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.

 elphilo wrote:

 LValx wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
That is indeed being discussed.

Awesome and please for the mother of god, make us aware of important FAQ updates (unlike some other large GT that recently happened). Thanks for the timely response and I am beyond ecstatic to be attending NOVA, its been a few years for me.

Hi! I'm Phil and I'm a Co-Lead of the GT. Every time I've added/changed/generally updated the FAQ I've been posting a change log to here: http://40kfaq.com/

Hope this helps

Yeah definitely need a ruling on the Piranha Wing before people start buying bunch of drones and Piranhas for the Drone Factory.

 SonsofVulkan wrote:

 elphilo wrote:

 LValx wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
That is indeed being discussed.

Awesome and please for the mother of god, make us aware of important FAQ updates (unlike some other large GT that recently happened). Thanks for the timely response and I am beyond ecstatic to be attending NOVA, its been a few years for me.

Hi! I'm Phil and I'm a Co-Lead of the GT. Every time I've added/changed/generally updated the FAQ I've been posting a change log to here: http://40kfaq.com/

Hope this helps

Yeah definitely need a ruling on the Piranha Wing before people start buying bunch of drones and Piranhas for the Drone Factory.

From discussions on the FAQ council, it was felt there was no need for an FAQ Entry - the rules are clear on how to play the Piranha Firestream Wing. I think what you're looking for would be better addressed by this line of the FAQ document, under Rules Changes:

Please note that the NOVA Open will play by what the rules say unless enough people in the community say otherwise. This section is where these rules changes will be addressed. If you feel an ability/mechanic is too powerful please see the section above about how to submit questions and arguments for the FAQ.

Keep in mind NOVA traditionally does not implement many rules changes, and only in the above case. For instance, NOVA currently has rules change entries for Ranged D, and how Stomping out of Combat works. Comparatively, there are no changes to items like Invisibility, 2+ rerollable, and other common items.

I'd use the contact form listed in the FAQ to send over an email expressing your concerns.

What Target said is the best way to let us know how you feel about something like the Piranhas in terms of attempting to lobby for a change in the rules.

Bad news - block sold out
Good news - we got the hotel to open it back up again with most of the rest of the rooms in the hotel
Good/Bad news - The increased block is still now 75% sold out

Long / short - you can cancel up to 48 hours in advance if something comes up with the hotel; snag a room now: https://aws.passkey.com/g/55247835

Malifaux update;
Update for all - Down to under 20 spots left for the Malifaux National Championships

Additionally, only 14 spots remain for the Narrative

6 spots remain for the Enforcer Brawl

6 spots remain for Hardcore

8 spots remain for Treacherous Ties

12 spots remain for the Trios Team event (12 team spots)

Also, while you can cancel your hotel room as long as it's 48 hours before the time of, we already sold the hotel block out and had to ask the Hyatt for an increase. They gave us all the rooms left in the hotel, but THAT larger block is now 75% gone.

Confirmation of change in scoring for the 40K GT:

In response to anecdotal reports of collusion last year, where players who were winning would give the opponents extra points up to 1 or similar below them, we've made the following change to how Battle Points are awarded per round at NOVA's 40K GT.

In addition to being able to earn 0-9 points for Primary, 0-6 points for Secondary, and 0-4 points for Tertiary, winners will also earn 0-6 points for Differential. Every point you exceed your opponent's score by, to a maximum of 6, is added to your final score.

Example 1 - John beats Bob via tiebreakers, tying on BP 19-19. Since the differential is Zero, John's final BP for the round remains a 19.

Example 2 - John beats Bob 19-13 on BP. The differential is 6, so John's final score for the round is 25.

Example 3 - John beats Bob 19-10 on BP. The differential is 9, but you cannot score more than +6 for differential. John's final score for the round is 25.

How much room is there in the 40k GT?

There are 256 total slots nominally available in the 40K GT, though obviously many have already been registered for.

Hey Mike, have you guys ever given any thought to adding a Kings of War event? It seems to be picking up a little steam now with its 2nd edition and with former WFB players.

We've thought about it. Most events need a lead to drive it, and no lead has stepped up who'd like to run / has a passion to run a KOW event at NOVA.

Lots of the WFB ETC guys also wound up in Malifaux. Two companies super grateful to GW for nuking WFB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, hi Dan M!

40K GT has started to fill up much more rapidly, in part due to the sign-ups of a whole bevy of big West Coast names.

Snag your spots.

Hotel is down to 15% of its total rooms left.

Damn I wish I could go to this but I am too busy this year. Maybe next time!

Good luck to all Tau players.

They don't need luck. Tau have a top tier codex.

You should offer condolences to all those who's hopes are going to be stomped into a gooey mess by stormsurges's big feet.

Still time for meta to shift, but I doubt more than two tau dominant lists make top 16. Also predict Eldar to have the highest representation, followed by Imperial power armour


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Should amend, my guesses are partly based on popular power lists and partly on what top players are playing and planning. A significant number are running Eldar. For tau, only know of a couple.

As happens every year, the better players are likeliest to make the top tables. Agree with Evan.

 FTGTEvan wrote:
Still time for meta to shift, but I doubt more than two tau dominant lists make top 16. Also predict Eldar to have the highest representation, followed by Imperial power armour


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Should amend, my guesses are partly based on popular power lists and partly on what top players are playing and planning. A significant number are running Eldar. For tau, only know of a couple.

I wonder how many warp spider spam lists start appearing as is the case with net listing. It's already pretty dominant in Europe and building in the US.
I'm not sure it will require a rules change like one jump a phase like ITC does with its conservative interpretation of flicker jump equals warp jump but I guess we will see after Nova.

People complain of drone spam and hunter contingent or experimental rules or Superheavies or scat bikes or Death Stars but it seems this is the main unit that dominates most tourney scenes, currently.

MVBrandt wrote:
As happens every year, the better players are likeliest to make the top tables. Agree with Evan.

That's true because top players generally choose a top codex. Its rare to see one of the big names risk taking a lower power codex.

True and not true. True because yes, and nicely that changes most years.

Not true b/c every year, we get skilled players in the Top 16 with unusual lists, like last year's all khorne daemon list.

The missions help a great deal to offset certain things, and help - somewhat - to remediate bad matches and the like. This can ease the ability of more fringe (But still inherently more power) builds to do well.

 Gamgee wrote:
Good luck to all Tau players.

Should check out our FAQ. Most Tau players seem to like it

 Crimson Devil wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
As happens every year, the better players are likeliest to make the top tables. Agree with Evan.

That's true because top players generally choose a top codex. Its rare to see one of the big names risk taking a lower power codex.

As Mike said, generally true, but you'll see similar lists and armies at lower tables too. The difference being largely the player.

Two Questions about the secondary objectives.

1. If a army has zero troop choices it automatically gives up 2 pts for Strike the Rank and File?

2. Slay Them All and Let the Emperor Sort Them Out: For Decurion type armies, do you have to destroy the whole decurion to achieve this or you can just destroy one formation inside that decurion (i.e. one Canoptek Harvest)?

 elphilo wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
Good luck to all Tau players.

Should check out our FAQ. Most Tau players seem to like it

Oh my goodness it's great to see some sanity in the rules about Tau. Bless you. I kinda hope the Nova keeps its own FAQ and rules so Frontline has competition. Don't want all the eggs in one basket.

I wouldn't call it competition. We partner with LVO as one of their major ITC scoring events, and cross-promote each other. We're also happily hosting Frankie, Reece, Geoff, and others this year at NOVA (they've beaten a bunch of lazy East Coasters to registering).

We just operate our own FAQ, our own missions, etc., with similar intent to produce the most engaging and fair gaming experience possible. Easy peasy.

As a caveat, some of it is that we have a lot of faith in the value of asymmetric missions with choice-based mission customization to balance the game in ways that rules changes inherently cannot; some of our lack of change is a direct result of not wanting to compound some of the finer instrumentation within the mission design, entering the 8th year of its evolution and at a very healthy, very engaging place. I.E., I am not a fan at all of 2+ re-rollables, but the mission design already provides avenues around dealing with that sort of unit; to further add a rules tweak on top of that might over-load balance in the wrong direction, so we don't do it. This isn't reflective of a fundamental disagreement with ITC changes - something must be done for some of the more extreme "NPE" elements within the game; we use mission design to do it, they use rules tweaks. Same intent, and a partnered outlook on the value of that.


EDIT - Generally speaking, we want asymmetric mission design to introduce risk to players for taking certain extreme build elements. In almost all cases, whether it's 0-troop, MSU, super deathstar, etc., you'll notice the missions give opponents of those armies opportunities to select secondaries that award easier or automatic points. I.E. 0 troop choices.

MVBrandt wrote:
I wouldn't call it competition. We partner with LVO as one of their major ITC scoring events, and cross-promote each other. We're also happily hosting Frankie, Reece, Geoff, and others this year at NOVA (they've beaten a bunch of lazy East Coasters to registering).

We just operate our own FAQ, our own missions, etc., with similar intent to produce the most engaging and fair gaming experience possible. Easy peasy.

As a caveat, some of it is that we have a lot of faith in the value of asymmetric missions with choice-based mission customization to balance the game in ways that rules changes inherently cannot; some of our lack of change is a direct result of not wanting to compound some of the finer instrumentation within the mission design, entering the 8th year of its evolution and at a very healthy, very engaging place. I.E., I am not a fan at all of 2+ re-rollables, but the mission design already provides avenues around dealing with that sort of unit; to further add a rules tweak on top of that might over-load balance in the wrong direction, so we don't do it. This isn't reflective of a fundamental disagreement with ITC changes - something must be done for some of the more extreme "NPE" elements within the game; we use mission design to do it, they use rules tweaks. Same intent, and a partnered outlook on the value of that.

this is a good post

MVBrandt wrote:
I wouldn't call it competition. We partner with LVO as one of their major ITC scoring events, and cross-promote each other. We're also happily hosting Frankie, Reece, Geoff, and others this year at NOVA (they've beaten a bunch of lazy East Coasters to registering).

We just operate our own FAQ, our own missions, etc., with similar intent to produce the most engaging and fair gaming experience possible. Easy peasy.

As a caveat, some of it is that we have a lot of faith in the value of asymmetric missions with choice-based mission customization to balance the game in ways that rules changes inherently cannot; some of our lack of change is a direct result of not wanting to compound some of the finer instrumentation within the mission design, entering the 8th year of its evolution and at a very healthy, very engaging place. I.E., I am not a fan at all of 2+ re-rollables, but the mission design already provides avenues around dealing with that sort of unit; to further add a rules tweak on top of that might over-load balance in the wrong direction, so we don't do it. This isn't reflective of a fundamental disagreement with ITC changes - something must be done for some of the more extreme "NPE" elements within the game; we use mission design to do it, they use rules tweaks. Same intent, and a partnered outlook on the value of that.


EDIT - Generally speaking, we want asymmetric mission design to introduce risk to players for taking certain extreme build elements. In almost all cases, whether it's 0-troop, MSU, super deathstar, etc., you'll notice the missions give opponents of those armies opportunities to select secondaries that award easier or automatic points. I.E. 0 troop choices.

Interesting. I like it. I didn't look at the mission part of the FAQ except a brief glance but you have intrigued me enough to go and give everything an in depth read at some point. Also thanks for clarifying.

 Gamgee wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
I wouldn't call it competition. We partner with LVO as one of their major ITC scoring events, and cross-promote each other. We're also happily hosting Frankie, Reece, Geoff, and others this year at NOVA (they've beaten a bunch of lazy East Coasters to registering).

We just operate our own FAQ, our own missions, etc., with similar intent to produce the most engaging and fair gaming experience possible. Easy peasy.

As a caveat, some of it is that we have a lot of faith in the value of asymmetric missions with choice-based mission customization to balance the game in ways that rules changes inherently cannot; some of our lack of change is a direct result of not wanting to compound some of the finer instrumentation within the mission design, entering the 8th year of its evolution and at a very healthy, very engaging place. I.E., I am not a fan at all of 2+ re-rollables, but the mission design already provides avenues around dealing with that sort of unit; to further add a rules tweak on top of that might over-load balance in the wrong direction, so we don't do it. This isn't reflective of a fundamental disagreement with ITC changes - something must be done for some of the more extreme "NPE" elements within the game; we use mission design to do it, they use rules tweaks. Same intent, and a partnered outlook on the value of that.


EDIT - Generally speaking, we want asymmetric mission design to introduce risk to players for taking certain extreme build elements. In almost all cases, whether it's 0-troop, MSU, super deathstar, etc., you'll notice the missions give opponents of those armies opportunities to select secondaries that award easier or automatic points. I.E. 0 troop choices.

Interesting. I like it. I didn't look at the mission part of the FAQ except a brief glance but you have intrigued me enough to go and give everything an in depth read at some point. Also thanks for clarifying.

Missions are in the Primer, not the FAQ:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OXO8XdC7W0djrhXP_7-Rz23YHJCzGqQOF1scZppC9zc/pub?utm_source=NOVA+Open+Primers+Are+Here%21%21&utm_campaign=2015+NOVA+Open+Wrap-Up+and+Results&utm_medium=email

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
Two Questions about the secondary objectives.

1. If a army has zero troop choices it automatically gives up 2 pts for Strike the Rank and File?

2. Slay Them All and Let the Emperor Sort Them Out: For Decurion type armies, do you have to destroy the whole decurion to achieve this or you can just destroy one formation inside that decurion (i.e. one Canoptek Harvest)?

1. Yes.

2. No, just a formation. So if you're playing a Gladius with double Demi Companies and the Scout Formation as its auxiliary, if you destroy the Scout Formation you achieve the secondary.

Yes to number one. I learned that the hard way last year when I took Mucolids as my troops hehe. Gave it away for free very round hehe.

Actually didn't know that for #2. That actually would have been one of the better secondaries against my list, but don't think anyone tried.