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.

 Primark G wrote:
Wow that is a lot of great vendors!

We are pretty stoked!

In other news, GW is attending in force...
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/06/29/nova-open-warhammer-community-and-studio-seminars-announced-june-29nova-open-warhammer-community-and-studio-seminars-announcedgw-homepage-post-2/

Pay close attention to what they say about the preview seminar (which btw is free on Wed night).

The 40k Narrative primer has been updated for 8th edition (everything for Dayfight/Nightfight, army construction for Recon Squads and Apocalypse):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6k7oRNaCvBxRUUxUnVUWFFQXzg/view

There is a quick newsletter rundown here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPS3WZmOPJ9832Pyfv4UBQfDPINggEAZX7jj1c-KHxE/edit


Iron Hands prepare to roll out at the head of a supply convoy.

If you're attending NOVA, but haven't bought your con pass yet, they get ten dollars more expensive at end of day today.

GW 8th FAQ is up

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/02/warhammer-40000-faq-now-available-july2gw-homepage-post-1/

So are GW and FW running retail stands as well?

Forge World is vending, yes. Game's Workshop will be live streaming, running tons of seminars, etc.

# of Attendees registered on July 12, 2016 (last year) - 598
# of Attendees who ended up attending NOVA 2016 - 1,300+

# of Attendees registered on July 12, 2017 - 1,357
Lesson to take from this - You should register ASAP

NOVA Open's 40K Format is being steadily updated for 8th edition.

Quick Hitters -

We are going with the ITC / BAO / Play Tester TO format tweak of +1 to the roll to go first for the player who finishes deploying first, rather than "deploy first / go first."

Understrength Units may only be selected as part of an Auxiliary Support Detachment.

Command Re-Rolls may not be used to re-roll the Seize or End-Game rolls.

We've also updated the missions for 8th fully, updated the 2ndaries, and added a new 4th mission leveraging KP/VP instead of Quarters.

Primer link under Warhammer 40K GT:
http://www.novaopen.com/warhammer-40k/

The main hotel's been sold out a while.
The 40K GT is pacing closer than normal to a sellout.
Many, many events are completely sold out, including many seminars.

The nearest hotel next to us, the Renaissance, is nearly sold out.

We're pacing somewhere between 2,000-2,500 attendees compared to only about 1,300 the year prior.

The Games Workshop preview event, where they've hinted at WORLD FIRST unveiling a brand new game (We have no idea, believe it or not!), only has a few spots left. They're free on Wednesday night, don't miss them.

Mike.. will the new SM codex be usable at Nova ?

Yes, very much so.

Maybe I'm nuts and/or blind but how is Nova handling variable game length? In the main rulebook it's listed as mission specific (even though it's the same for all the matched missions that I remember).

We will use rgl. Good observation.

MVBrandt wrote:
We will use rgl. Good observation.

Okay, thanks!

Super excited to get rolling. You guys are doing great!

Likely 40K GT Mission Order & Deployments:

Round 1: Hordes & Heroes, Vanguard Strike
Round 2: The Relic, Hammer & Anvil
Round 3: The Scouring, Search & Destroy
Round 4: Crusade, Frontline Assault
Round 5: Hordes and Heroes, Search & Destroy
Round 6: The Relic, Hammer & Anvil
Round 7: The Scouring, Vanguard Strike
Round 8: Crusade, Dawn of War

Mike,

Both Relic missions will have the same deployments ? or with one of them have the other short edge, long table deployment (name escapes me) ?

That deployment is just a much more limited hammer and anvil with a couple square inches extra only at the "point" on a 6x4 table, so we will not use it.

FYI, with some rumors pointing to Codex: GK and Codex: CSM being available for download by August 19 at latest, if those prove true, it is highly likely they will be fully legal for NOVA.

Games Workshop put together some amazing trophies for the 40K, Sigmar, Blood Bowl, and 30K events:



Plus pretty rad trophies for the Lord of the Rings events ...


Few spots remain, sign up while you still can

Regarding 40k, there's a rumor swirling around the forums today regarding Objective Secured and Daemons (also Kroot apparently). People are saying that allegiances such as Khorne or Tzeentch are not sufficient to provide a "faction" (at least not for ITC/Nova) to apply the new ObSec granted by today's announcement. As a result, Daemon troops can never be objective secured (even in an all Khorne daemon detachment, for instance).

Would it be possible to address this confusing situation? This seems directly contrary to the RaW. A rules modification this major could obviously have a big impact on list-building for the event.

Yeah, this one seems like it needs a response. Per the RAW posted on the Warhammer Community site, it looks like 'Imperium' and 'Chaos', among others, are sufficient to get ObSec. Not something I have a problem with (I'm bringing Custodes and we don't have a HQ so Imperium is what I'm stuck with) but people are arguing about it already in the News forum and it could change lists.

The RAW is a detachment must include entirely units of the same [faction] and not just the same faction. This refers to the keyword standing in for things like [Chapter]. You'll notice per the article that this aligns to the rules seen in the new codexes.

It passes logic that they wouldn't give Marines using only one Chapter a rule that those same marines can now suddenly get with or without being the same Chapter.

The one hiccup is I'm uncertain whether they meant for the subsequent result that Daemons cannot get obsec, since they have no [faction].

For now, Ynnari players who want obsec will need to have each ynnari det with Troops be all from the same <craftworld>, etc. AM will need to bucket their conscripts and commanders in one det and dump their soup, commissar, etc in the other(s).

I've pinged GW asking intent on the Daemon question. That's the only hiccup in what is otherwise intent and raw clear.

I'd say the intent is clear but RAW I anything but. The comment about brackets seems kind of disingenuous since throughout all of the indexes the rule book and the codexes it's never been established that brackets needs a specific type of faction keyword rather than any other faction keywords. The fact that it is causing issues with chaos players should be evidence of this.

It's a fairly semantico point though since we have Nova's ruling on this and that's all we needed. That said we know it's not a clear rule because there's already a growing number of people confused by it. If it was clear none of these people would have been confused.

Also, thanks for the quick response. I just hope any other tournament also can quickly get back to its players. I'm not sure this is a rule GW should have revealed before actually releasing chapter approved.

In a reflexive sense on clarity, do you believe Games Workshop gave SM a rule enabling Objective Secured for all being from the same <chapter> only to immediately and intentionally make that rule irrelevant?

Also there is no explanation that Faction is different from <faction> in the same way there is no explanation that Ocean is different from Fartburger. The rulebook would be difficult to produce if everything patently diffetent had to be affirmed as being different.

MVBrandt wrote:
In a reflexive sense on clarity, do you believe Games Workshop gave SM a rule enabling Objective Secured for all being from the same <chapter> only to immediately and intentionally make that rule irrelevant?

No I don't think GW intentionally did that, but these are also the same people that immediately validated long large portions of the indexes after making people buy them. They're not exactly perfect when it comes to their timing. But this is why I said the intent was clear it is the actual plain language that used that is not.

Also there is no explanation that Faction is different from <faction> in the same way there is no explanation that Ocean is different from Fartburger. The rulebook would be difficult to produce if everything patently diffetent had to be affirmed as being different.

I'm sorry but this is just doesn't jive. In the rule book, there are only faction keywords. Nowhere in the rules is it ever decree but there are different types of faction keywords. They're just faction keywords. Sometimes you can select these factions key words and sometimes you cannot. Sometimes even faction keywords you can select your not always allowed to select. This is why they needed to fax everything to say that you can't have gray Knights Inn as the name for your codex Space Marines or why you can't put adeptus astarte's a in an Imperial Guard regiment. Keywords are just keywords as far as the rulebook is concerned.

You want to say some key words are different than other keywords now which is fine if you're GW. What should not be done, however, he's to try in 1980 for everyone you can just thinking that's how it always was. GW has had multiple issues of ambiguity with the faction keywords system up to this day. It is pretty obvious they did not create it very well and or carefully.

Audustum wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
In a reflexive sense on clarity, do you believe Games Workshop gave SM a rule enabling Objective Secured for all being from the same <chapter> only to immediately and intentionally make that rule irrelevant?

No I don't think GW intentionally did that, but these are also the same people that immediately validated long large portions of the indexes after making people buy them. They're not exactly perfect when it comes to their timing. But this is why I said the intent was clear it is the actual plain language that used that is not.

Also there is no explanation that Faction is different from <faction> in the same way there is no explanation that Ocean is different from Fartburger. The rulebook would be difficult to produce if everything patently diffetent had to be affirmed as being different.

I'm sorry but this is just doesn't jive. In the rule book, there are only faction keywords. Nowhere in the rules is it ever decree but there are different types of faction keywords. They're just faction keywords. Sometimes you can select these factions key words and sometimes you cannot. Sometimes even faction keywords you can select your not always allowed to select. This is why they needed to fax everything to say that you can't have gray Knights Inn as the name for your codex Space Marines or why you can't put adeptus astarte's a in an Imperial Guard regiment. Keywords are just keywords as far as the rulebook is concerned.

You want to say some key words are different than other keywords now which is fine if you're GW. What should not be done, however, he's to try in 1980 for everyone you can just thinking that's how it always was. GW has had multiple issues of ambiguity with the faction keywords system up to this day. It is pretty obvious they did not create it very well and or carefully.

I think it jives just fine. Why would they include the brackets if they did not mean the faction keywords that appear in brackets? Otherwise why would it not just say with the same faction keyword, without using the brackets? I feel like reading it otherwise is either being unaware that those bracket keywords exist, or being intentionally obtuse.

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
In a reflexive sense on clarity, do you believe Games Workshop gave SM a rule enabling Objective Secured for all being from the same <chapter> only to immediately and intentionally make that rule irrelevant?

No I don't think GW intentionally did that, but these are also the same people that immediately validated long large portions of the indexes after making people buy them. They're not exactly perfect when it comes to their timing. But this is why I said the intent was clear it is the actual plain language that used that is not.

Also there is no explanation that Faction is different from <faction> in the same way there is no explanation that Ocean is different from Fartburger. The rulebook would be difficult to produce if everything patently diffetent had to be affirmed as being different.

I'm sorry but this is just doesn't jive. In the rule book, there are only faction keywords. Nowhere in the rules is it ever decree but there are different types of faction keywords. They're just faction keywords. Sometimes you can select these factions key words and sometimes you cannot. Sometimes even faction keywords you can select your not always allowed to select. This is why they needed to fax everything to say that you can't have gray Knights Inn as the name for your codex Space Marines or why you can't put adeptus astarte's a in an Imperial Guard regiment. Keywords are just keywords as far as the rulebook is concerned.

You want to say some key words are different than other keywords now which is fine if you're GW. What should not be done, however, he's to try in 1980 for everyone you can just thinking that's how it always was. GW has had multiple issues of ambiguity with the faction keywords system up to this day. It is pretty obvious they did not create it very well and or carefully.

I think it jives just fine. Why would they include the brackets if they did not mean the faction keywords that appear in brackets? Otherwise why would it not just say with the same faction keyword, without using the brackets? I feel like reading it otherwise is either being unaware that those bracket keywords exist, or being intentionally obtuse.

Because bracket key words aren't actually a category. You're trying to make them a category now in hindsight based upon the rule but the brackets themselves simply existed in the rulebook whenever they wanted to give you an example of where you are allowed to make up your own word. That's it. Flipping through my indexes last night, it looks like GW didn't even use brackets half the time when they were making these so-called bracket keywords. They just use the italics.

That means you have to say italics are the same as brackets or now we have three kinds of faction keywords. You're basically going down a rabbit hole based on grammar and punctuation. I don't even think they use the same brackets across all the books. Sometimes they used an actual bracket sometimes they used an arrow like in this warhammer-community article. Are brackets different than arrows? These are the kinds of silly questions we have to get into if we're going to use this logic.

If you can find me a page number in the rule book where the rules actually differentiate between faction keywords as being different kinds of faction keywords beyond customization then your position would make more sense. As it is, it looks like GW wants to make two different kinds of faction keywords, which is fine. They just need to recognize that would they do something like this The World At Large is not mind-readers and they need to explain what they're doing otherwise they will confuse people. And we can look to the news and Rumor for him to see that they already did successfully confuse some people so that point is proven.

EDIT: I think we're getting pretty far off topic though since this is just supposed to be a free thread talking about the Nova. I'll shut up now.

I think there's a difference between arguing an unclear rule when there's debate as to intent and arguing legalese when the intent is patently clear, is all.

MVBrandt wrote:
I think there's a difference between arguing an unclear rule when there's debate as to intent and arguing legalese when the intent is patently clear, is all.

I guess my original point was it's obviously not clear to everyone as evidenced by the confusion. I actually don't care what the ultimate result is for this rule. But I look at this forum and I see people in Threads getting confused about it and I know my own playgroup is just as confused judging by the email exchanges were having this morning. If I'm finding confusion with them and on here and I'm imagining and I think with good cause that there is even more rampant confusion among the rest of the community at Large. This just needs a word of God to come down and explain what they meant.

You did that for Nova so everything is good here. GW should probably do it For the game at large too. That's all

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
In a reflexive sense on clarity, do you believe Games Workshop gave SM a rule enabling Objective Secured for all being from the same <chapter> only to immediately and intentionally make that rule irrelevant?

No I don't think GW intentionally did that, but these are also the same people that immediately validated long large portions of the indexes after making people buy them. They're not exactly perfect when it comes to their timing. But this is why I said the intent was clear it is the actual plain language that used that is not.

Also there is no explanation that Faction is different from <faction> in the same way there is no explanation that Ocean is different from Fartburger. The rulebook would be difficult to produce if everything patently diffetent had to be affirmed as being different.

I'm sorry but this is just doesn't jive. In the rule book, there are only faction keywords. Nowhere in the rules is it ever decree but there are different types of faction keywords. They're just faction keywords. Sometimes you can select these factions key words and sometimes you cannot. Sometimes even faction keywords you can select your not always allowed to select. This is why they needed to fax everything to say that you can't have gray Knights Inn as the name for your codex Space Marines or why you can't put adeptus astarte's a in an Imperial Guard regiment. Keywords are just keywords as far as the rulebook is concerned.

You want to say some key words are different than other keywords now which is fine if you're GW. What should not be done, however, he's to try in 1980 for everyone you can just thinking that's how it always was. GW has had multiple issues of ambiguity with the faction keywords system up to this day. It is pretty obvious they did not create it very well and or carefully.

I think it jives just fine. Why would they include the brackets if they did not mean the faction keywords that appear in brackets? Otherwise why would it not just say with the same faction keyword, without using the brackets? I feel like reading it otherwise is either being unaware that those bracket keywords exist, or being intentionally obtuse.

Because bracket key words aren't actually a category. You're trying to make them a category now in hindsight based upon the rule but the brackets themselves simply existed in the rulebook whenever they wanted to give you an example of where you are allowed to make up your own word. That's it. Flipping through my indexes last night, it looks like GW didn't even use brackets half the time when they were making these so-called bracket keywords. They just use the italics.

That means you have to say italics are the same as brackets or now we have three kinds of faction keywords. You're basically going down a rabbit hole based on grammar and punctuation. I don't even think they use the same brackets across all the books. Sometimes they used an actual bracket sometimes they used an arrow like in this warhammer-community article. Are brackets different than arrows? These are the kinds of silly questions we have to get into if we're going to use this logic.

If you can find me a page number in the rule book where the rules actually differentiate between faction keywords as being different kinds of faction keywords beyond customization then your position would make more sense. As it is, it looks like GW wants to make two different kinds of faction keywords, which is fine. They just need to recognize that would they do something like this The World At Large is not mind-readers and they need to explain what they're doing otherwise they will confuse people. And we can look to the news and Rumor for him to see that they already did successfully confuse some people so that point is proven.

EDIT: I think we're getting pretty far off topic though since this is just supposed to be a free thread talking about the Nova. I'll shut up now.

Sorry I don't see where it isn't clear in the indices that <Faction> keywords are a thing. They are described on the first page for each larger faction under the keywords section. Telling you what <faction> means - a keyword of your own choosing. So it is very specific about what keywords having brackets are. So when they refer to a bracketed faction it refers to those keywords.

Actually for Daemons I would assume their mark of chaos is the bracketed keyword in question because <mark of chaos> is a bracketed keyword in the chaos index - that said the daemon portion seems to separate their daemonic allegiance out from their keyword (looking at the units you can change allegiance on) so that is unclear.

Genestealer Cults and custodes are also that is unclear as they have no <faction> keywords and have troop choices.

But for all other factions it is clear what <faction> keyword means, and they are a separate category, they are keywords you are allowed to choose. They is a specific type of keyword. I don't see the italics you refer to in any section describing these keywords in the indices.

I'll stick with thinking that those that are confused are either
1.) Not very familiar with the rules
2.) Trying to game the system by being intentionally obtuse (this is often the case with "confusion" on forums, this was the same with people that wanted to make hive fleet adeptus astartes. They knew very well how the rule worked, but wanted to break the system)