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.

Breng77 wrote:
Again with the sniping at other events...mechanicon, seems to have been a fun event, with nothing but good press, but also seems like the only one with organizers taking public shots at how other people are doing things. On one hand you say that there will be no one format (I agree) and then go on to run down 2 other formats that you don't run as being bad for the game. So is the message, people will run all sorts of events, but unless you run one like us you are hurting the hobby? Also attendance thus far has suggested players want a limited environment, with many less restricted events having lower attendance than in the past. It feel like there is a place for any type of event the community wants to run, but no place for events running each other down.

Exalted


Let's be honest guys, the second you even standardize a point limit between players you've modified 7th, that really is how loosely written and sandboxy it is.

 RiTides wrote:

As another poster said above, no one can even agree on what "playing 7th edition" would be. You say unrestricted, and now you say maybe you'd consider unbound, but you know that that is never going to catch on. People draw the line somewhere, and at that point it's just a sandbox, not a ruleset worthy of tournament play.

This is something that always needs to be kept in mind. GW has never really designed 40k for tournament play, 5th was probably the closest, but they came right out and said with 6th that a competitive, organized ruleset for tournament play was not what they were designing at the studio's Open Day event a couple years back, and 7th just took that to its logical conclusion, being very much a sandbox framework for playing with one's collection plastic army dudes as opposed to a balanced tactical wargame.

Trying to run a Tournament with such a ruleset will inherently have to mean playing with house rules, at a minimum just time limits and terrain/table setup. The game simply is not intended or designed for Tournament play, and it should always be kept in mind that in running a tournament based on such a ruleset, there is a large degree of trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

As noted, nobody agrees on exactly what "playing 7th" really is. Some people want to go back to "5E and older" single FoC armies with no allies, some are cool with unlimited sources but would never countenance Forgeworld, some want the "two sources, one CAD/one Ally", some are cool with anything and everything, some just want to dump Lords of War or Formations, some that want to open up sources a lot more and place restrictions on individual units, and dozens of other formats that have been suggested. Almost every event seems to run its own rules, and most of the places that did try out a "no house rules" event where unbound/unrestricted lists have now seemed to have abandoned that by all accounts for subsequent events. Most places still seem to be figuring it out and I suspect we'll see shifts in formats for a while.

The only largely consistent thing I've seen is that lots of smaller events tend to copy-paste rules form whatever large event takes place somewhat near them (e.g. lots of CA independent club/store events just use the BAO rules).

Ultimately, I think each event is going to have to poll its attendees and see what they want, I think we'll see stuff probably shift over time back and forth over time from year to year, subject to new GW releases and whatever new they bring to the table.

Limiting the number of sources doesn't make thing interesting, it just lets Codex: Wave Serpent continue to dominate. Moreover, limited codices and dataslates like Inquisition and Assassins will suffer because you can't include them unless you're happy with your pure list and want to throw in 1-2 things from allies.

I think you will see Imperial armies get more and more specialized. If GW tries to balance their game around the idea that all Imperial armies are BB, you're going to see a lot more imperial codices with a very limited selection of units and with glaring holes that must be filled in by allies. Preventing them from doing that thing, just favors Tau and Eldar and any other faction written with the assumption that they can't rely on allies.

I like the idea of Highlander in theory, but I don't see it working well for very many armies. Now, Highlander + unlimited number of detachments could be interesting.

 Vaktathi wrote:

As noted, nobody agrees on exactly what "playing 7th" really is. Some people want to go back to "5E and older" single FoC armies with no allies

I'm definitely on that end of the spectrum. Played my orks vs tau yesterday and won, but again, one cad/foc, no allies and highlander all the way. It was a good time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mavnas wrote:
I like the idea of Highlander in theory, but I don't see it working well for very many armies. Now, Highlander + unlimited number of detachments could be interesting.

It's no silver bullet but it does drastically limit eldar's ability to take serpents and tau's ability to max out the usual suspects.


I just don't see 3 sources as anything other than "let's play apoc". And it's possible that a minority of players will view even 3 sources as "too limiting". I think the honest way to address all of this is some players prefer more structure, some less.

Subjectivity and harsh judgement aside, I'm obviously in the more limits, more structure camp.

I think Tau are least affected since they have a lot of good choices or can just take target locks on large units (Farsight + up to 7 crisis suits as bodyguards, all with target locks), and aren't wave serpents dedicated transports for troops?

But with farsight you now don't get to take a buff comander (or any other comander), as such you are still less effective than you would be otherwise. Sure tau have multiple good selections, but now you face only one of each instead of 2 or 3. Again it is not perfect, nothing is, it is just different.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

As noted, nobody agrees on exactly what "playing 7th" really is. Some people want to go back to "5E and older" single FoC armies with no allies

I'm definitely on that end of the spectrum. Played my orks vs tau yesterday and won, but again, one cad/foc, no allies and highlander all the way. It was a good time.

I still play all my armies as single FoC with no allies, and that's how I generally prefer to play. Alas, my opponents are not always so forgiving.

I may look into changing that, but haven't felt "right" doing so as yet.

I believe, even though they're troop transports, under most Highlander rules serpents would still be limited to 1 (or perhaps a second once you've taken all troop choices, I think it depends on the specific format).

It does kind of suck in a way because now you can't take that all-drop-pod army, or the dreadnought themed list, or the grot rebellion army. But at the same time, as the above poster mentions, orks can now hang with Tau. Nids look downright scary to me under that format, which obviously appealed to me at first as a Nid player . But, because it takes out so many themed lists, I can't see it becoming the "norm". And so, we're left without a standard and with events having to patch as well as they can... but that seems inevitable for this edition of 40k.

I agree wth you - I don't see Highlander making a big splash... It actually favors some races over others doing nothing but shifting the meta.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

I still play all my armies as single FoC with no allies, and that's how I generally prefer to play. Alas, my opponents are not always so forgiving.

I may look into changing that, but haven't felt "right" doing so as yet.

Regular opponents tend to be the easiest to find a common ground with in terms the unfortunately ever longer "what kinda game" conversation. I've been lucky, locally we've tried to keep things pretty sane. The odd forge world but mostly no allies, one cad. The closest you could get to 5th in the current edition. Highlander just curbs spamming and mech.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It actually favors some races over others doing nothing but shifting the meta.

And 3 sources also shifts the meta.

We'll all have our preferences in the end, I guess it remains to be seen if expanding the absurdity wins out over some semblance of structure and limitation.

The mention of highlander has got a lot of old faces excited to play again locally, which is more than I can say about the addition of formations and allies and all the rest.

If you can get a good turn out time and again with 3 source, so be it. Everyone's a victim who doesn't get to bring the toys they want, it could be fun, it could also just be a collection of fun sponges.

Multi source does not have to be a bad thing - this is the current ruleset so to me sad to see the game being held back. All it does is help certain armies by creating an artificial environment. My prediction is the tournament scene will slowly catch on and the TOs who stay most current will prosper. Casual games is a completely different story - you have the choice who you play and should game with like minded individuals.

No one says it is a bad thing, but that does not make it better, (or worse) than any other format. It also (like highlander) favors some armies over others (as any format is like to do).

Would be nice if Warhounds were allowed.

Breng77 wrote:
No one says it is a bad thing, but that does not make it better, (or worse) than any other format. It also (like highlander) favors some armies over others (as any format is like to do).

To truly say for sure how a format would benefit an army (codex), I think it'd have to be limited to once source. Otherwise when you break it all down it feels more like we're just judging the efficacy of point efficient units in various collections. You can do some truly cynical stuff with more sources and potentially fw, super heavies and so on.

 FeindusMaximus wrote:
Would be nice if Warhounds were allowed.

Free market 40k

Well multiple source formats benefit Armies with more options for sources (those with more Battle Brothers, those with more good formations.)

Highlander (depending on how you cap sources if at all) benefits those armies that have multiple good selections in all FOCs, it also benefits armies with few battle brothers.

Breng77 wrote:
Well multiple source formats benefit Armies with more options for sources (those with more Battle Brothers, those with more good formations.)

Highlander (depending on how you cap sources if at all) benefits those armies that have multiple good selections in all FOCs, it also benefits armies with few battle brothers.

Well, Highlander makes everything AOC; it also allows limitless detachments / sources. So, it has less of a "negative impact on some armies" as inferred.

Agreed with Breng/RiTides on several posts about various subjects of the last page.

Re: the Serpent question, Dedicated Transports are not considered Troops for purposes of Highlander rules in most formats, so 1 Wave Serpent = all you get. It does effectively eliminate all-pod armies and the like. It also heavily nerfs summoning spam.

MVBrandt wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Well multiple source formats benefit Armies with more options for sources (those with more Battle Brothers, those with more good formations.)

Highlander (depending on how you cap sources if at all) benefits those armies that have multiple good selections in all FOCs, it also benefits armies with few battle brothers.

Well, Highlander makes everything AOC; it also allows limitless detachments / sources. So, it has less of a "negative impact on some armies" as inferred.

Agreed with Breng/RiTides on several posts about various subjects of the last page.

Re: the Serpent question, Dedicated Transports are not considered Troops for purposes of Highlander rules in most formats, so 1 Wave Serpent = all you get. It does effectively eliminate all-pod armies and the like. It also heavily nerfs summoning spam.

Round here the highlander format we're doin is 1 cad, so no allies.

 Crablezworth wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Well multiple source formats benefit Armies with more options for sources (those with more Battle Brothers, those with more good formations.)

Highlander (depending on how you cap sources if at all) benefits those armies that have multiple good selections in all FOCs, it also benefits armies with few battle brothers.

Well, Highlander makes everything AOC; it also allows limitless detachments / sources. So, it has less of a "negative impact on some armies" as inferred.

Agreed with Breng/RiTides on several posts about various subjects of the last page.

Re: the Serpent question, Dedicated Transports are not considered Troops for purposes of Highlander rules in most formats, so 1 Wave Serpent = all you get. It does effectively eliminate all-pod armies and the like. It also heavily nerfs summoning spam.

Round here the highlander format we're doin is 1 cad, so no allies.

1 CAD can be fun to do, but we've found in just messing around with the format that you *do* get into the issues mentioned by some about codex creep. Not all single detachment sources are created equal under highlander (or in general). If you have limitless detachment but still all other Highlander rules in effect and all AoC, things start to get really interesting indeed.

Breng77 wrote:
Well multiple source formats benefit Armies with more options for sources (those with more Battle Brothers, those with more good formations.)

I guess it's hard to discuss without getting mildly off topic but, are we assuming 3 sources "everything's in, do whatever you want" ala feast or like, some level of sanity? I guess, I'm not sure what good all that freedom of choice is if you don't own a warhound or an inexplicably undercosted forgeworld stompa and so on.

I guess what I'm saying is the amount of sources doesn't exist in a vacuum, kinda have to have the dsicussion of what's "allowed" I gues (lords of war, super heavies and so on)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Well multiple source formats benefit Armies with more options for sources (those with more Battle Brothers, those with more good formations.)

Highlander (depending on how you cap sources if at all) benefits those armies that have multiple good selections in all FOCs, it also benefits armies with few battle brothers.

Well, Highlander makes everything AOC; it also allows limitless detachments / sources. So, it has less of a "negative impact on some armies" as inferred.

Agreed with Breng/RiTides on several posts about various subjects of the last page.

Re: the Serpent question, Dedicated Transports are not considered Troops for purposes of Highlander rules in most formats, so 1 Wave Serpent = all you get. It does effectively eliminate all-pod armies and the like. It also heavily nerfs summoning spam.

Round here the highlander format we're doin is 1 cad, so no allies.

1 CAD can be fun to do, but we've found in just messing around with the format that you *do* get into the issues mentioned by some about codex creep. Not all single detachment sources are created equal under highlander (or in general). If you have limitless detachment but still all other Highlander rules in effect and all AoC, things start to get really interesting indeed.

Yeah no doubt the codex's will stand or fall on their own merits, but I gotta say it is refreshing to think that even orks can aspire to beat tau in that format.

MVBrandt wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Well multiple source formats benefit Armies with more options for sources (those with more Battle Brothers, those with more good formations.)

Highlander (depending on how you cap sources if at all) benefits those armies that have multiple good selections in all FOCs, it also benefits armies with few battle brothers.

Well, Highlander makes everything AOC; it also allows limitless detachments / sources. So, it has less of a "negative impact on some armies" as inferred.

Agreed with Breng/RiTides on several posts about various subjects of the last page.

Re: the Serpent question, Dedicated Transports are not considered Troops for purposes of Highlander rules in most formats, so 1 Wave Serpent = all you get. It does effectively eliminate all-pod armies and the like. It also heavily nerfs summoning spam.

Round here the highlander format we're doin is 1 cad, so no allies.

1 CAD can be fun to do, but we've found in just messing around with the format that you *do* get into the issues mentioned by some about codex creep. Not all single detachment sources are created equal under highlander (or in general). If you have limitless detachment but still all other Highlander rules in effect and all AoC, things start to get really interesting indeed.

I couldnt agree more!

Highlander comes across as a convoluted heavily restricted system. Are there any actual large events that will run it ?

I feel Highlander is more suited to local smaller events and offshoot events for major GT's. It might honestly eventually get to the point where a GT isn't a single large tournament but 3-4 Smaller Tournaments running concurrently all using different baseline rules (which I'm actually in favor of).

Something like:
Crazy all in
Adepticon's current Champs Format w/LoW Restrictions
2-Source Format w/no LoW (that aren't in codexes)
Highlander Format

But we'll see

I can that for sure.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I feel Highlander is more suited to local smaller events and offshoot events for major GT's. It might honestly eventually get to the point where a GT isn't a single large tournament but 3-4 Smaller Tournaments running concurrently all using different baseline rules (which I'm actually in favor of).

Something like:
Crazy all in
Adepticon's current Champs Format w/LoW Restrictions
2-Source Format w/no LoW (that aren't in codexes)
Highlander Format

But we'll see

I would certainly be in favor of that, there's been too many events that I've had to pass up because either they had restrictions on stuff I wanted to take (i.e. run a FW list or something) or that have an overly competitive format I'm not a fan of. If more events move to something like this with several different smaller events instead, each with different formats, and offer something for everyone, that'd be awesome.

Most gts cannot really support multiple small events very well. It works fine if you have say 100 people but if you are in the 32 player range running multiple formats seems like a stretch. As for highlander, I doubt that most events will run it, but some may, just like some events run comp now. I'm very tempted to run it for my event next year, for a number of reasons, chief among them being complaints from players about top tier armies, being not fun to play against.