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.

I am not a fan of the 2-Source list. Mostly because it screws over my new army (that I have already bought allot of the bits and bob's for). I can redo my list but I was really pretty happy with it.

Well shoot- I was just checking all of the dates to buy my GT ticket, and it turns out, I am out at Yellowstone that weekend... which, while awesome, I did not realize fell on the same date as Nova!

It seems my attempts to compete in the Nova Open GT remain cursed (bought a ticket and stopped by previously but was unable to play). And it's my backyard... what gives!

 Nicorex wrote:
I am not a fan of the 2-Source list. Mostly because it screws over my new army (that I have already bought allot of the bits and bob's for). I can redo my list but I was really pretty happy with it.

It can't screw over that many people, though, the 3 (4? 5?) source dilemma has only just begun. I think 2 sources will make games a lot more enjoyable, personally.

I understand the idea of limiting the Super Nasty Combo's™. On the other hand, if that is what some dude really wants to play at what is a fairly competitive event, then shouldn't he be allowed to build and play the army he would enjoy? Now I am not trying to build a Super Killer Smash Face Army™. I just need to be able to take some Inq Henchmen since I have some neat models that will work well with the theme and look of the rest of my army and unfortunately the models do not work as anything else in a Marine army. So if I can not build my army that way I will of course follow any and all rules and guidelines and rewrite my list.

Either way Mike please let us know asap. I need to begin construction.

As I don't know what army I am using for nova I will reserve my judgment until I find out if it helps or hurts me

Joking aside I don't think it (2 sources) will be an issue, there is more then enough time for people to plan out their armies. You can't please everyone, at least this way you are giving people time to figure everything out.

Well the 2-source thing does hamper armies that might be being painted right now. Especially based on another large event that's happening in less than 2 weeks not limiting the new codex force orgs (C:LotD & C:Inq). Some people start building their armies for the year and since there wasn't a single ounce of talk before now of limiting say the inquisition codex (which has been out for months) it can suck.

On the one hand you're opening things up for people that want to use formations while on the other hand taking away from people who were already building lists within the contexts of your original posted rules.

Personally, the best balance to the hobbiests, to me anyway, is to go 3-source. It allows people currently already building and painting their lists or that have already made purchases to get to keep their forces while allowing people who want to add formations or what not to get to include those.

With Knights being legal I just don't see "brostars" rocking up the place as those armies will have to deal with the possibility of running into 3-4 Knights.

But I can paint whatever army I want in time for it even if I start in August so do whatcha want

If you limit it to "3 source", you're hardly limiting it at all... since a "4 source" army has to be pretty out there, imo.

You could make the same argument you're making for "3 source" for 4... i.e. "I already painted my marines to be 2 different codexes allied together, and was including inquisitorial henchmen, and already bought a knight".

"2 source" is reasonable enough, and the event is still over 5 months away... more than enough time to tweak a list.

You can take inquisitor units, or knights... you just can't take everything at once. Makes the rules mind-bending a bit easier to handle, I think.

See Ritides, I'm in favor of letting all swing if it isn't an expansion (like escalation and stronghold) so yeah, I'd be ok with the 4 source too.

That said. The difference being the 3 source was basically already allowed when they were drafting and talking about stuff for the GT. We only had a single "Codex" that was basically a supplement (C:Inq) at the time. Since then we've had Knights and LotD and soon the IG one. So there is a difference in limiting to 3 instead of 4. The 3 was already there and basically approved prior to this. The 4 wasn't since there were no formations, only one extra detachment codex, and character dataslates don't count

See, one removes something from your army you might be building and the other leaves things pretty much as they were while doing a minor limit and allowing formations and new codex detachments in.

At this point, don't restrictions on how many formations you can take simply promote the status quo, IE: those armies that can create unbelievably cheeseball death star combos within what we deem "acceptable" win everything? So what if you can take Space Marines and Tau and Cypher and Inquisition and Knights in one army? Can Eldar still field 2++ rerollable mega fast units with hit and run? Can Daemons still field Flying Circuses with 2+ rerollable MC's swooping around with impunity? Why not spread the hate around?

slaede 563030 6663245null wrote:So what if you can take Space Marines and Tau and Cypher and Inquisition and Knights in one army?

And the new IG stuff, and LotD, etc...

I think this is more about player experience and unified forces than just power level. There is a line somewhere, the question is, where is that line? It's definitely somewhere between 2 and 3 sources, imo... heck, even Frontline / Team Zero Comp agrees with that

Knights spell the end of deathstars as a suresafe pick ... so I'm not sure evaluating the impact of rulings based on Brostars is a reasonable metric.

Though I think 2 Detachment is a better way of Phrasing it than 2 source (Iyanden Eldar is techincally 2 sources). The issue I see with 3 detachments is precisely Inquisition, the 34 point servo skull caddy, added to tons of armies is far more limited in a 2 detachment format than 3. I can see the argument for allowing anything (I don't agree but if that is how someone feels this restriction seems huge), but The way I see it 2 is a limit 3 is largely a non-factor and might as well be left of entirely.

MVBrandt wrote:
Knights spell the end of deathstars as a suresafe pick ... so I'm not sure evaluating the impact of rulings based on Brostars is a reasonable metric.

Which is why the point about seeing major deathstars and knights in the same army isn't, to me, a good reason to institute a 2 source/detachment rule.

@RiTides

I don't agree there is a line honestly. 2 sources or 4 sources if people don't want to paint or design a unified force you're not going to see one. People who do want to model pretty are going to have a cohesive source if it has 4 or 5 detachments. I just think that if you're gonna draw a line its at 3 but in that 3 I include character dataslates instead of them being their own category or just not counting.

To me the only reason for a source/detachment limit is basically to make life easier on people reading the lists or verifying the lists. Outside of that there really isn't any issue with it.

Actually unless you are banning Formations there is a reason, because you can take unlimited copies of the same formation. I disagree with including character data slates (mostly because I go detatchment not source) because at that point Clan Raukan should count as 2 sources, or Farsight Tau. Why single out additional codex units rather than supplements?

For me the reasons are

1.) Allows formations while restricting the ability to spam them.
2.) Keeps some semblance of FOC in place (rather than just taking anything you want more or less)
3.) Stops 34 point skull caddies in every army to prevent infiltrators and scouts (unless you sacrifice something for it.)
4.) Stops Cotaez from being included in tons of imperial armies (because why not), unless you sacrifice for it.
5.) Tones down some of the "Good Guy" bias in the game. "Evil" armies(Nids, CSM, CD, Crons, Orks) typically have far fewer choices for allies, supplements, formations, than "Good Guys" do (Imperial, Tau, Eldar)
6.) Makes including things actually a choice (do I bring allies, or a knight, or a formation, or inquisition etc., rather than just bringing all of them)

Your detachment vs. source view is interesting. I don't think anyone I've played or ran into would consider Clan Raukan 2 sources by itself. It tells you where to find the additional rules but since it states in that book what applies I think most people would consider that a single source. Where as formations aren't detachments. I think basing it on detachment vs. source would actually create more confusion. Not less.

1) Points restricts the ability to spam formations. I'd have to go back through and look but I'm pretty sure they all fall into that 400-800 range. Which means, generally, doubling up is a bad idea since very few of them include scoring units. The sole exception being possible the new helbrute formations and the nid formations.

2) FOC still exists. It's just changed. It's not longer THE army. Now it's the rules for a portion of the army. Has been since 6th edition landed. Honestly it's time to accept it.

3) What infiltrators in the game are good if you don't allow characters to confer infiltration? Stopping scout is annoying but points are tight nowadays and I think with knights you're going to see a bit of a curtailling of biker armies based around scout. Which leaves you with very, very few armies this affects and therefore it's not as much of a requirement anyway and you won't see it as much. I see skulls added on randomly to an already taken 80-110pt inquisitor if people have points. Not the reason people take an inquisitor.

4) Points is generally why not. Coteaz isn't that amazing and isn't in that many armies. I mean he's good but most "Good Guy" codexes can get most of the same without reaching into another book for it. Heck, we see Coteaz less now that we did when GK's were hot in 5th and that's saying something since now you don't need to just use GK's to get him.

5) Taking it down to 2 actually hurts CSM, Daemons, and Nids. They have formations that you might want to take 1-2 of the same one (new helbrute ones are not horrible). Crons are fine with or without. And no tournament ruling should be based on the Orks current place in the scheme of things.

6) Deciding what to choose is already a choice. Points do that for you.

I just think that if you're going to put an arbitrary limit on it then do the limit that's already been proven to this point to work pretty well which is 3. Personally I'm for unlimited in this case. While I can think up a few silly, silly lists using 3-4 sources none of them are as annoying or unfun seeming to me as seerstar with fortune or screamerstar.

Hulk, I'm totally sure folks like you (and myself hopefully, since I'm planning to include a formation ) will make a unified force. When I mentioned player experience, I meant primarily how many different sources you have to look in for rules during a game. It just becomes untenable, imo.

You will also have folks who won't make an effort to have a cohesive force, of course, but that's true with just normal allies. But to say there is no line at all, and you can use as many sources as you want means we are in different places on this one

 Hulksmash wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Knights spell the end of deathstars as a suresafe pick ... so I'm not sure evaluating the impact of rulings based on Brostars is a reasonable metric.

Which is why the point about seeing major deathstars and knights in the same army isn't, to me, a good reason to institute a 2 source/detachment rule.

@RiTides

I don't agree there is a line honestly. 2 sources or 4 sources if people don't want to paint or design a unified force you're not going to see one. People who do want to model pretty are going to have a cohesive source if it has 4 or 5 detachments. I just think that if you're gonna draw a line its at 3 but in that 3 I include character dataslates instead of them being their own category or just not counting.

To me the only reason for a source/detachment limit is basically to make life easier on people reading the lists or verifying the lists. Outside of that there really isn't any issue with it.

Super brostar + a knight or two and spam cheap troops is more appealing than either alone. Even with the points you listed it's not all that different from star plus wk.

Listening to the input and appreciating the back and forth.

Back from adepticon and it's focus time for the NOVA crew. Register sooner than later while there's still room in your preferred events and seminars!

Weird, I see that you posted in here today but it is not showing up.

Based on conversations this weekend, attendees should also expect a proper demo row this year, inclusive of games such as drop zone commander, hell dorado and deadzone.

Testing... posts are not showing up in this thread for some reason...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Test


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah, fixed now

That was quite peculiar!

Shorthand: register, spots running out, especially all you slackers! :-) ... For those who enjoy it, demo hall at NOVA this year should be sweet!

Finally got my ticket, can't wait for another NOVA.

Will invitational emails be going out sometime soon?

Sample mission packet/primer. This is purely for mission prep. Details about scoring/etc can be found in the primer and website.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XJ20WB96DzRE635aokDX3XbhOHzw4Xt0UobUZ5j56JM/pub

Looks like I'm going to be in the US around then AGAIN (California rather than NYC this time!), so I got in and bought my ticket. More NOVA fun! Not confirmed yet, but I thought it worth reserving now just in case.

In regard to the 2-publication/ 3-publication debate, I favour 2-publication (with Supplement-based armies counting as one publication). 3-publication will just result in everyone who hasn't already got three throwing in a 30 point Inquisitor for the sake of it, which would be a bit boring to face 8 times in a weekend. Plus, I didn't finish all my games last year, and checking six books during every game is only going to make things slower...!!

Nearly set on two after a lot of feedback and discussion about alternatives. Also excited we might get you back, Ian!

From the newsletter today:

40K GT and Invitational missions will be drawn from the mission catalog, a sample tournament packet of which can be found at 40K GT and Invitational Primer/Sample Mission Pack.  The NOVA Open is heavily involved in the crafting and revision process of the mission packet.   Look up a couple posts for the link.
 
The NOVA Open 40K GT & Invitational will also be implementing the following army construction rules, provided now to enable adequate time for questions and army prep:
 
All armies may be crafted from up to 2 sources, with a source being:
 - Official Codices and Codex Supplements (including Codex: Imperial Knights)
 - Unit Formation Datasheets (i.e., the Tyranid Skyblight Formation)
 
Characters  Made Available to Certain Codices via Datasheets (presently Cypher and Belakor) do not count as a source (And thus can be taken as an add-on to a selected Codex without taking up one of the two source limit)
 
This rules decision was made after much discussion, play testing, peer review, community observation, conversation among close TOs, and for the purpose of an easy and readily preparation-friendly GT/Invitational experience, while also safely allowing the many new units and codices GW is adding to the game (i.e., Imperial Knights).
 
The updated mainstream formation rules from Stronghold Assault will be used, but not the new fortifications presented in Stronghold Assault. 
 
We will not use Escalation. 
 
Forgeworld models are legal in all events, provided they follow the modeling guidelines presented within the NOVA FAQ and rules primers.
 
Forge World rules will be allowed in the Team Tournament and Narrative Warlords and Nightfighters events, but not the Invitational/GT.
 
We encourage play testing and request feedback:  write novaopen@gmail.com or participate in discussions on Whiskey&40K.

Fantastic news. I'll ask the obvious question....

Does a detachment from a supplement codex count as two sources because it requires the parent codex?

No, that would be only one source.

First impression: I really like these restrictions. I've been wanting to play with dataslates, and this seems like a nice way to ease them in without fully opening up the Pandora's box of FOC-busting quadruple armies. Well done, I think you've struck a good balance here.

Very excited for my second year of NOVA! Getting myself registered/booked now. My only disappointment is that I won't be able to play in the 40k GT and Blood Bowl event simultaneously. Although, maybe I could go Bobby Fischer style if the tables are situated close enough to each other...

We're talking about shifting blood bowl to cover a couple evenings.