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.

They're visually impacting yes, and are notable right now because of their "must take" nature in many cases, if for nothing else as a defensive mechanism to counter an enemy's flier.

Aside from just being hard to deal with, they don't add that much to the game or fundamentally change how it's played.

Solution: Play one of the other far superior wargames out there.

Regardless, they are a major part of 6th edition.

This would be on par with a 5th edition tournament saying you can consolidate into combat. Its a major alteration of the rules to simply harken back to last edition.

If you want to do that, play the previous edition. Don't change the new edition to fit your whims.

 IdentifyZero wrote:
Solution: Play one of the other far superior wargames out there.

That doesn't address the question.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Misinterpertation. Allies can be taken at any point value. At 2k you can actually have 2 allied detachments(as a FoC is the previous FoC, plus a fortification and an Allies detachment)

Wrong. Common misconception, actually.

Read the rule; at 2000pts+ you can take another "Primary Detachment".

Your primary detachment is labeled as everything except your Allied detachment and fortification.

Ya might want to reread that again.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 IdentifyZero wrote:
Solution: Play one of the other far superior wargames out there.

That doesn't address the question.

It does, because flyers are part of the rules and if you don't like them or want them banned, you need to play another game.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except thats not how the games works, has worked, or ever will work.

You can't just ignore an edition till everyone gets updated because some armies go multiple editions without an update.


If you are going to do that, just have a 5th edition tournament.

So, then, you agree with me. I'm trying to have a tournament for those codexes that get left behind.

Oaka wrote:(and our poor Tau player who doesn't even have flyers yet)

Tau currently have the Barracuda and Remora Stealth Drones for standard 40k.
I actually rather want a Barracuda myself.

As for the tournament - as has been said already, a limit (2-4 flyers max) would be the best way about it.

I'd have no particular problem with a special / themed (as a rare / random thing) no flyers tourney though.

 Oaka wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except thats not how the games works, has worked, or ever will work.

You can't just ignore an edition till everyone gets updated because some armies go multiple editions without an update.


If you are going to do that, just have a 5th edition tournament.

So, then, you agree with me. I'm trying to have a tournament for those codexes that get left behind.

Just don't use the 6th ed rules. Use 5th edition, because that is clearly what you want.

No flyers? Wait for your updated codex just like everybody else.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Regardless, they are a major part of 6th edition.

This would be on par with a 5th edition tournament saying you can consolidate into combat.

Not in the same way. It's only that way because the execution of flyers and counters on the codex end has been so poorly carried out, and not a core rules thing. Aside from a movement mode and being hit on 6's, they're not really a huge alteration to the rules. Consolidation into combat was a complete game changer at he core level in the way the game was played for many armies, flyers are different in their impact and primarily because they've GW handled them very poorly and it's a matter of responding to about half the examples of a single unit type. Had they been implemented close to FW's original rules, the issues would be much less, particularly in that flyers wouldn't be running around with medium tank armor.

If you want to do that, play the previous edition. Don't change the new edition to fit your whims.

I'm just noting what I've been seeing and where I think the problem lies, and it is a problem in many ways. I'm not saying flyers should be banned from tournaments, only that there is a very real implementation issue and it would be interesting to see what would happen if they weren't there. Though I will note that if people are talking about playing tournaments and "the way it's meant to be played", then something's already off as the design studio came right out and said at their Open Day event they didn't design anything in 6th edition with competitive organized events in mind.

Flyers are not the embodiment of 6th edition, their inclusion does not make the game 6th edition nor does their absence suddenly turn the game back into 5th edition, please stop framing it in those terms because it's simply not true.

Consider allowing them, but then create a mission that hammers their use. Perhaps "Astral Winds: all Flyers take a Glancing Hit at the end of their turn" or "Comms Delay: do not roll for Flyers until Turn 4" or some such.

I've seen several missions in 5th Ed. that would mess with Kill Points, mess with Scoring Units, etc. Book missions usually get old and several big tournaments make their own anyway.

Also consider that your previous tournament winner did not win every game so a single mission that is geared to punish Flyers wouldn't mean they coult not win the tournament, it would just boost the morale of your non-Flyer guys.

I think the goal should be inclusion, not exclusion.

The idea of the tournament is to include players whose armies don't have fliers and/or allies.

chipstar1 wrote:
I think the goal should be inclusion, not exclusion.

Inclusion of rules over say player enjoyment?

What happened to if you don't like a rule change it?

 Wildstorm wrote:

I've seen several missions in 5th Ed. that would mess with Kill Points, mess with Scoring Units, etc. Book missions usually get old and several big tournaments make their own anyway.

The infamous 'ard boy missions where any unit who could move over 6" in a single phase were impacted. And 'ard boyz was seen as the most competative, uncomped format ever created when it was really one of the events with the most drastic mission-based comp I have ever seen.

just allow forgeworld. a few lists with sabres or the missle systems will tone down flyers since they then have a hard counter.

Thank you everyone for expressing your opinion. I think we can end discussion on this now. I'm not surprised to see that feelings towards no-flyers are divided, but I am happy to see that they are divided almost evenly. It seems like a lot of players would favor a no-flyers tournament, although it will probably be limited to 3. I think it would be an interesting way to have a local tournament that allows players to slowly build their armies into an appropriate 6th edition list without getting sucker-punched by an all-flyer army list that is doing very well under the current conditions.

We are also considering that this tournament be 1500 points, but everyone gets a free Aegis Defense Line with two Quad Guns. That may be enough to remove the flyer restriction entirely, I think.

That would be a very fair compromise.

Just play 5th edition. Seriously. Or allow Aeronautica in. Really, everyone of us Nid/Xenos players was expected to suck it up when JotWW hit the scene, but flyers get added and the sky is falling? If you limit it to three flyers and give people to free ADSes, then you might as well just say "Bring Guard or play in the back half of the room", because thats whats going to occur.

There is unique tournament formats and then there is "I hate this army" format. Maybe you should consider a Highlander format "there can be only one" where an army can only ever have one of a given unit in it, because that would greatly temper down the cheese across the board. What you are suggesting is just targeting one specific army build, which leads to dividing the community.

 Phazael wrote:
Just play 5th edition. Seriously. Or allow Aeronautica in. Really, everyone of us Nid/Xenos players was expected to suck it up when JotWW hit the scene, but flyers get added and the sky is falling? If you limit it to three flyers and give people to free ADSes, then you might as well just say "Bring Guard or play in the back half of the room", because thats whats going to occur.

There is unique tournament formats and then there is "I hate this army" format. Maybe you should consider a Highlander format "there can be only one" where an army can only ever have one of a given unit in it, because that would greatly temper down the cheese across the board. What you are suggesting is just targeting one specific army build, which leads to dividing the community.

Or....just play 6th edition, with no fliers. Seriously.

If the dude's local group wants to play with no fliers, play with no fliers! Anyway, Oaka, whatever you do, I'd suggest polling your local players and weighting their feedback a tad more heavily then what you see here on the interwebs.

 Oaka wrote:
how would you feel about a no-flyer tournament?

It would be full of noobs scared of flyers, fluff bunnies whose list can't stand up to flyers, and 5th edition powerlists.

Sounds worse.

 Oaka wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Sounds OK to me.

I'd think a 'no Allies' tournament would also sound good too.

I would support this and the No Flyers rule.

Then we may as well just go back to playing 5th edition.

Until all armies are brought in line with 6th, then yes, that's actually the point of my original post.

Giving everyone a free Aegis and 2 quad-guns sounds like a great way to have everyone take all-infantry lists.

I agree that the discussion is exhausted, but if your point all along was that you wanted to play 5th edition (seemingly the gist of your comment above) then there is an amazingly easy solution.

Another less controversial title (other than the ones I suggested earlier) would be "How well would a 5th edition tournament be received"...

I'm not sure why you threw out the idea of putting a simple cap on the number of flyers that could be taken. Seemingly, you were open to it earlier. No big deal really- for a local tourney, just do whatever your player base wants, but it'll hardly translate to their playing anywhere else. Most players like to get ready for the larger meta, and completely banning flyers doesn't accurately reflect that.

We should make all vehicles be flyers even dreads and then make invulnerables be ward saves

 Oaka wrote:
We are also considering that this tournament be 1500 points, but everyone gets a free Aegis Defense Line with two Quad Guns. That may be enough to remove the flyer restriction entirely, I think.

This is a bad idea for two reasons:

1) The lists it penalizes the most aren't the ones that are the worst offenders. A true flyerspam list can deal with a couple quad guns (it has so many flyers that even if you shoot one down it doesn't care), but the people who bring 1-2 flyers are going to have them instantly shot down. Besides being unfair to the people who aren't the ones causing balance problems it's also bad because it makes the fundamental problem with flyers even worse: you either bring none of them, or nothing but them. The middle ground of "a flyer or two as support for my ground forces" is excluded even more strongly.

2) Free aegis lines = bring more gunlines. Even when the quad guns aren't needed the extra cover (in addition to a third aegis bought as part of the army!) still provides a benefit, and the biggest benefit is to gunline armies. Gunlines (IMO) don't produce fun games, and you shouldn't be changing the rules to make them even more effective and encourage people to bring them.

Adding an Aegis and two quad-guns would cause pretty serious problems, and not just for flyer-based armies. Transports in general would become much weaker when every army gets 4 twin-linked autocannons for free.

Generally speaking, Peregrine has good points here. Adding lots of free Interceptor weapons removes Flyers as a viable "splash-in" option. "A flyer or two as support for my ground forces" is fairly strong right now-- I would say it's the basic all-comers choice in 6th edition, and have been doing well in local tournaments (1500-1850) with this approach. But if I had two free quadguns and my opponent did too, I would ignore that and take a gunline.

You know, you could add some tourny wide special rule that could have a bad effect on flyers. Example, the atmosphere holds very high charges and arcs of lightning flash across it constantly. Its high up, so doesnt affect ground troops, only flyers. So everyturn before they move anything thats a flyer, on a roll of 5+ it takes an auto pen hit. And roll on damage chart as normal.

Something along those lines would help people that didnt bring flyers, AND can penalize those that bring many, because they now have more chances of possibly blowing up their flyers. Thoughts?

 KingCracker wrote:
You know, you could add some tourny wide special rule that could have a bad effect on flyers. Example, the atmosphere holds very high charges and arcs of lightning flash across it constantly. Its high up, so doesnt affect ground troops, only flyers. So everyturn before they move anything thats a flyer, on a roll of 5+ it takes an auto pen hit. And roll on damage chart as normal.

Something along those lines would help people that didnt bring flyers, AND can penalize those that bring many, because they now have more chances of possibly blowing up their flyers. Thoughts?

this is the 'ard boys tactic. Making a mission which can hand an auto-loss to the overdone metalist of the day.

This was like when tourneys had super night fight for leaf blowers, extra perils for jotww spam and slowed movement for assaults speed armies. If someone doesn't like it, they can bring something else, or battle through the penalty.

Mission based comp is still comp, but people seem to accept or enjoy it better than the banhammer.

Having one missile with sky fire objectives or delayed reserves can sink a flyer army and those are core rule set both from objectives and warlord traits. I think having static mission rules where you force a specific objective or warlord trait is very reasonable. Mission comp is ok sometimes.

I love how all these threads boil down to "I can't beat WAAC players so I feel I have a right to create arbitrary rules to hobble them instead of adjusting my own playstyle."

We have a philosophy that revolves around winning. Clearly you care about winning or else you wouldn't be trying to add these asinine restrictions. The problem is that you think your style of play is more valid than people who have devoted their time and money into winning instead of whatever reason you put your army together for. You want to create an environment allows for people who didn't focus on winning to win, which is so ridiculously selfish and hypocritical that I can't even believe I have to point that out.

If you want to win, do as the WAAC-ers do. It's as simple as that. Trying to change the rules instead of your playstyle is just an implicit admission that you're a terrible player.

 Ostrakon wrote:
I love how all these threads boil down to "I can't beat WAAC players so I feel I have a right to create arbitrary rules to hobble them instead of adjusting my own playstyle."

We have a philosophy that revolves around winning. Clearly you care about winning or else you wouldn't be trying to add these asinine restrictions. The problem is that you think your style of play is more valid than people who have devoted their time and money into winning instead of whatever reason you put your army together for. You want to create an environment allows for people who didn't focus on winning to win, which is so ridiculously selfish and hypocritical that I can't even believe I have to point that out.

If you want to win, do as the WAAC-ers do. It's as simple as that. Trying to change the rules instead of your playstyle is just an implicit admission that you're a terrible player.

If you pay attention, it's a TO trying to make it fun for everyone that enters his tournament, being other players aren't really having fun. (And if it's not fun, less people will take part.)
Which personally, I find amicable, but you feel free to not actually read the thread and have your little rant.

At the end of the day, if it's only 2-3 people out of say, 15-20 that are WAAC, major tourney style players, and the remaining 13-18 players are semi-casual players just wanting to have fun, you ideally want to follow the feelings of the majority.