy!

@morgendonner

I was just in conversation with a German tournament player and he said there, they require the Riptide to buy at least a single drone to be able to attach an IC to it, and their book has the same language ours does.

I think that is a pretty good idea, actually. At least require paying a tax to make it an actual unit for the IC, not just the potential of a unit.

Ahh, good call about the spyders, okay. I thought I could be broad there but i guess that's a "riptides only" rule.

I actually like the German idea there (and have thought that is how it should work myself).

The idea that a unit made up of 1 model in a list counts as not always one model because it could have (but did not) purchased additional models...always felt wrong to me.

If you did not buy that extra model that unit in your army is a unit that always consists of one model.

It also breaks down some of the riptide brokenness. (not really for Ovesa star), but for Ideas like joining a commander, a Bike Seer, and a Riptide, if you add a drone I believe it changes the majority toughness of the unit to 4 instead of 6, I think it may also impact things like majority weapon skill. Now the drone can be put out to die, but with only 1 that forces morale on the unit etc.

@ Reece & Breng - Mechanicon had that ruling as a requirement for joining ICs to Riptides. There was a bit of a problem where they didn't well advertise that ahead of time and many players were jaded because they didn't know (lucky me, I had a shielded missle drone anyway I4 Hit & Run punks!)

I'm ok with that call as long as it's being stated as something specific to Riptides and with the understanding that it is a rules tweak. You just have to make sure you then also make a ruling on what happens if in the course of the game the drone dies.

To use the example of spyders again, if only one spyder was still remaining, you would still have the ability to join an IC to it, so it's something to think about.

Again, I think this is not as high on the list of needed changes as 2+ rerollables, but if it's something people feel strongly about it's a pretty good clean solution / easy to implement.

Riptide shielded missile drones are t6 so it doesnt change the majority T if you take a shielded missile drone and a bikeseer you're still majority t6 on the riptide unit.

My contention is that if you force people to take drones on riptides in order to have ICs joined to them, the following units must also have multiple models in order to have characters joined.

broadsides
obliterators
crisis teams, including cirsis bodyguards
hive guard/zoanthropes/any other 1-3 tyranid medium bugs

Thats not an all inclusive list, but effectively you're saying that if a unit needs to have multiple models in the army list you take, you need to always take 2 crisis bodyguard to attach your commander to them...sounds pretty dumb right?

@Thread

I was just pointing out something I was told, not saying we were going to do it just to be clear.

@Morgendoner

Yeah, totally, it would have to be ultra clear well in advance and it would have to be thought through to even consider it. There's a lot of ripple effect with doing something like that.

@Thanatos67

Again, this is just talk not a plan.

But how do you correlate a unit to an MC? I could see the correlation to Carnifexes or Spyders as they are also MCs that can form a unit but the other examples you give are not.

I fully agree that any unit that can be taken as a single model must be taken as a suqad of at least 2 to be joined by an IC (except ICs because they have their own rules.)

So
Paladins
Hive Guard
Zoan Thropes
Crisis Teams
Broadsides
Carnifex
Riptide
Spiders
Oblits
Mutilators
etc...

Essentially you are correct I would word it as the "units that always consist of a single model" refers to in the army list. If you have a unit in your army that is "always a single model" for instance a single obliterator...it cannot be joined by an IC.

Reecius the rules that prevent the joining most MCs are rules about joining single model units...so in these terms there is no difference between an Oblit and a Carnifex.

@reece-not to derail the thread and absolutely not sarcastically meant but MC's are units, hence they have unit type: MC. Therefore if you have a rule change that units need to have multiple models in the list you're playing, I dont see why it would be exclusive to MCs and not all unit types. Theres a reason you can attach a tau commander to a solo broadside but you cant for example attach an independent character to mephiston. One is not a unit that always consists of a single model whereas one is. Similarly compare a riptide to a wraithknight. Both are MCs, but one is a unit that doesnt always consist of a single model. I'm saying the riptide is more like the broadside than the wraithknight for the purposes of attaching an IC. I acknowledge its not set in stone and we're just tossing things around right now but I wanted to provide my take on the matter. I definitely dont think it was intended to have the powercombo of a buff commander or bikeseer attached to a riptide, but there's a ton of stuff in 40k that exists that creates unintended consequences. Honestly, i dont understand why shielded missile drones exist other than to give you the allowance to attach a character to a riptide, as they're sort of a disadvantage otherwise.

Hope that helps clarify why i listed those units

@Breng77 and Thanatos67

Ah, I get you guys. It's the single model rule, I misunderstood the point you were driving at.

That makes sense and it is a fair application of what we're talking about. It is also why the Riptide can be joined by an IC in the first place! haha

Good example of unintended consequences and why I so wish GW wrote even half-assed decent rules. Crikey.

Riptides would just buy a missile drone in order to bypass said obstacle fyi.

Then they spent points on the drone, not saying it means it won't happen, but if they spend a few more points for it meh...

Unfortunately Reece I agree that this poll will be somewhat skewed due to you not being able to regulate your data sample. As well as some of this stuff like data slates being so new.

Having said that, I voted for Core Codices, Allies, Codex Supplements, Digital Codices, and Limited Data Slates (I'd prefer no formations).

I think it's quite important to note that the same number of people whom voted to include FW, also want Data Slates in one form or another (be it limited or total). 44 vs 43 respectively, as I type this.

By that number, I think a tournament allowing FW should allow data slates in some form. I think most people agree that single characters like Be'lakor are fine (certainly not any worse than a lot of FW stuff), but formations are much easier to abuse.

 RiTides wrote:
I don't think people selecting the top option are only picking it, but there's no way to know for sure of course. I don't think you can add it to the other categories, though, or it will double count in some cases. Likely would've been better without that choice, but I think folks are likely selecting more than just that.

Did anyone here Only select the top option and no other options?

I did and then wished I hadn't

Doesn't matter much though, I think this type of poll is too mushy. I am pretty sure codexes, allies and FW is pretty much on the table regardless, right? That is what was advertised. So now its a matter of deciding what else to include/exclude.

@WhiteDevil

True on the skewed results.

And I don't know if we can say for sure there is any correlation between Dataslates and FW. The numbers just coincide but some could have voted for one but not for the other.

@winterman

You see through my ruse! haha, but jokes aside, you are right. We are not changing the core of what we do, it's just going to be about any additional inclusions/exclusions.

I asked all the other questions just to see what people's feelings on those topics are at this point in time. Thought it would be interesting data.

In terms of inclusions/exclusions I would be for at least allowing data slates and/or formations in some form in addition to the standard LVO rules.

I have retyped this message several times now trying to find the right words, so let me just say this:

I think some form of theme/composition score could be the answer to your problem.

Sure, you can take elder/dark elder/ tau and inquisition in one list, but that theme/comp score will be way lower than the pure IG guy, or the CSM/CD guy. If this is a significant enough part of your tournament design it might discourage some of the crazier combos, but it still won't stop them all.

 extrenm(54) wrote:
I have retyped this message several times now trying to find the right words, so let me just say this:

I think some form of theme/composition score could be the answer to your problem.

Sure, you can take elder/dark elder/ tau and inquisition in one list, but that theme/comp score will be way lower than the pure IG guy, or the CSM/CD guy. If this is a significant enough part of your tournament design it might discourage some of the crazier combos, but it still won't stop them all.

If you HAVE to do comp, the best one I've heard was "Allies allowed, but Battle Brothers count as Allies of Convenience". This eliminates a lot of the broken ally combos.

You could also only allow one ally/detachment of any kind to the primary force.

@Whitedevil

A lot of folks want some of them but not all. That seems to be the prevailing sentiment.

@Extrenm(54)

Sorry if I missed a previous comment.

Comp, as you can see (and honestly, as I expected) is not very popular at all. Most folks here, and in our polls, strongly oppose it.

Can't we see how things shake out with Escalation and fortifications first before jumping off the deep end? I really do think allowing Escalation units, not necessarily taking them just allowing for their possibility, will stop the abusive non-interactive armies some people seem to be concerned with.

Remember how double FOC at 2K was the ruin of 40k and couldn't be allowed to live. It was beaten back with 1999+1 before birth. Now we have plenty of armies who ally with themselves and circumvent the 1999+1, except those armies that can't ally with themselves yet.

Give it a chance. There is no reason to fear complexity. It's a game.

@Darth

I agree. But, again, our big event is about 60 days away. Normally, 100%, I agree that it is wise to try it out, give it some time to settle in and then make a decision.

However, our phone is ringing every day, and my email inbox keeps filling up with: "what is being allowed in the LVO? Can I take my Baneblade? Can I take formations or Bel'Akor? Etc."

We don't have the luxury of time right now as people need time to adjust their plans to buy stuff, build it, paint it, play with it, etc. in preparation for an event. We can't just hit them with a huge change right before the event, you know? It wouldn't be fair.

I am going to play a few games using all the rules today, myself. We're going all in, too. Super Heavies, formations, etc. to see just how bananas it all actually is. Maybe it won't be that bad, after all.

As a player going to a tournament I would want very clear thought out reasons as to why you would ban specific things:

For instance, if you ban superheavies, why not ban the riptide broadside dataslate too? Or the inquisitor slot? To ban anything becomes a fairly slippery slope, so dress accordingly.

It is because of that, I voted that everything HAS to stay. I don't particularly like it, and I personally would hate playing games against some of the scary lists someone can build from this mess, but at the same time I can't justify why something should be out and something should be in. The riptide dataslate can be broken or it can be fluffy (or both). I also cant justify that some superheavies are going to break the game either, as there has been multiple threads about how the baneblade is just not as good as some of the regular units out there.

Its really thinking about this stuff that I miss 5th ed. GOOD LUCK!!!

 Hulksmash wrote:
I voted. Though you did leave out the restricted FW option which I would have selected. As it was I did not vote for FW as unrestricted FW isn't my personal preference.

I voted for all codices, allies, digital codices, and supplements. And I should have added limited data slates for individual units being added like Belakor.

I voted for limited rules adjustment. Basically for the 2+ Re-rollable. My vote for how to change that would be that any save reroll cannot be better than 3+. Example, Screamerstar would save on a 2++ and if failed would save on a 3++ on the re-roll.

I voted, and agree 95% with Brad's sentiment.

Fine with codices / allies / digital codices / supplements.

Not a big fan of formations. Definitely not a fan of super heavy bs, like Str D Hellstorm Template C'tans. Forgeworld I'm iffy on, but I could go either way on it, as long as it was restricted like brad said.

Data slates depends. Fine with models like Belakor. Not really fine with the Tau/SM "Formation" crap.

Oh, and, I also agree with the 2+ rerollable being adjusted somehow, though I've no idea how to properly do so.

My two cents.

Personally, I like the idea of two tournaments.

One can be 'Ard Boyz style. No holds barred, no painting, no comp, no sportsmenship, if its in a rule book or FAQ it is perfectly legal.

The second tournament can be a true RTT. This tournament will have painting scores, comp, sportsmenship, and all that other jazz people complain about.

Since I did click comp scores and I feel that two separate tournaments should be played, I think players should only be docked points based on repatitive items other than those listed as troops and if you choose allies that do not trust each other or have some animosity towards one another.

Great topic and great discussion.

For me the problem is not with GW or with what to allow and what not to allow. The problem is us. We are trying to make a rule set do things that it was never intended to do. You are looking for balance for competition when tournament players by their very nature look to unbalance it in their favor. This rule set was never designed to do things tournament players want it to do. You all (TO's) have done a masterful job with what you all have had to work with. My hat is off to you. But with the way they are putting stuff out and the way they are writing the rules it is going to be nigh impossible to keep up with. I played in the ATC. I was charged with facing Tau and TauDar on a regular basis and it sucked. Sucked so bad I do want to play that way anymore. It is not a knock against the guys that brought it. It is a knock against the rules for those craptastic combos. Warhammer 40k 6th Edition was never meant for the format of competitive tournament play. GW puts this stuff out and messes with the game for tournament players. It makes it too hard for TO's and TP's to adapt.

My suggestion for the fix. Regulate things through the missions. An example was in Adepticons Gladiator; they have a mission that gives each army a vortex grenade. It allows some armies to fight better against those that have super heavies when they don't. It interjected something to allow for some parity. Instead of using fast attack or heavies for scoring make that one that allows for elites. Do some things like this and see if it helps. Again a suggestion for a line of thinking not the permanent solution.

Just my two cents.

Personally, as long as these combos exist I won't be doing any of the big tourneys. I play in these things for fun and those lists are not fun. Good luck with your poll and your decision making. I wish you the best of luck. I will also say the NOVA's bracketing system I think helps with this as the brackets set themselves you then play against guys in your bracket who are not so far off on things as you are. If I do a big one next year it will be NOVA for this reason alone. Best chance of lots of fun games with players that are on my level.