40k - Making 7ed playable in tournaments. (TO's Guide Updated with Nova and BAO format in OP)

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.

**MVBrandt**

Hulksmash wrote:
RiTides wrote:

Anyway, I'm sure people can poke holes in any example I give, but I'd like to be clear that I'm saying I'd like to see only 1 CAD allowed... not that that is "how 7th ought to be played" . Honestly I think very few people are saying that about any stance here. It's pretty obvious 7th ed was intended to be whatever people want it to be, in order to sell the maximum amount of models. So, we just have to sort out what we want it to be

I had a really long response that my computer ate to Mike's post but this pretty much summed it up (not the 1 CAD part, the rest). I'm not saying you're not playing 7th if you play one CAD & 1 Ally detachment only. I'm saying you're playing 7th with 6th edition army structures

And honestly army selection is extremely unlikely to keep me from attending an event. I think simple is better and two detachments is simple. Two detachments but only one of each kind and you can ally with each other is more complicated. Not much, but more complicated and it could get worse depending on how codexes are formatted moving forward

The thing that would keep me from attending events is changing the basic rules in the phases. How movement works. How shooting works. How the Psychic phase works. Those to me are a far cry from army structure discussion. At that point, even with the caveat that you can do what you want, I don't feel like you're playing 7th edition anymore. Vs. the army list discussion where you're playing 7th, just with 6th edition army structure

There is no such thing as a 7th edition army structure, was my point about that last bit. It doesn't exist. It's a myth. It only works if players agree what you're going to do and how you're going to do it, now, and the rulebook starts off saying "do whatever you want, use the rules as a baseline." It's as wrong to say "7th edition army structure is 2 CAD" as it is to say "7th edition army structure is 1 CAD and 1 allied" or anything else, for that matter. It's also as right. Seriously.

**Dozer Blades**

MVB is the voice of reason (VoR) !!

**RiTides**

I agree, and we're basically all talking about restrictions at this point (i.e. not unlimited CADs, which is also easily possible "by the book"). The question is where to apply them.

I'm also with Hulk in that army construction restrictions are the least drastic, and since as MVB points out there is no real "standard" army construction rules in 7th ed (other than to decide what you want to play with your opponent) it's great that we're having the discussion on what kind of army constructions rules we'd like to see in events.

**Dozer Blades**

+1 to that RiTides !

**Tomb King**

Hulksmash wrote:
@Vaktathi

Nevermind, someone already brought it up so I'll edit that comment out

@Tomb King

But you were trying for a baseline consensus. And you presented it like it was the way everyone in the thread was thinking while another major TO isn't totally headed that direction and others have pointed out time and again the issues and inaccuracies.

An honest look at what seems to be a consensus at this point is:

-Tactical Cards aren't going to work in their current incarnation for tournaments
-Forticiations will need clarifications
-2 Detachments (variable by event)
-No Unbound

That's the consensus I see throughout the thread that almost anyone will get behind with the final determiner for people being how the 2 detachments are handled.

Some will want to play 7th with it being how it's ruled in the BRB. Others will want to stick with what they know and play it like 6th. I think this one will honestly hinge on how the Ork codex is formatted. If it has multiple detachment types it hinders the 1 CAD & 1 Ally and/or Formation version.

Pretending there is anything more than the above that's been broadly agreed to be reasonable by the thread is being willfully blind to what's been said back and forth.

As an aside these are the things each event will likely determine for themselves over 7th that have been brought up:

-Lords of War
-Forge World Inclusion
-Whether to flat out change the rules of 7th edition in relation to the psychic phase (individual powers and warp charge generation.)
-Terrain (something that hasn't been discussed enough in my opinion).

Only thing I would add the to event by event is the CTA allies.

Also it needs to be clarified what summoned units count as. They technically don't use the allied chart as they are not allies. Your army is still battle forged and you still get objective secured etc... also do you have to roll for units within 6" etc...?

**Hulksmash**

@MVBrandt

Sigh....I'm going to assume it's the written word and my inability to communicate properly.

Where, in that, did I say 7th edition army structure? I didn't. I said 6TH EDITION army structure because there was a structure to 6th. And a fair number of people are for porting it over into 7th. So you're playing 7th edition, with a 6th edition army structure. It's still 7th edition and a legal way to build an army in 7th. But it is a 6th edition army structure that you're limiting 7th too. Nothing wrong with it. I have a preference for open season I think everyone can see

But like I said, it won't keep me from attending an event.

And I've now gone back and taken a look at what I wrote and I can't seem to find ever saying that you're not playing 7th if you're not playing double force org or that "it's the only way to play". I've said I feel it's closer to the idea the game was conceived for. I've said I think it's better for army building purposes for flexibility. But I've never said that's the only way to play. I've asked people to give 7th a shot as 7th but everyone of those seems to be in regards to psychic powers or changing of actual rules, not army structure.

Silly internet. Mountains to molehills and back again

@Tomb King

If you're battle forged then they get objective secured. If you are running an imperial faction and they are within 6" then you have to roll to not get stupid. They still follow the allied faction charts rules. (at least I think, I'm away from my rulebook right now

)

**Zagman**

Tomb King wrote:

Only thing I would add the to event by event is the CTA allies.

Also it needs to be clarified what summoned units count as. They technically don't use the allied chart as they are not allies. Your army is still battle forged and you still get objective secured etc... also do you have to roll for units within 6" etc...?

Actually the Allies Matrix is simply Faction dependent and they still have the Chaos Daemons Faction which means the Allies chart is always in play for summoned units.

What really needs to be clarified is if they get Objective Secured and there are rules debates on this topic right now.

Hulksmash wrote:
@Tomb King

If you're battle forged then they get objective secured. If you are running an imperial faction and they are within 6" then you have to roll to not get stupid. They still follow the allied faction charts rules. (at least I think, I'm away from my rulebook right now )

It is definitely not clear if they get Objective Secured. They might, but there are very strong rules arguments against it as there is no rules support for a summoned unit being added to a detachment. If they can't be added to a Detachment, they cannot be Objective Secured Scoring. And if they are, it breaks so many rules, ie Battle Forged Restrictions, Faction Restrictions etc. What happens when you Possession a Warlock into a Lord of Change in a dual Farseer list. Now you have a Detachment with 3 HQs(Now Unbound) and have different Factions in one Detachment which is expressly forbidden.

GW is going to need to FAQ/Errata this topic. But I'm confident when the nuts and bolts are examined, they are not Objective Secured Scoring, but all summoned units are merely Scoring units.

They do follow the Allies Matrix as it is Faction dependent and doesn't even require an Allies Detachment, etc to be in play.

**OverwatchCNC**

I have to agree with Hulk on the terrain front. IMO some of the biggest issues are with the new terrain rules. Yakface pointed this out the other day in a different thread and I looked through it. I am waiting for the announcement of individual terrain piece dataslates. The new rules for forests make the do it yourself forest base with 3 trees that most tournaments use difficult to use with the current rules. They wrote the rules for and with GW terrain sets in mind. So much for forging the narrative. In the grim dark future every battle takes place in identical cities and woodlands apparently...

**Leth**

OverwatchCNC wrote:
I have to agree with Hulk on the terrain front. IMO some of the biggest issues are with the new terrain rules. Yakface pointed this out the other day in a different thread and I looked through it. I am waiting for the announcement of individual terrain piece dataslates. The new rules for forests make the do it yourself forest base with 3 trees that most tournaments use difficult to use with the current rules. They wrote the rules for and with GW terrain sets in mind. So much for forging the narrative. In the grim dark future every battle takes place in identical cities and woodlands apparently...

Except they specifically said in the rules that you are free to make additional rules for your own pieces of terrain. In tournaments you typically clarified what each piece was with your opponent or the TO anyway so no big deal there IMO.

"Certain terrain is Area Terrain" BAMN problems solved.

**Hollismason**

I think it's kind of silly to not embrace the biggest change that has happened with restrictions on Psyhics, Combined Arms, etc..

I can understand restrictions on Come the Apocalpyse and unbound but seriously saying.

You can only take X FOCs when the rules set out quiet clearly is just egotism. It's egotistical to say " I know better" without at first seeing it played.

The biggest change in the FOC has happened, Combined Arms, Battle Forged , etc..

We have literally had the same FOC for over a DECADE. it's finally changed you should embrace it and see what it brings to the tournament scene not immediately disregard it and in your own egoism say " i know what is best". Without waiting and at least seeing what it brings. If it does start breaking it sure apply restrictions but 40k was never meant as a balanced game to begin with. It'll bring more variety to the table , more interesting army choices etc..

**Leth**

I am personally 100% in the limit FOC.

However adjusting the core rules outside serious need is what throws me off.

2+ re-roll, meh, summoning, meh. Even invis I would like to see data before we limit most of these.

However I understand as tournament organizers marketing is half of the battle, and so if you take steps to limit what people perceive as a problem that might make it so they don't attend I completely understand. Also you have the bind of needing to limit somethings that while not broken would lead to people not having a good time, so things like summoning could get out of hand, and it wouldnt be fun to only get 1-2 turns in during a game.

**Hollismason**

Yet the rules have been out like 2 weeks and people are like " gotta change this".

I thnk the next couple of months will be interesting, I'mt trying to think one the next big tournament is but can't.

The best thing people could do is instead of saying " You can't use the FOC like the book" is to say" You are limited to X% of total for each HQ slot you take". It'd still allow for really intereting armies and not be stale as it is now with people severely limited by what they choose. I mean you'll always see 10 Warlock armies , it's not a nerf though because if they want to do that. They can with Combined arms, but they'll have to providetroops and it still maxes out percentage wise.

**Tomb King**

Hollismason wrote:I think it's kind of silly to not embrace the biggest change that has happened with restrictions on Psyhics, Combined Arms, etc..

I can understand restrictions on Come the Apocalpyse and unbound but seriously saying.

You can only take X FOCs when the rules set out quiet clearly is just egotism. It's egotistical to say " I know better" without at first seeing it played.

The biggest change in the FOC has happened, Combined Arms, Battle Forged , etc..

We have literally had the same FOC for over a DECADE. it's finally changed you should embrace it and see what it brings to the tournament scene not immediately disregard it and in your own egoism say " i know what is best". Without waiting and at least seeing what it brings. If it does start breaking it sure apply restrictions but 40k was never meant as a balanced game to begin with. It'll bring more variety to the table , more interesting army choices etc..

Roger suggesting refinements and solutions makes us egotistical ass holes because you dont like our ideas.

Hollismason wrote:Yet the rules have been out like 2 weeks and people are like " gotta change this".

I thnk the next couple of months will be interesting, I'mt trying to think one the next big tournament is but can't.

The best thing people could do is instead of saying " You can't use the FOC like the book" is to say" You are limited to X% of total for each HQ slot you take". It'd still allow for really intereting armies and not be stale as it is now with people severely limited by what they choose. I mean you'll always see 10 Warlock armies , it's not a nerf though because if they want to do that. They can with Combined arms, but they'll have to providetroops and it still maxes out percentage wise.

But your idea is the perfect solution.

I am personally not a fan of percentage in fantasy and would not like to see it make an appearance in 40k. It can be balancing but some armies have to take more of a certain type of unit to be successful(Ex: Vampire counts have most of their viable units in the rare choices but can only take 1 to 2 things from their rare slot in a standard game).

**Hollismason**

Its sort of throwing out the baby with the bathwater at this point and i don't believe we should kill children.

**Crablezworth**

I agree that terrain has taken too much of a backseat in the overall scheme of things. it's area that TO's should definitley regulate on. I'm not really thrilled with the over simplification of ruins, its a big step back.

**Sigvatr**

Hollismason wrote:
I think it's kind of silly to not embrace the biggest change that has happened with restrictions on Psyhics, Combined Arms, etc..

I can understand restrictions on Come the Apocalpyse and unbound but seriously saying.

You can only take X FOCs when the rules set out quiet clearly is just egotism. It's egotistical to say " I know better" without at first seeing it played.

The biggest change in the FOC has happened, Combined Arms, Battle Forged , etc..

We have literally had the same FOC for over a DECADE. it's finally changed you should embrace it and see what it brings to the tournament scene not immediately disregard it and in your own egoism say " i know what is best". Without waiting and at least seeing what it brings. If it does start breaking it sure apply restrictions but 40k was never meant as a balanced game to begin with. It'll bring more variety to the table , more interesting army choices etc..

Isn't your whole post basically "I know what's best!"?

FOC expansion has been part of 6th already. It's terrible. That's why all tournaments went to 1999+1 games or stayed at 1850 in order to avoid double FoC.

The reason is the terrible balance in 40k. A codex is good if it has 2-3 overpowered units / combinations. Guess what happens if you expand the FoC. Hint: the additional slots aren't used to bring weaker units in.

**Spoletta**

Face it, the first tournaments will be run with 6E like rules. Nothing wrong with it, people are risking money on this and will take their best chances of bringing more players.

That said, the next couple months will be crucial to define the true tournament rules. If you want to to have a place in this process then post battle reports, that's the best way to make your point.

**Sigvatr**

We've come to discussing the Skyfire / Interceptor thing and it's widely considered a bad move.

The problem in 6th was that Skyfire / Interceptor was too easy to come by, mainly because of the ADL being very cheap and the Quadgun / Icarus Lascannon being cheap upgrades that were very versatile.

In 7th, it's the other extreme where Skyfire / Interceptor weapons now are too expensive as they might be a big waste of points in TAC lists.

The actual problem was cheap availability of Skyfire / Interceptor. Right now, we're discussing a few ideas.

I prefer the idea of reverting the change to Interceptor, thus it allowing Skyfire weapons to fire at ground targets at full BS, but making it an optional upgrade for the Quadgun / Icarus Lasgun that has to be purchased for points (20-30ish?). Other weapons will be checked as well yet those two weapons stand out as having been too cheap the most.

**Dozer Blades**

That's hilarious you want to change even more core rules... But discuss! That's why we have forums.

**Leth**

No need to change the skyfire/icarus IMO.

It still has enough use against a significant number of targets(skimmers, etc) that it doesnt need to be messed with at all IMO. I bring meltaguns to plan for vehicles. If they dont bring any vehicles I dont complain about meltaguns.

**Sigvatr**

Dozer Blades wrote:
That's hilarious you want to change even more core rules... But discuss! That's why we have forums.

Pretty much this. We don't deny any input that has seen some thought put into it, we just discuss it, think of solutions, playtest, re-evaluate etc. Skyfire / Interceptor is a more sensible issue than clearly overpowered stuff because the consequences can hardly been predicted. Yes, it might lead to more flyers (which would be bad). But it does not necessarily has to. Therefore, it's a low priority issue.

Leth wrote:
No need to change the skyfire/icarus IMO.

It still has enough use against a significant number of targets(skimmers, etc) that it doesnt need to be messed with at all IMO. I bring meltaguns to plan for vehicles. If they dont bring any vehicles I dont complain about meltaguns.

Meltaguns are different, though, as they also do a great job against MC and basically anything with a good armor save or high T...or both.

I like that it's discussed, though, as it's one thing that doesn't immediately pop up as wrong such as Invisibility or Unbound.

...and on a less serious note, this might just come from a few people not liking Sentry Pylons now carrying Focussed Death Rays, annihiliating stuff left and right ;D

**116th Mechanized**

Am I understanding the 7th ed correctly in that lords of war (super-heavies) can now be taken in a standard mission FOC (now tournament legal outside apocalipse/escalation)?

**Sigvatr**

Lords of War (LOW) were legal to take in regular lists too in 6th as Escalation was an expansion to the ruleset.

**Crablezworth**

116th Mechanized wrote:
Am I understanding the 7th ed correctly in that lords of war (super-heavies) can now be taken in a standard mission FOC (now tournament legal outside apocalipse/escalation)?

7th ed basically is apocalypse. Sadly.

**Spoletta**

Don't think that there's enough time for the incoming events, but could someone please playtest Maelstrom with the following rules and with properly tailored lists?

- You can discard starting hand
- TacOs 1x, 2x, 3x, 44 , 45 and 46 are scored at the end of the enemy turn
- TacOs 1x, 2x and 3x cannot be scored on the first turn of game.
- D3=2
- You can discard impossible TacOs

I think that this could be a good ruleset to allow Maelstrom missions into competitive play. It's a too important part of the rulebook to ignore completely in competitive play.

**Corbett**

We have a straight from the rulebook tournament coming up in two weeks at my Local shop. Everyone is willing to throw there hats in the ring and see how it all pans out I will give some feedback on what it looks like and how it all boiled down afterwards.

**Spoletta**

Just make sure to enforce time restrictions on heavy summoning army, else the tournament will take days.

**Vaktathi**

Crablezworth wrote:
116th Mechanized wrote:
Am I understanding the 7th ed correctly in that lords of war (super-heavies) can now be taken in a standard mission FOC (now tournament legal outside apocalipse/escalation)?

7th ed basically is apocalypse. Sadly.

Depending on the Superheavy it's not that much of an issue. I ran a Baneblade in two games last night, replacing three Leman Russ tanks that I normally ran, and it basically provided identical value, being a little harder to shut down through the damage table but easier to concentrate fire on. One cryptek with the haywire gun and a round of turn 2 combat with a couple Warscythes later and it was dead.

It's bigger stuff like Heirophants and multiple D-strength pieplate tosssing titan walkers that are the problem.

**greyknight12**

On the subject of deathstars, would capping invulnerable saves at a 3++ work? There's enough ignores cover and low ap to make those types of re-rollables not as big a deal.

**MVBrandt**

I'm not sure any of that is really all that necessary. Deathstars - no matter how killy, durable, or fast - fare extremely poorly in 7th edition compared to 6th. The changes to scoring and mission focus basically nerfed them into the ground from the perspective of being able to win games as reliably.

Early on, people may still run them wholesale across the meta, but that is going to change organically.