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.

So by "no-holds-barred" LoW, multi Cads, unbound, FW, FW lists, and all that fun stuff?

Likely not Desubot, we don't even know we're still doing the 'no holds barred' this month since 7e dropped so unexpectantly.

Here's the post today:

Ok everyone! The first tournament for 7th Edition is behind us and the sky didn't fall!

We've done some testing on the Maelstrom missions and by and large they did not cause everyone's life to end, so I'll rack that up as a plus.

Now, for this next one, we're going to talk about trying some other potentially cra--aa--aaa-aazy sutff, like Lords of War and unlimited Detachments!

So let's hear it! Now that the Ork book is in people's sweaty mitts, it seems clear that going forward the understanding is that formations and Lords of War are going to be woven right into the fabric of reality for some armies, so what do YOU think?

The things I'm leaning toward for this one are:

-Lords of War allowed
-No limit on Detachments
-Come the Apocalypse Allies allowed
-Unbound allowed, subject to TO approval (which means you must submit the list to me before the day of the event and I will decide if it's kosher)

Other than that, the usual new edition tournament details remain unchanged: 1500 points, 3 rounds, 10:00am, $10 entry (or $20 purchase), games must play for four rounds minimum or both players receive a loss for the round, fully painted is required to win the top prize but not lesser prizes.

I think I'm just bringing my reaver titan

Ok gang, the facebook events page for the next one is live for all your yammering and RSVP'ing needs.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1425199227762064/

Up for debate this time is Lords of War, Detachments, and Unbound.

Now that the Ork codex is in hand, and we're seeing the full embracing of LoW, formations, etc., in the regular army lists, the question is raised: How do we handle these elements, and how do we address their inclusion into the larger world?

My current first draft of the next tournament is as follows:

-1500 points
-Unlimited detachments
-Lords yes
-Formations yes
-Unbound yes (subject to TO approval; Unbound lists must be submitted and approved BEFORE the day of the event)

I'm still comfortable in saying no Come the Apocalypse Allies, since I doubt that's ever going to be a key element of an army's build philosophy. Assuming the above makes it through the wringer reasonably unscathed, then we'll be doing two Eternal War missions and only one Maelstrom mission to keep the calamity down.

As ever, I'm on team TryItOutFirst, so I want to give some of these elements a chance to breathe before they get strangled. That being said, I remember vividly the anything goes nonsense of our last foray into LoW territory, so I'm not married to the above by any stretch. Let me know what you think here or on Facebook, so I can get a sense of what people want to see.

Currently I just don't think there's enough room in 1500 points to do anything all that silly, but I'm likely wrong, and some fine citizen of the internet will prove me so.

Question: the FAQ separates the LoWs from the rules in excalation granting VPs for hull points and wounds on them, as well as the reroll seize, are we going to keep using those rules or are we going straight FAQ and leaving those out?

So here are my thoughts:

1. Yes to LoW VPs
2. No C'tan, warhound, revenent. Alternately we just use the BAO LoW listing which excludes a few others but those 3 i think are the big dogs.
3. I think unbound is just going to become a mess, esp if someone shows up without presenting you with a list prior since we all hate excluding people at that point. Thus it seems simpler to just stick with 1 CAD, 0-1 ally, 0-1 formation, 0-1 fortification
4. BAO missions, either inspired by them (Normal + Maelstrom) or just using them
5. Allow FW, if we're opening the door to LoW (most of which are FW models anyways), lets open it up to FW too. Just require they have printed rules or the book or it becomes a lovely proxy for something else.

Largo39 wrote:
So here are my thoughts:

1. Yes to LoW VPs Sure
2. No C'tan, warhound, revenent. Alternately we just use the BAO LoW listing which excludes a few others but those 3 i think are the big dogs. Agreed
3. I think unbound is just going to become a mess, esp if someone shows up without presenting you with a list prior since we all hate excluding people at that point. Thus it seems simpler to just stick with 1 CAD, 0-1 ally, 0-1 formation, 0-1 fortification Seconded
4. BAO missions, either inspired by them (Normal + Maelstrom) or just using them No opinion here
5. Allow FW, if we're opening the door to LoW (most of which are FW models anyways), lets open it up to FW too. Just require they have printed rules or the book or it becomes a lovely proxy for something else. Big yes, wanted this for a while

My 2 cents

I think 1500 will mitigate alot of the silliness expected from unbound. I admit that I plan to bring an unbound list but then if I bring my normal army I don't benefit from objective secured anyway.

And the TO has no problem turning people away, or it could just be me lol

Largo39 wrote:
1. Yes to LoW VPs
2. No C'tan, warhound, revenent. Alternately we just use the BAO LoW listing which excludes a few others but those 3 i think are the big dogs.
3. I think unbound is just going to become a mess, esp if someone shows up without presenting you with a list prior since we all hate excluding people at that point. Thus it seems simpler to just stick with 1 CAD, 0-1 ally, 0-1 formation, 0-1 fortification
4. BAO missions, either inspired by them (Normal + Maelstrom) or just using them
5. Allow FW, if we're opening the door to LoW (most of which are FW models anyways), lets open it up to FW too. Just require they have printed rules or the book or it becomes a lovely proxy for something else.

1. If Lords of War are in, partial VPs for hurting them are most definitely in. Any notion that they would not is just plain silly.

2. I'm perfectly fine with line-item vetoes for stuff like the above; if the community isn't interested in seeing them then I don't want them to show up. Generally the consensus I've seen from talking with people in the shop is that the C'tan/Rev/Hound type stuff is not kosher, but now that we're seeing stuff like Ghaz getting slotted in LoW, and the codex being written with a Stompa right there in the book (with, presumably, the understanding that it will show up in armies and games and not just gather dust), then we have to start thinking about LoW in general. It's still a long way from being universal, but it seems like the way the wind is blowing. I'm still scratching my head over Ghaz, honestly. Putting him in that category is just so weird. He doesn't even have one measly D weapon!

3. The short answer on Unbound is that I want to give the rule an opportunity to function as intended for those who want to use it that way. Am I going to green-light a list with 20 Obliterators? Or seven Riptides? No. This is an experiment for me as much as anything else, I want to see what kind of lists get submitted and what I think about them. And have no qualms about people being turned away. The rule is clear: submit the list before the day of the event or you can't play. Period.

4. No. I have played the BAO missions, and I see what they're going for, but I do not agree with that take on gameplay. The Eternal War missions still work just as they always did, if they are still kinda boring, and no one has yet shown me any flaw in the Maelstrom missions that is beyond repair. Personally I've had a lot of fun with them and the response from the first tournament was mostly positive. For my money, the more homebrew and divergent missions are, the more niche of a meta is created. If you want a razor-edged competitive 40k experience, you make listbuilding as open as possible within the rules and reason, you play a mix of Eternal War and Maelstrom missions straight out of the book, and you go with a 1-0 point system: win - 1, lose or draw - 0. Then play swiss rounds until there's an undefeated winner. You could fudge the points a bit to be more lenient on draws, but really anything more is an arbitrary contrivance. But I digress.


5. I'm generally fine with FW, as well, with the same ability to veto specific things that are accepted to be overpowered, as with Lords of War.

All that said, I think, as Adam has pointed out, that 1500 is a significant constraint to shenanigans in lists. People have been asking me about when we're going to up the points again and I definitely don't think we're there yet, though BAO will be a good barometer. If they can run that monster at 1850 in a reasonable amount of time, games coming to a conclusion, etc, with a bajillion players who're still muddling the rules, then maybe we can have a bigger points

Bahkara wrote:And the TO has no problem turning people away, or it could just be me lol

It's just you.

So... are we officially only using LoWs that aren't a warhound titan, reaver titan, revenant, or a c'tan? Your post seems to say yes, but it's also possible from it that you're still considering. RAW Travis, RAW.

Too bad. My Unbound list was a C'tan, warhound and a knight

"Don't you worry about RAW, let me worry about RAW."

I also would have accepted: "Raw? RAW!? You're not looking at the big picture!!"

Now that's some good 40k execuspeak!



I am still considering. This consideration is seasoned on the one hand by the fact that I'm the frikkin king of RAW when it come to this game and scenarios and army build restrictions, but on the other hand by the fact that We just did a tournament with all the stupid stuff and it was pretty stupid. Then again, the Revenant and C'Tan lists didn't win, sooo....

Hooray for circular Logic!

In any case, I'll be finalizing everything after the weekend so we can get lists built. Stay tuned.

Forget list building. The ork dex means I got like a million models to paint since MANZ arnt troops any more and Nob bikers arnt worth the pionts. But get ready for my stormboyz, Cant wait for the tournament

@ Mike - Stormboyz are not troops either, they can't be ard armored so bolters cut them down, what am I missing? You just love flying things?

@Travis - You have to build some of your own scenarios. You are really good at it. I think the fact that you don't allow the cards and force people to roll on a chart gives you a golden opportunity to build your own chart of objectives. That is the way the game is going, and thankfully so.

I have noticed that many more lists and armies are being played with the new rules. I would really hope TOs can take advantage of the new rules and make some fun scenarios that challenge us on the table. For example, if you roll an objective that is not playable, Kill a psyker that he doesn't have, then you can play a wild card objective that is an objective on the Table, say a cool terrain piece the TO set out on each table or a unit/IC determined at the start of the game. Just saying, lots of cool stuff is possible now with the tac cards.

This is very true, Stormboyz can not be troops. BUT they can deep strike next to those annoying thunderfire cannons and force you to deal with them for a turn or two. And they cost the same pts. as boyz in a truck. So win.


And they are cool as gak models which I then converted the hell out of to make even cooler.

 sgtpjbarker wrote:
@ Mike - Stormboyz are not troops either, they can't be ard armored so bolters cut them down, what am I missing? You just love flying things?

@Travis - You have to build some of your own scenarios. You are really good at it. I think the fact that you don't allow the cards and force people to roll on a chart gives you a golden opportunity to build your own chart of objectives. That is the way the game is going, and thankfully so.

I have noticed that many more lists and armies are being played with the new rules. I would really hope TOs can take advantage of the new rules and make some fun scenarios that challenge us on the table. For example, if you roll an objective that is not playable, Kill a psyker that he doesn't have, then you can play a wild card objective that is an objective on the Table, say a cool terrain piece the TO set out on each table or a unit/IC determined at the start of the game. Just saying, lots of cool stuff is possible now with the tac cards.

I think the Maelstrom missions should be left as is. If you draw a bad card you draw a bad card.

I am excited to play my first tournament in 7th now that I have a few games under my belt. The game seems much better than it was mid-late 6th.

I thought were done forever? Glad that we can finally get in some grudge matches. We tend to have the bloodiest games; blood for the dice gods!

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
I am excited to play my first tournament in 7th now that I have a few games under my belt. ....

We need that meme of Fry looking dubious, no caption necessary.

I like this new edition alot. Played game where I lost in the end not because of the mission or the army but because I rolled 7 ones in a row :(

 Bahkara wrote:
I like this new edition alot. Played game where I lost in the end not because of the mission or the army but because I rolled 7 ones in a row :(

Not 7e's praise, Adam, but John's return.

I just like talking about me

 MikeFox wrote:
I thought were done forever? Glad that we can finally get in some grudge matches. We tend to have the bloodiest games; blood for the dice gods!

I was done forever with 6th after LVO. I am so far good with 7th. I am glad I only sold off most of my armies

It would seem I own a lot of plastic and resin models. Don't tell Natalie

Sorry, had to happen.

 MikeFox wrote:
Sorry, had to happen.

Never apologize when it's legitimately funny.

 disdainful wrote:

1. If Lords of War are in, partial VPs for hurting them are most definitely in. Any notion that they would not is just plain silly.

2. I'm perfectly fine with line-item vetoes for stuff like the above; if the community isn't interested in seeing them then I don't want them to show up. Generally the consensus I've seen from talking with people in the shop is that the C'tan/Rev/Hound type stuff is not kosher, but now that we're seeing stuff like Ghaz getting slotted in LoW, and the codex being written with a Stompa right there in the book (with, presumably, the understanding that it will show up in armies and games and not just gather dust), then we have to start thinking about LoW in general. It's still a long way from being universal, but it seems like the way the wind is blowing. I'm still scratching my head over Ghaz, honestly. Putting him in that category is just so weird. He doesn't even have one measly D weapon!

3. The short answer on Unbound is that I want to give the rule an opportunity to function as intended for those who want to use it that way. Am I going to green-light a list with 20 Obliterators? Or seven Riptides? No. This is an experiment for me as much as anything else, I want to see what kind of lists get submitted and what I think about them. And have no qualms about people being turned away. The rule is clear: submit the list before the day of the event or you can't play. Period.

4. No. I have played the BAO missions, and I see what they're going for, but I do not agree with that take on gameplay. The Eternal War missions still work just as they always did, if they are still kinda boring, and no one has yet shown me any flaw in the Maelstrom missions that is beyond repair. Personally I've had a lot of fun with them and the response from the first tournament was mostly positive. For my money, the more homebrew and divergent missions are, the more niche of a meta is created. If you want a razor-edged competitive 40k experience, you make listbuilding as open as possible within the rules and reason, you play a mix of Eternal War and Maelstrom missions straight out of the book, and you go with a 1-0 point system: win - 1, lose or draw - 0. Then play swiss rounds until there's an undefeated winner. You could fudge the points a bit to be more lenient on draws, but really anything more is an arbitrary contrivance. But I digress.


5. I'm generally fine with FW, as well, with the same ability to veto specific things that are accepted to be overpowered, as with Lords of War.

All that said, I think, as Adam has pointed out, that 1500 is a significant constraint to shenanigans in lists. People have been asking me about when we're going to up the points again and I definitely don't think we're there yet, though BAO will be a good barometer. If they can run that monster at 1850 in a reasonable amount of time, games coming to a conclusion, etc, with a bajillion players who're still muddling the rules, then maybe we can have a bigger points

Bahkara wrote:And the TO has no problem turning people away, or it could just be me lol

It's just you.

1. Yay!
2. Yah, I definitely think LoW is in for good, especially with Ghaz in there (sigh, wasted opportunity on GW's part. I think Ghaz with stats more like the primarch stats from HH would have been great. There are definitely certain xenos characters that deserve to be a bit beefier. Vect would be another one given how freaking old he is). The circular logic of the revenent/c'tan not winning though is also due to luck in many ways. Had i not gone first vs the Revenent it would have been GG on my part equally as quickly. Furthermore vs the c'tan space marines are unique suited to deal with if they go the right way (ie: grav). Thus my problem with both of those units isnt that I/certain builds cant handle them, it's that they warp the meta around them (mtg style) so strongly that the number of effective builds in our meta will drop drastically since they'll have to get over the "hump" of those lists.

Furthermore certain codex's have no real effective way of dealing with them. Now that str D no longer ignores invulnerable the C'tan is sitting pretty on his t9 throne. If poison was just -2 for GCs instead of strictly wounding on 6s things might be more interesting since a lot of armies have access to 2+/3+ poison somewhere, but alas tis not to be.

3. Kk
4. Fair enough, I just like the concept of missions with more than 1 way to win. I think maelstrom are a huge boost and definitely make the game a lot better (yes i still argue you get a free-redraw with impossible cards, and d3 points is a flat 2 instead)), i just thought it would lead to more intense games to have relic + maelstrom, or what have you.

5. yay! I'm ok with all that.

I'm actually really looking forward to this one.

Hey gang, take a look at the event page on FB for the final list of allowed Lords of War:

https://www.facebook.com/events/1425199227762064/?ref=5

And just so everyone is aware, we're pre-selling the Stormclaw starter on Saturday for 10% off to tournament players (and anybody else, too, I suppose, but you know ). It drops next Friday. If you get one, that will count as your entry, of course.

Aw, man. Ya see, I *thought* was going to be able to pass up on this starter kit. It was heavily rumored to be Blood Angels and xenos. BAs.

Vain sissies that sparkle regardless of what star's light they're fighting under. Prolly a bunch of 'em named Edward.

But NOW?!?! Space Wolves!

Damn it.

Ok gang, everything's ready to roll for tomorrow, I did get one Unbound submission (from Casey, natch! ), that was approved.

See you all in the morning!

It was brought to my attention, on Facebook, that I made it seem from my earlier post in here that I would be attending this tournament. While excited to play a 7th ed tournament sadly the August event will have to be my first. Sorry for having misled my many fans.

Did I sound enough like Lebron James?