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.

splitting off from the discussion about break points in an event setting

what else do we have as considerations?

so far:
- what formation is this model/detachment part of? or was part of when its dead? (for break point stuff)
- which detachment exactly is in this building?
- which detachment are in those transports, and which stand is in which one?
- WYSIWYG, yes, no, what?
- Basing standards, for a model intended to to have five models on a 25mm base, would it be generally acceptable to have some with four on?

as things that could do with a clear, unambigious way to resolve them that does not require excessive table space to determine

thoughts? both on what else is needed and potential solutions, also as event organisers further constraints on solutions to make the event run smoothly and reduce organiser workloads

For structure occupation I'm thinking of 'Garrison Tokens'. A collection of pairs of tokens labelled Garrison 1, Garrison 2.... etc. One goes on the building, one goes next to the off table models.

For most games, particularly 'friendlies' formation membership might not be the big issue that it's being made out to be, but where 'who belongs in what formation' is hard to distinguish then coloured markers seem the easiest way (blue formation, red formation) where paint job and/or model type isn't enough.

Transports. Tricky, as it's on a 'model by model' basis. But then as the defender can pick his casualties then picking two infantry of their choice with the transporter's destruction seems as easy compromise. The situation where it's absolutely critical must be very niche.

I like the garrison tokens idea, seems a sensible way of doing it.

suspect with transports the time is matters is Rhinos or other similar, small, transports with low capacity - and their ideally they should be marked in some way (the old "titan recognition markings" on the rear hatch for example) or just adopt the "don't be that guy" approach casually

Tokens with numbers or letters seems good for garrison, we just used paper with a grid of 5 boxes that corresponded to the the 5 structures numbered one through five.

I feel like the transport thing could be handled similarly.

I'd say it's worth adding wysiwyg policy and detachment loadout policy to the list of stuff to figure out. Invariably I'm assuming whoever is running the event needs everyone's army list, I haven't tried battlescribe yet for LI but I'm assuming the trajectory is being able to mark weapon loadouts like other games, likely to be able to make either custom unit cards or just remove the clutter of weapon stats a detachment didn't take ect. But ultimately its much easier with some kind of limit on loadouts. Russes have 4 possible permutations of weapons loadout, malcadors have 36. Mixed units is one thing, like a and b loadouts, that's not the end of the world, example, tarantulas or contemptor dreadnoughts aren't going to confuse much because they only have 2 possible loadouts anyway. But again all of it still sorta hinges on having a strict wysiwyg policy to begin with, or else you get right into people running models they've just flat out built wrong, mismatched sponsons, dreadnoughts with lascannons on both arms, ect.

Yeah structure/transport/formation pairs of tokens is doable.
Note however there is going to be a lot more than 5 occupiable Structures on many tables.

Here's two bigger challenges imo

-If you want millimeter justice you need to provide a ruined/area terrain feature with the exact footprint of each destroyable structure on the board. I see this as near unachievable for TOs in effect having two versions of each destroyable terrain feature.

-Balance. If you want to play an obviously unbalanced game competitively you'l need mechanics to balance things. Could be a combination of things: Formation limits, Detachment limits etc to stop spamming the undercosted stuff. You'll also need to limit or recost the bigger Titans probably. But even then you can't have balance unless you introduce composition score/handicap to weapons cost & Legion traits as these don't cost points. And are not balanced. And you'll still also need to forbid the really broken stuff like Warp missiles. Skipping this could of course be done but playing an unbalanced game competitively is a strange experience.

I suspect narrative or multiplayer events will lend themselves way better to LI but of course different takes are welcome.

No gw game can be played competitively so that's least of worrres.

tneva82 wrote:
No gw game can be played competitively so that's least of worrres.

Oh I guess we'll just delete the thread I guess, thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:
Yeah structure/transport/formation pairs of tokens is doable.
Note however there is going to be a lot more than 5 occupiable Structures on many tables.

Here's two bigger challenges imo

-If you want millimeter justice you need to provide a ruined/area terrain feature with the exact footprint of each destroyable structure on the board. I see this as near unachievable for TOs in effect having two versions of each destroyable terrain feature.

-Balance. If you want to play an obviously unbalanced game competitively you'l need mechanics to balance things. Could be a combination of things: Formation limits, Detachment limits etc to stop spamming the undercosted stuff. You'll also need to limit or recost the bigger Titans probably. But even then you can't have balance unless you introduce composition score/handicap to weapons cost & Legion traits as these don't cost points. And are not balanced. And you'll still also need to forbid the really broken stuff like Warp missiles. Skipping this could of course be done but playing an unbalanced game competitively is a strange experience.

I suspect narrative or multiplayer events will lend themselves way better to LI but of course different takes are welcome.

You're not wrong that there's a lot to consider, I don't think it's not to's to balance the fact that weapons loadouts largely aren't costed at all outside of detachment upgrades, which aren't super common. The structure thing is very true, there's a hard logistical limit there, stores and to's and players only have so many structures in their collections, I actually think needing to make area terrain is a good thing because it will sort of limit the amount you'll see for now and also require perhaps separating some structures that are just impractical to be played as such. A lot of civitas were build with titancius in mind and los for that game, for LI, a simple 2x2 single or double story civitas is like ideal structure. But i can see playing super ones as just impassable terrain for simplicity.

tneva82 wrote:
No gw game can be played competitively so that's least of worrres.

If that is your opinion then do not post in a thread clearly labelled 'Tournament Requirements'.

tneva82 wrote:
No gw game can be played competitively so that's least of worrres.

any game can be played competitively, there may be questions around how much extra effort this is and if there are better options.

the point of this thread though was more to highlight potential issues, and potential solutions, which then people in and outside competitive environments can review and use or ignore at will

leopard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
No gw game can be played competitively so that's least of worrres.

any game can be played competitively, there may be questions around how much extra effort this is and if there are better options.

the point of this thread though was more to highlight potential issues, and potential solutions, which then people in and outside competitive environments can review and use or ignore at will

A potential issue for structures I think is having to define which stat line they use. For one off games its fine but for an event, or at least for one I'd run, I'm thinking of just using one stat line for all structures. I'll probably also cap how many per table, just because only have so many and it's difficult to track past 6 with 1 foot sideboard.

 Crablezworth wrote:

leopard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
No gw game can be played competitively so that's least of worrres.

any game can be played competitively, there may be questions around how much extra effort this is and if there are better options.

the point of this thread though was more to highlight potential issues, and potential solutions, which then people in and outside competitive environments can review and use or ignore at will

A potential issue for structures I think is having to define which stat line they use. For one off games its fine but for an event, or at least for one I'd run, I'm thinking of just using one stat line for all structures. I'll probably also cap how many per table, just because only have so many and it's difficult to track past 6 with 1 foot sideboard.

thinking for different structure types it should be modelled for clarity, its notes in the rules four types, basically:
- civilian
- civilian "grand", which I take to mean "significantly larger"
- military, stick a few gun emplacements on it (non functional)
- fortification (should be obviously "heavy")

failing that, label them

ruins need the same foot print, but could be a printed marker


Automatically Appended Next Post:
note that also "all buildings have the following statline" works perfectly too

Give it about 2 years, GW will no doubt eventually release a matched play guide for the game.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Give it about 2 years, GW will no doubt eventually release a matched play guide for the game.

which will make things worse...

leopard wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

leopard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
No gw game can be played competitively so that's least of worrres.

any game can be played competitively, there may be questions around how much extra effort this is and if there are better options.

the point of this thread though was more to highlight potential issues, and potential solutions, which then people in and outside competitive environments can review and use or ignore at will

A potential issue for structures I think is having to define which stat line they use. For one off games its fine but for an event, or at least for one I'd run, I'm thinking of just using one stat line for all structures. I'll probably also cap how many per table, just because only have so many and it's difficult to track past 6 with 1 foot sideboard.

thinking for different structure types it should be modelled for clarity, its notes in the rules four types, basically:
- civilian
- civilian "grand", which I take to mean "significantly larger"
- military, stick a few gun emplacements on it (non functional)
- fortification (should be obviously "heavy")

failing that, label them

ruins need the same foot print, but could be a printed marker


Automatically Appended Next Post:
note that also "all buildings have the following statline" works perfectly too

The footprints also need to be relatively 2d because they're not supposed to block and los, just supposed to be a patch of difficult terrain/area terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Give it about 2 years, GW will no doubt eventually release a matched play guide for the game.

Ya could be part of the first expansion too possibly. They get players to ignore some stuff like formation tracking for the initial game example so they're obviously cognizant that some thing may need to change for organized play.

earlier editions had flat printed rubble markers you replaced buildings with, simple printed and cut out markers on thin card will be fine, and easier with semi standard building dimensions

I'm planning some flat(ish) printed ruins for the look of it but think card/MDF templates will work

the same size as the building, put down first with the building placed on top of them.

heck could even have a printed bit that sticks out (noted as not part of the template) to indicate the buildings rules


and as noted elsewhere, in that initial game its not so much that you are ignoring tracking who is in what formation so much as everything is in a single formation anyway

Would give it a shot, but I'd bet that next week there will be an FAQ banning my Knights.

I don't have much to add to the issues already raised (other than tokens being the best - or maybe least worse - solution), but have another one to mention...

Basing conventions - are tournies likely to insist on meeting the quasi-rule in the book on having 5 infantry models per base?

I get why GW wants everyone to stick to that, and I get plenty of folks will just go along with whatever GW says is best, but really I can't see that having 4 models (say) per base rather than 5 will have any impact on gameplay. As I understand it the only potential impact is on LOS - putting aside how dumb TLOS is for a 8mm (or whatever) game is - given there's usually 4 around the edges and one in the middle on each base, taking the guy out the middle shouldn't make any odds, right?

I'm keen to get a few more termi and assault bases out of the kit, given how expensively the models are, but also planning on a late Siege Blood Angels list and liked the idea of varying the numbers of figures on each base to show how depleted they are (plus have a few spare then to sprinkle on the Auxilia bases, as they often seemed to be used to bolster the lines that way in the Siege books). But don't really want to do that and find out I'm going to be locked out of the majority of events in the future...!

unless they look closely I can't see people noticing let alone complaining

I did wonder on having a few of five and a few of four for nine man squads, or all fours, doesn't generate enough extra bases to worry about, it could however provide some nice spares for extra bases.

and a bit of depletion I think works.

I'd consider it no differently from 'unit fillers' in Warhammer, which most events seemed fine with as long as no urine was being extracted

Yes right - I think there was a similar discussion around unit fillers in WHFB. It one of those things you saw a few people moan about on forums, but I don't think I ever saw anyone complain in person and most people saw that it made sense in a lot of cases. The same here; things like terminators and assault troops are a squeeze with five to a base, other units will be too, and I'll be very surprised if any TO rules come along limiting it to 'five minis to a base', simply because they won't want to add a senseless barrier to people entering the tournament.

The minis to a base rule also stops people doing cool dioramas.and things like that. Again, as hobbyists, it's something we want to see more of, not less.

Could use the hole in the middle to afix a flag that denotes formation on it rather than colour coding bases or shoulder pads etc.

 Pacific wrote:
Yes right - I think there was a similar discussion around unit fillers in WHFB. It one of those things you saw a few people moan about on forums, but I don't think I ever saw anyone complain in person and most people saw that it made sense in a lot of cases. The same here; things like terminators and assault troops are a squeeze with five to a base, other units will be too, and I'll be very surprised if any TO rules come along limiting it to 'five minis to a base', simply because they won't want to add a senseless barrier to people entering the tournament.

The minis to a base rule also stops people doing cool dioramas.and things like that. Again, as hobbyists, it's something we want to see more of, not less.

basically this, I only ever had my Skaven questioned once at an event, the only one they actually went to, and then they were only questioned by someone trying to get the army DQ'd half way through what they thought would be an easy game.

I can see maybe issues with two/three models on a base, though personally people doing stuff like a single Ogryn on a base, or two bikes not three as a non-issue, you can clearly see what the model represents, get on with the game

it was raised though, added it, interested to see what anyone planning events thinks

Don't see 4 rather than 5 being issue. No different to unit fillers really and those were common enough.

Yeah modelling so the bases look cool and not like parking lots is a good thing imo.

From the competitive perspective you might have to give some leeway for LOS if you use single Ogryns to a base though, the others shouldn't be an issue.

Noticed an odd discrepancy, not sure if it's a mistake but, the fire raptor and thunderhawk, their heavy bolters don't have light at, but the solar aux bombers heavy bolters do. While I know it's a specific rules issue/question, if we don't see another faq for a while I think it'd be worth nothing possible errors, example people have noticed discrepancies with unit cards and stats in the book, like with the sicaran omega's weapon having different stats. The fire raptor and thunderhawk may actually be an error, because it means those weapons can't harm other planes, now I can accept the idea something with point defense is there to split fire at ground targets like infantry, but then having skyfire seems odd.

Anyway, may be worth noting stuff because its not unheard of for events to need to make a ruling one way or another until a gw faq/errata comes out.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Noticed an odd discrepancy, not sure if it's a mistake but, the fire raptor and thunderhawk, their heavy bolters don't have light at, but the solar aux bombers heavy bolters do. While I know it's a specific rules issue/question, if we don't see another faq for a while I think it'd be worth nothing possible errors, example people have noticed discrepancies with unit cards and stats in the book, like with the sicaran omega's weapon having different stats. The fire raptor and thunderhawk may actually be an error, because it means those weapons can't harm other planes, now I can accept the idea something with point defense is there to split fire at ground targets like infantry, but then having skyfire seems odd.

Anyway, may be worth noting stuff because its not unheard of for events to need to make a ruling one way or another until a gw faq/errata comes out.

actually a thread of "unanswered questions" is probably not a bad idea

Gla to hear a positive / sensible consensus on the basing - seen quite a lot of negativity on FB about the idea of deviating from the Gw "standard", which made me wonder!

leopard wrote:

I did wonder on having a few of five and a few of four for nine man squads, or all fours, doesn't generate enough extra bases to worry about, it could however provide some nice spares for extra bases.

It's kind of marginal one one level yeah, but as you get 6 assault marines/termies per sprue you get an extra base per box/set (e.g. 3 rather than 2) which is a 50% increase :p means with a starter and one box of infantry, you can have 6 of each of the support bases rather than 4.

Piousservant wrote:

Gla to hear a positive / sensible consensus on the basing - seen quite a lot of negativity on FB about the idea of deviating from the Gw "standard", which made me wonder!

leopard wrote:

I did wonder on having a few of five and a few of four for nine man squads, or all fours, doesn't generate enough extra bases to worry about, it could however provide some nice spares for extra bases.

It's kind of marginal one one level yeah, but as you get 6 assault marines/termies per sprue you get an extra base per box/set (e.g. 3 rather than 2) which is a 50% increase :p means with a starter and one box of infantry, you can have 6 of each of the support bases rather than 4.

Yeah I'm not sure why anyone is too concerned about the number of models on a base, like the charonites are only a couple models anyway, no one went ocd over there not being 5 of them. The terminators arguably look better at 3-4 to base, I find it easier to tell them apart from other detachments and they look more "elite" having fewer models overall on base. With that said, I've also seen a lot of justifiable arguments of basing vehicles, which I think, without magnetizing, but gluing, is a horrible idea and rightly cause for concern as it affects a lot of core gameplay and every single gap between terrain/other models ect. And looks awful outside of on display IMO.

But ya fewer infantry than 5 on a base seems fine to me, I'd just want for that decision to be consistent however, so if someone was doing like 3-4 instead to get more bases, cool, but if its like 4 then 3 then 2 then 1, well, I see that getting to be less and less reasonable and very much will have ramifications for line of sight.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Noticed an odd discrepancy, not sure if it's a mistake but, the fire raptor and thunderhawk, their heavy bolters don't have light at, but the solar aux bombers heavy bolters do. While I know it's a specific rules issue/question, if we don't see another faq for a while I think it'd be worth nothing possible errors, example people have noticed discrepancies with unit cards and stats in the book, like with the sicaran omega's weapon having different stats. The fire raptor and thunderhawk may actually be an error, because it means those weapons can't harm other planes, now I can accept the idea something with point defense is there to split fire at ground targets like infantry, but then having skyfire seems odd.

Anyway, may be worth noting stuff because its not unheard of for events to need to make a ruling one way or another until a gw faq/errata comes out.

actually a thread of "unanswered questions" is probably not a bad idea

True.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ingtaer wrote:
Could use the hole in the middle to afix a flag that denotes formation on it rather than colour coding bases or shoulder pads etc.

Flags are nice in general just to be able to make picking up or moving bases easier. I've noticed that with the bases with standard bearers. Might be good to ensure they're clear plastic of some kind or pretty thin just so they don't get in the way of los too much.