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.

 jy2 wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:

7th pod could hold invisible honor guard with shrouding.

There is still some debate if FW chapter tactics still has a green light from Reece. I think it does, but that's only because it was fine in 6th when he still had a ban on fw armies.

I don't think it would be a problem to use FW Chapter Tactics. They have let people run them before. I have not heard anything about them banning it since.

The main problem with FW specific armies is that you need to FW books in order to run them. Not many people have access to those books and there is no way that even the TO's themselves can check a specific FW list to see if it is legal. However, FW Chapter Tactics basically run on the SM codex, with only differences being in the Chapter Tactics and the characters themselves. That is much easier to check, not only for the TO's but for the opponents as well, if something is wrong with the list (i.e. if it is illegal). Thus, from precedent, I see running FW Chapter Tactics using the SM codex to be perfectly fine.

If I am wrong, I am sure Reece will correct me in this thread. But to be on the safe side, you can always PM him as well.

Well that's pretty much what Reece said at all previous frontline events he just hasn't mentioned fw chapter tactics yet.

We're a Crystal Brush qualifier again this year, details here: http://www.crystalbrush.com/2014/07/road-to-crystal-brush-the-bay-area-open/

Reecius,

Will O'vesa be allowed to join a unit containing ICs?

@col_impact

No, an IC cannot join a unit containing MCs, therefore, O'Vessa can join a unit, but not one that has another IC. He cannot join another IC, or MC, either.

Wait so I can ally with my own faction so if I play Chaos Daemons I can have up to 8 Heralds?

12, right? 8 in the primary, plus 4 as the ally?

You can only take 4 Heralds in a Primary detachment. Your Primary detachment is determined by which one your Warlord is in. As you can only have 1 warlord and therefore 1 primary detachment, you can only ever have 4 Heralds.

 Reecius wrote:
You can only take 4 Heralds in a Primary detachment. Your Primary detachment is determined by which one your Warlord is in. As you can only have 1 warlord and therefore 1 primary detachment, you can only ever have 4 Heralds.

You should probably read the FAQ Reece They took out the word "Primary". So in a self allied army you could have 8 (as you are still restricted to 4 per detachment by the wording).

Is the Lord of War part of the CAD or does it count as its own detachment?

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
You can only take 4 Heralds in a Primary detachment. Your Primary detachment is determined by which one your Warlord is in. As you can only have 1 warlord and therefore 1 primary detachment, you can only ever have 4 Heralds.

You should probably read the FAQ Reece They took out the word "Primary". So in a self allied army you could have 8 (as you are still restricted to 4 per detachment by the wording).

This so you could take up to 8 now, just like they removed the restriction on Warlocks I believe it no longer states Primary? Am I correct I know they removed the restriction on Daemons.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
You can only take 4 Heralds in a Primary detachment. Your Primary detachment is determined by which one your Warlord is in. As you can only have 1 warlord and therefore 1 primary detachment, you can only ever have 4 Heralds.

You should probably read the FAQ Reece They took out the word "Primary". So in a self allied army you could have 8 (as you are still restricted to 4 per detachment by the wording).

Then I stand corrected.

So many little, tiny but significant changes, I am uploading it all ASAP, but every day I learn something new. 7th is going to be a long time in unfolding, I wish they had a change log or something.

@CKO

It is part of any detachment that includes it. So far, that is really only the CAD and Ork detachments, but we limit it to 1 in case, somehow, someone could take more than one through some detachment we are unaware of. It is included in it's deatchment though.

7th ed list building is complex, it will take some time to get used to it.

So a IG and Space Marine list can include a baneblade variant?

Interested as to why you allow the Stompa [pretty indestructible with all the of the opportunities to repair HPs] but didn't allow Warhound Titans? You state that you wanted to avoid ignores cover weapons, but the only ignores cover on the Warhound is the [short range] flamer?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Interested as to why you allow the Stompa [pretty indestructible with all the of the opportunities to repair HPs] but didn't allow Warhound Titans? You state that you wanted to avoid ignores cover weapons, but the only ignores cover on the Warhound is the [short range] flamer?

The flamer is pretty gross to be honest.

It seems the army composition portion of BAO rules has been revised (or maybe my memory is going bad).

Before, the BAO explicitly said a formation counted as a separate detachment and therefore an army couldn't have 1 CAD, 1 Allied detachment, and 1 formation because that would be a total of 3 detachments. Now, I don't see that sentence.

Does that mean a formation could be a part of CAD or allied detachment? If so, does that mean which ever one it's a part of have to have at least compulsory 1 HQ and 2 troops for primary or 1 HQ and 1 troop for allied detachment?

 CKO wrote:
So a IG and Space Marine list can include a baneblade variant?

If your CAD is IG, yes, you can include a Baneblade or other AM LoW.

@tyrannosaurus

It has been really interesting to me and quite funny, that about 90% of the negative feedback we have gotten has been about which LoW we HAVEN'T included. Haha, so funny, I thought people would just be happy to have them but it has been almost all complaints about which units we chose to omit. And, for the record, I am not saying you are being negative, you are being quite reasonable and just asking a question, but your question brought that to mind. The only truly mad, irrational emails I have gotten this time around have been pissed people about not getting their Tranny C'Tan or what have you. So funny.

But, we omitted any unit that could take a large, ignores cover weapon. I didn't want to start splitting hairs and banning specific weapons as I 100% guarantee, that would have caused more problems than it solved as people would have been upset that they built their LoW with those weapons and couldn't change it, or didn't see that rule and brought one anyway, etc., etc., etc. A blanket ban on those units this first time out felt like the right call.

As for the Stompa, eh, we'll see. Two Knights hit it in assault and it is probably dead, killing everything inside and around it. It is good, for sure, but essentially the entire army is built around that one unit, and I think it would actually be a very poor army for winning missions, but we'll see. I am sure one will pop up at the BAO.

All the fuss though, will largely be for naught as I bet money right now, less than 10% of the armies present will actually have a LoW.

@SabrX

A Formation IS a separate detachment, per the BRB, it didn't need to be explicit. You can have 2 detachments total, one of which must be a CAD (unless you play Orks, in which case it can be one of their codex specific detachments as explained in the BAO guidelines), the other can be an ally, formation or Inquisition..

A Formation can never be a part of a CAD as it is a detachment of its own. Check out the BRB in the army building section for further clarification.

See you there, glad you are getting back into tournament 40k, buddy!

Thanks for the clarification. I'm rusty and will be playing my first game of 7th ed tonight.

It made me happy to see the latest batrep with the BAO rules. Looks good! It was also great to see Adam get his ass handed to him by Rawdogger, gj!

@Reece, I mentioned in Slaeds batrep thread that you folks should have players turn in the Final Game Turn number so you know what turn the average games ended on and can also determine the average time it takes to finish a turn.

jy2 said he would mention it, but I thought I'd post it here as well as I think it would really help garner useful data to help figure out point limits for these tournies. It would be an easy addition to thew score sheets. If not then, the exit survey should contain it.

 Reecius wrote:


@tyrannosaurus

It has been really interesting to me and quite funny, that about 90% of the negative feedback we have gotten has been about which LoW we HAVEN'T included. Haha, so funny, I thought people would just be happy to have them but it has been almost all complaints about which units we chose to omit. And, for the record, I am not saying you are being negative, you are being quite reasonable and just asking a question, but your question brought that to mind. The only truly mad, irrational emails I have gotten this time around have been pissed people about not getting their Tranny C'Tan or what have you. So funny.

But, we omitted any unit that could take a large, ignores cover weapon. I didn't want to start splitting hairs and banning specific weapons as I 100% guarantee, that would have caused more problems than it solved as people would have been upset that they built their LoW with those weapons and couldn't change it, or didn't see that rule and brought one anyway, etc., etc., etc. A blanket ban on those units this first time out felt like the right call.

As for the Stompa, eh, we'll see. Two Knights hit it in assault and it is probably dead, killing everything inside and around it. It is good, for sure, but essentially the entire army is built around that one unit, and I think it would actually be a very poor army for winning missions, but we'll see. I am sure one will pop up at the BAO.

All the fuss though, will largely be for naught as I bet money right now, less than 10% of the armies present will actually have a LoW.

Thanks for the response, was genuinely interested so wasn't meant to be a criticism. I've tried to take down one of those suckers before and it was a nightmare, whereas Warhounds are comparatively simple to pop, so was just wondering if i had missed something. Hope the event goes really well, I can only imagine what a thankless task it must feel like at times to organise these tournaments! I'm sure it'll all be worth it once the dice start rolling and the beers start emptying

Edit - also wanted to say I think it's a really positive move not to blanket ban LoW as they're an integral part of 7th.

Reecius,

Another quick question for you. Can units re-embark upon a Night Scythe?

@Thread

Draconic Painting awards details posted! https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByVzaY23LOX-endEemtjeFVFSktTLWR5RThtd0dkeGF1b0hJ/edit?usp=sharing

@sabrX

No worries, glad to have you back!

@Farsight

Yes, anytime Tau lose, an Ork gets his Power Klaw!

@Corsair

That is a good idea, we will notate that on the score card.

@t-rex

No worries, you didn't come across that way at all, it just made me think of it. And yeah, we are happy to have LoW in some fashion, we just weren't ready to go full Monty!

 Reecius wrote:
@Thread

Draconic Painting awards details posted! https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByVzaY23LOX-endEemtjeFVFSktTLWR5RThtd0dkeGF1b0hJ/edit?usp=sharing

Oh, this is cool. Unfortunately I think all my best stuff is going to actually be in my army so I can't leave it sitting on a table all weekend. :(

Talk to the judges, I bet they're willing to work with you.

Are you going to do a rules FAQ Q&A on dakka and if so is this the place to bomb you with questions?

 schadenfreude wrote:
Are you going to do a rules FAQ Q&A on dakka and if so is this the place to bomb you with questions?

I doubt it. There's no way they will have the time to address all of the issues people are going to bring up, because not only will they have to address them, but they will have to spend the time to defend their viewpoints as well. There will be a lot of pushback in an open forum and it takes a large amount of time to defend your rulings because people will disagree. On top of that, they need to spend the time on the "back-end" with other TO's with regards to tournament FAQ's as well. My guess is that they will hash it out on the back-end with other TO's to try to create some uniformity in tournament rulings.

I think the best way to go about it is to just PM him with rules queries or to just post them here.

col_impact wrote:
Reecius,

Another quick question for you. Can units re-embark upon a Night Scythe?

Why couldn't they?

Out of curiosity, how many tickets are left unsold?

@schadenfreude

The FAQ should be updated by the end of the week. We have a conference call with the other TOs to hash out as much of it as possible, but as Jim said, some of it will be judgement calls at the event, i am sure.

You can ask me questions here, though.

@SabrX

For the 40K Championships? 3.

Reece, if we purchase any "Battle Mats" would we be able to pick them up from you guys at the the event or in the alternative will you guys be selling the "Battle Mats" at the BAO? I've been meaning to get one or two to replace my slowed Realm of Battle board.