BAO 40K Poll Results Are In: The People Have Spoken!



Well, we’ve all voted as a group and this is what we got for 7th ed 40K tournament format!

7th ed has proven to be a very divisive edition of our favorite pastime. People have been expressing strong opinions about all of the various elements of it and unsurprisingly, that division has made itself apparent in the voting, with some incredibly close calls on many of these issues. We have not finished debating how we will react to this data just yet, but that will be decided very soon and tickets will go up for sale along with format and guidelines very soon!

Do you want to see unbound lists at the BAO 2014?

Unbound Lists

Well, that came as no surprise at all to me. I was actually surprised how many yes votes this actually got, to be honest! Unbound is cool in that it allows so much freedom but it also opens the door for lists that would be absolutely no fun to play against. This could work well in a comped format or with TO approval, but in a competitive format, not so much.

How many Combined Arms Detachments (C.A.D.) do you want to use at the BAO 2014?

how many detachments

This one again, didn’t surprise me. Multiple C.A.D. can create extremely spam-tastic lists which annoys a lot of players. It does allow for really creative lists, too, but it looks like voters wanted to be conservative here.

CAD combined

Also, please note, that even if you add all votes for more than 1 C.A.D. into a single choice, the vote for a single C.A.D. still got more votes by a good margin.

What kind of allies do you want to use at the BAO 2014?

ally options

I didn’t know how this one would fall. I personally am fairly neutral on the topic of allying with your own book, but I do like using allies. There is still a decent number of folks out there that don’t want any allies at all as you can see, but it looks like most folks do not want to see a book or supplement allying with the parent book. And yes, there is some confusion as to the wording of the allies rule in the 7th ed BRB, but so far, only Space Marines have been given specific permission to ally with themselves.

How many points do you want the BAO 2014 to be?

points limit

This one kind of shocked me. In the past, this vote has always been super close but this year, 1850 won by a mile. So, we will likely go up to 1850 which is fun for list building but it means less games will finish on time. And to everyone that voted 1850, you better not complain about time limits as you brought this on yourselves, lol! But, hopefully it won’t be an issue. More toys for everyone!

Do you want to see Lords of War at the BAO 2014?

LoW 2

Lords of War

So, this one is a bit tricky. If you combine the yes with restrictions and yes without restrictions votes (which are both pro-LoW votes) more people want to see the big boys on the table top than don’t by a significant margin. However, there was a dead even split between those who want them with and without restrictions. Combine this with the fact that a lot of folks don’t want to see them at all and we’re trying to thread the needle between opposing desires.

I think it is interesting how much opinion has changed on this one. In the past LoW got voted down by a large margin. I would guess that Imperial Knights being so common and the changes to D weapons have made them a lot less scary than they were. I personally like using them, but the old D rules were just way overboard. Now though, I think they will be good fun and pretty fair.

Do you want Fortifications at the BAO 2014 and if so, which?


This didn’t surprise me at all. As Fortifications are all in Stronghold now, you have to address how to include them. As there are some wonky ones in SA, it is important to define which we are going to be allowing. By a big margin, you all asked for the inclusion of Fortifications but with restrictions on some of the stranger units. We will release a list of allowed Fortifications in the BAO 2014 Tournament Guidelines.

Do you want to see the psychic power Invisibility altered or banned for the BAO 2014?


Wow, this one was close! Only 4 votes made the difference. I personally think Invisibility is way too good and disruptive and I voted to nerf it, but, the vote to leave it be won out, narrowly.

Do you want to see the Malefic school of powers nerfed or banned for the BAO 2014?

malefic powers

Once again, I voted for the nerf bat, but most of the rest of you did not! Mostly, I am just concerned that it will slow games down too much, but, we will soon see. This one may end up being self-regulating as players realize it is tough to play this type of army in a timed setting.

Do you want to see a cap placed on Warp Charge for the BAO 2014?

warp charge

Wow, another close one. I voted to cap it in some way, but as seems to be a trend, I was on the losing side of this issue again, lol! So again, we will see if it is all that bad to have huge disparities in warp charge during the psychic phase or not. It may turn out to be no big deal.

Do you want to see Come the Apocalypse Allies at the BAO 2014?

come the apoc allies

Well, another really close vote. This one doesn’t surprise me all that much either as the fluff gamers in most of us don’t care too much for some of the crazier combos this can end up creating. I personally am fairly neutral on this one as I don’t know how often you would actually see it.

Do you want to see the roll for first turn changed to be less powerful for the BAO 2014?

first turn

I am really glad we voted to change this as the roll for first turn now is REALLY powerful in a game that already rewards the choice for going first or second so much. As it stands in 7th, that roll is crazy good as it allows you to deploy first, make a deployment mistake, but then choose to go second. It punishes the better player and rewards the less skilled player which for me, is not a good choice for tournament play. It speeds things up for casual play though, so I can see why it was done this way. For the BAO 2014 though, we will define the order of operations for determining deployment zones and first turn in the player packet and will not be using the rule from the BRB on this one.

Who’s better, Kirk or Picard? Trekkie power!!

kirk or picard

My man Kirk got voted down! Doh! He gets all the space babes though?!?! But yeah, we always include a funny question in our polls to remind people that while we care a lot about this, it is just a game in the end and we need to all be able to laugh about it. Picard is the more popular Starfleet Captain among our voters, though!


There is a lot of division in the community at present, clearly. We are still debating how to react to this data but, I see two courses of action before us:

  1. Offer one event with the poll results dictating what we do, which will result in compromises for almost everyone.
  2. Offer 2 40K events, one with restrictions, one without restrictions. This would in theory appeal to a wider audience.

We will make a decision in the next day or two, but speak up now if it matters to you! Would you want to play in 1 event with compromises made on both sides of the debate or have a choice of two events, each of which is more customized to a specific style of play?


About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

160 Responses to “BAO 40K Poll Results Are In: The People Have Spoken!”

  1. Cuddles June 8, 2014 6:14 pm #

    How many people brought some form of Eldar mixed with inquisition or DE, or both to the LVO? Is that the same amount of people who voted you can’t ally with your own codex? I’d bet money it is. Sneaky Sneaky

    • Loopy June 8, 2014 8:26 pm #

      And how many are Space Marine or Imperial players?

      Well, I guess we wouldn’t want Eldar or Imperial players to have to break a sweat. 😉

    • Chip June 9, 2014 7:44 am #

      There were zero Eldar/Inq players, 6 Eldar/DE, and 1 DE/Eldar.

  2. Paul Cornelius June 8, 2014 6:19 pm #

    Amazing how much people have come to be Team Picard over Team Kirk.

    • Reecius June 8, 2014 6:38 pm #

      I know, right? Kirk all day, baby!

      • Jason Brown June 8, 2014 7:14 pm #

        All I have to say is, who did Picard have to go snatch from the past to save his ass?….Kirk, ‘nough said bitches.

        • Hotsauceman1 June 8, 2014 7:18 pm #

          You guys are all Wrong. CAPTAIN JANEWAY!!!!!!!
          Then followed by Archer who went fisticuffs with an alien and then planted a grenade on the aliens back

          • Paul Cornelius June 8, 2014 9:04 pm

            She gives new meaning to the old adage, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Wait, maybe not.

      • Derrick June 8, 2014 9:35 pm #

        Picard had Vosh and Kamala. Boom!

      • AbusePuppy June 9, 2014 12:09 am #

        Pft, Kirk is a two-bit chump wannabe actor. Class and style all the way, baby.

    • z3n1st June 8, 2014 7:09 pm #

      Who is this Picard upstart?

  3. Hotsauceman1 June 8, 2014 6:25 pm #

    I say do the duel event system, see which on is more popular and at the end, see how people at the end feel.
    Im still going to go. But with less hopes of doing well because I have so little money to actually bring LOW or tons of deamons to summon

    • Hotsauceman1 June 8, 2014 6:26 pm #

      Or, Borrow my friends Necrons and bring the easiest and cheapest LOW, The C’tan.
      with a template, some are bound to be 6s to wound.

      • Reecius June 8, 2014 6:40 pm #

        If we do 1 main event with LoW, we would restrict some of them and the Tranny C’Tan would be at the top of that list =)

        • Hotsauceman1 June 8, 2014 7:14 pm #

          Tranny C’tan?
          Are you saying you are transphobic

          • Reecius June 8, 2014 7:23 pm

            Only when said Tranny shoots lightening, flies, passes through solid mater, and pretty much destroyed everything before him/her with godlike power, yes! =P

  4. Julio Rodriguez June 8, 2014 6:27 pm #

    Id like 1 main event with how the poll results came out. Btw I voted for Picard.

    • Reecius June 8, 2014 6:39 pm #

      Thanks for sharing your opinion.

  5. Novastar June 8, 2014 6:27 pm #

    How about my 30k Sons of Horus. Can I bring them?

    • Reecius June 8, 2014 6:39 pm #

      No 30K unless we do a 30K event.

      • Novastar June 8, 2014 7:19 pm #

        Oh they are coming, even if they are proxies as a loyalist lap dog chapter in the space marine codex lol

  6. Michael June 8, 2014 6:29 pm #

    2 events would be great!

    • Reecius June 8, 2014 6:41 pm #

      Thanks for sharing your opinion!

  7. Kenji10000 June 8, 2014 6:43 pm #

    Only issue I have with these polls is with no allies and not allying with your own codex and only one C.A.D. my bugs will be hurting.

    • Reecius June 8, 2014 7:03 pm #

      You do have access to Formations, though, which bugs have the best of.

      • Hugz4Genestealers June 8, 2014 7:29 pm #

        Bugs do have a couple good formations, but they suffer from restrictions that literally no other race has to deal with. Disallowing multiple CADs AND self-allying removes a HUGE amount of flexibility from the nids relative to other factions, which is unfair from both a balanced, competitive standpoint, as well as a fun, fluff-based one. Skyblight is good, though the argument could be made for less so in 7th, but how many people really want to see that be the only competitive nid list for the next two years?

        • Reecius June 8, 2014 8:11 pm #

          I understand what you’re saying but making special allowances almost always causes more probles than it solves. And, skyblights not the only one. I use living artillery and it’s really good.

          • Hugz4Genestealers June 8, 2014 8:54 pm

            You run your events the way you think is best, of course, and me and my nids are gonna be making the trip either way. I can understand the choice not to give preferential treatment to any particular faction, I just wish it didn’t feel like someone in GW’s rules-writing department (ha!) had it out for the poor space bugs.

          • bugsculptor June 10, 2014 11:49 am

            Man, we’re really playing poll-hammer now, aren’t we.

            The majority of players run imperial factions of some kind, have plenty of ally options and can ally with themselves. Why would they vote to throw a bone to their opponents?

            Xenos players should get an extra vote for each gaunt or ork in their army. It’s the only way to make this fair…

          • Reecius June 10, 2014 12:15 pm

            Well Pete, when you run your tournament you can do it however you want, and good luck making everyone happy in 7th ed, lol!

    • z3n1st June 8, 2014 7:10 pm #

      Which begs the question of why allow the formations which basically allow you to ally with yourself, but nerf everyone else?

      • Reecius June 8, 2014 7:14 pm #

        Ask GW, haha, they wrote the rules =) And anyone that has Formations gets access to them, but, not everyone has them and of course, we have no control over that.

        As for our poll, the voters wanted to stick to the rules in the BRB which disallow allying with yourself.

        • z3n1st June 8, 2014 8:37 pm #

          Yeah but the BGB says its all good, the BRB is sooo last edition, sounds like people are having trouble letting go and embracing the new.

          To me the point total and the restrictions just means more of the same, there really isn’t anything to shake it up or change the meta. Stale cookies are still stale…

          • Reecius June 9, 2014 8:47 am

            MSU Scoring armies are the way forward, IMO, mark my words =)

    • Cuddles June 9, 2014 6:47 am #

      Amen, brotha

  8. Andrew June 8, 2014 7:17 pm #

    I vote for the duel event, I like my good no LoW 40k at big events, seems more strategic to me.

    To each his own of course 🙂

  9. dr.insanotron June 8, 2014 7:33 pm #

    The problem with running 2 events always seems to be that one is always seen as the real event and the other as a secondary event.

    For now I would go with 1 event with the poll results

    • Paul Cornelius June 8, 2014 8:49 pm #


      • Jayson Collier June 9, 2014 2:38 am #

        i will not be attending, but agree with dr.insanotron.

  10. Xzandrate June 8, 2014 7:46 pm #

    First of all, thank you for being the guys who are always spearheading this, and secondly, thank you for listening to the community. I’m glad we are going to give the rules a fair shake before we cut them up.

    So the biggest contention is going to be fortifications, no surprise. What is the general feedback/feeling you guys are getting? I’ve generally gotten the feeling that the fortifications by themselves are alright, but once we start putting them into fortification networks they get pretty out there.

    So one of the options I was thinking of was to have a fortification network use up both the Fortification and the LoW slots. That way you could technically leave everything in, but at the same allow you to test the waters on how powerful the networks really will be, giving a better informed decision for the next event.

  11. Castle June 8, 2014 7:52 pm #

    Only concern I have for you guys is increasing the points cost will lengthen games as will having an uncapped warp charges. Since the psychic phase can last pretty long with heavy psycher armies facing each other.

  12. Charles Tracy June 8, 2014 8:13 pm #

    Odd no vote cadet from me. No email nothing.

  13. Charles Tracy June 8, 2014 8:14 pm #

    Errr cast

  14. Mike Bass June 8, 2014 8:36 pm #

    Both formats.

  15. Paul Cornelius June 8, 2014 9:05 pm #

    So, Lords of War to be in attendance?

  16. Daniel Garcia June 8, 2014 9:23 pm #

    I don’t like lords of war, and definatley don’t wanna play in a tourny with them in it. As far as invisibility goes I feel if you are gonna need or ban it then ghost helm need a to be dealt with too.

  17. Joshhodg June 8, 2014 10:04 pm #

    I don’t get why people are saying supplements can’t ally with their parent codex. Aren’t the rules still in order of importance by BRB<Codex<FAQ. Most supplements specifically say they can ally which would overwrite the BRB saying they can't. They didn't change that in the new FAQ's. I'm not sure of the rest but in this case it would mean farsight could ally however Iyanden could not. Am I wrong?

    • Adam ( June 9, 2014 6:34 am #

      Some say they can be taken as allies, others say they’re just battle bros. it’s dumb but that pretty much means the ones that specifically say they can ally can be taken as an allied detachment, while the ones that are just bros are still bound by the allied detachment restriction. It’s a dumb technicality.

      • Reecius June 9, 2014 7:50 am #

        Yup, and it is 100% contradictory in the BRB and rules and very confusing, lol.

        • Adam ( June 9, 2014 8:49 pm #

          Well, you could argue that it’s the job of the codex to contradict the rule book, that’s what special rules are for. I do think it’s really lame though that people argue that some supplements can ally while others cannot.

  18. winterman June 8, 2014 10:18 pm #

    Bummed I procrastinated and didn’t finish my poll in time

    Concerned that the no self ally poll includes folks who voted for multiple CAD s where self ally was not necessary. Know slaede voted that way. Potentially skews the votes. But ah well it’s one event. Hope things shift maybe a bit by the time LVO comes around.

    Otherwise seems like 40k is as devisive as ever. Lotta close splits in opinions shown.

    • Reecius June 9, 2014 8:46 am #

      It does, but in order to parse out all of the variable the poll would have had to have had dozens of questions.

  19. Julio Rodriguez June 8, 2014 11:29 pm #

    I say no LoWs. Everything else im ok with.

  20. Graf June 8, 2014 11:51 pm #

    In short, the results of the poll are: Let’s play 7. edition the same way as we played 6. edition.

    For myself, I’m looking forward to tournaments that play 7. edition right as it is written. I think we should have two or three such tournaments to see how 7. edition really works before changes are installed.

    • Adam ( June 9, 2014 6:37 am #

      Except more points, lords of war and the psychic phase.

      Since it is the first event of the new edition, I could see people being conservative, though I’m surprised it was in favor of unrestricted psychic phases and including LoW.

    • Reecius June 9, 2014 8:45 am #

      I can tell you from talking to the other TOs that no one is playing 7th out of the book.

  21. AbusePuppy June 9, 2014 12:13 am #

    >but so far, only Space Marines have been given specific permission to ally with themselves. –

    I’m curious why you think this wouldn’t apply to Farsight Enclave (“Farsight Enclaves
    detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers.”), Black Legion (“Black Legion detachments and Codex: Chaos Space Marines detachments may ally together, treating each other as Battle Brothers.”), etc, all of whom have very similar text to the Space Marine codex.

    As for the results of the poll… welp, a thing is a thing, I suppose. I hope you’ll release the overall guidelines for stuff soon, as us Corvallians are rarin’ to get working on things. 😛

    • Joshhodg June 9, 2014 2:08 am #

      I’m curious what you mean by Corvallians do you live in Corvallis?

      • AbusePuppy June 9, 2014 5:09 am #

        Yeah, we’re looking at sending some folks down to visit BAO, contingent on other factors.

        • Joshhodg June 9, 2014 1:21 pm #

          Haha that’s awesome I never expected to see someone on here that lived even as close to me as Corvallis. Your only 3 hours away from me!

    • Massive Dynamic June 9, 2014 3:05 am #

      Bump, i would really like a reply to Puppys comments. I totally agree with him.

    • Reecius June 9, 2014 8:44 am #

      We will make the hard choices today. One way or another, we will be committed!

      And the whole (annoying) ally with self thing comes from the BRB stating explicitly that you cannot take an allied detachment that is the same faction or supplement as the main detachment. The recent FAQs give specific permission to Space Marines to ally with themselves. Their book already said they could (as do many of the supplements), but GW FAQ’d it. As the BRB is usually trumped by Codex, and the BRB says that is so, we would normally go with that. But, the BRB came out after everything else and with the recent FAQ about Marines, the implication is that they are the exception to the rule.

      It is confusing as all hell, basically.

      • AbusePuppy June 9, 2014 1:25 pm #

        I don’t think I follow your reasoning on the BRB vs. Codex in this case. If we take that as your guideline for resolving rules, we have the Tau Target Lock, which says I can fire at a different target than the rest of my squad. But the BRB says I must all fire at the same target. Since the BRB came out more recently, it trumps the codex and thus the Target Lock does not function.

        That clearly makes no sense, though, which to me says that it can’t be a viable way of resolving the conflict. Now, obviously there are some rules/gear that _don’t_ function well under the new rules, but I see absolutely no reason “you can ally with your parent book” is invalidated by the new edition. It’s quite specific and clear in what it does and is an obvious exception to the normal rules of the game, which is exactly what codices are supposed to provide. Tau/BL/CS/etc didn’t get FAQs to update their wording for the same reason most of the text in most of the books didn’t- they still work just fine as written.

        • Jural June 9, 2014 2:42 pm #

          While I don’t like it, I read/interpreted the 7th Edition rulebook the same as Reecius. I’ll go read it again tonight with your thought in mind AP.

          • Dr.insanotron June 9, 2014 6:07 pm

            Read page 14 bottom right of the main rule book. That is where it specifically says that if a codecs and the main rulebook counter each other you always go with the codex

  22. N.I.B. June 9, 2014 12:28 am #

    So, Nids are borked then. No double FOC and no ally with same Faction. And I would quit the hobby before allying with something other than Tyranids.
    Can things get any worse? No Cruddace, don’t answer that.

    • bigpig June 9, 2014 12:34 am #

      On the plus we can take a formation so its almost like allying with self, except with very limited options. So basically, you can play skyblight……

      Reece, any option to allow nids to ally with themselves if you enact a “no self allying” rule for this as they are the ONLY faction that will still have no allies?

      • Massive Dynamic June 9, 2014 3:08 am #

        Its funny and ironic that of all the factions in the fluff the Nids are supposed to be the most adaptable and numerous race but without self allying are by far the most restrictive…a cruel GW joke.

        • Loopy June 9, 2014 3:51 am #

          Actually, it’s not a joke by GW. Nids can take multiple primary detachments if you use the actual rules. This is a cruel joke from the community at large who mostly don’t give a crap cause they play Imperium anyways.

    • Reecius June 9, 2014 8:48 am #

      NIds are not screwed at all, IMO. Their Formations make them top tier.

      • winterman June 9, 2014 10:54 am #

        A particular formation makes them top tier. A couple others are good and bring them up a notch but not top tier (imo).

        I think the big thing though with denying self ally is in the troops department. Tyranids don’t get 2 for 1 objective secured like every other army. Tervigon spawns don’t RAW get objective secured (well its arguable but I doubt it will be ruled in favor of nids cause of daemon factory slippery slope). And the only formation that does give objective secured is a boring monobuild that not everyone wants to play (well I don’t at least). So we are stuck pretty much with 6 objective secured units.

        I am not all doom and gloom about the bugs in 7ed but really want to get more troops on the table but alas I can’t. Not if the BAO format becomes the standard (which it probably will in PacNW and Cal)

        • AbusePuppy June 9, 2014 1:29 pm #

          I am quite sure that spawns and summoned models of all types do not get Objective Secured. They are not part of a CA or Allied detachment, even if the model that produced them was.

          The fact that BAO is gonna be “Skyblight or go home” for Tyranids is certainly unfortunate, but let’s be realistic- even with self-allying or multiple CADs that would basically be the case anyways, it would just have a slightly different name to it. You wouldn’t have OS Gargoyles, you’d have OS Genestealers; instead of the fixed Tyrant/Harpy/Crone setup, you have a somewhat more flexible one. But at the end of the day, you’re still gonna see almost exactly the same list and combinations of models.

  23. Helpless Will June 9, 2014 4:23 am #

    I would advocate for one event with the poll results dictating format, and that only because I see it as a litmus test of sorts. 7th, with the new rules surrounding the psychic phase pretty much unaltered from the BRB.

    If it’s as broken as many of us think, it will prove out that way. If, on the other hand, some of the more, in theory, “broken” aspects of the psychic phase truly are a balancing factor, that too will show itself.

    By the last statement, I am referring to the rapidly spreading memes that 7th broke daemonic shooting and the psychic phase redresses that, and that shooting heavy armies can still do just fine against psychic heavy armies.

    Given that the results were as close as they are, at this point, I think the community as a whole is owed some empirical results to base further discussion upon.

  24. Hollismason June 9, 2014 5:42 am #

    Wait do they mean by 1 CAD? IE 1 Primary Detachment?

    • Adam ( June 9, 2014 6:39 am #

      New edition has two kinds of detachment. A “Combined Arms Detachment” and an “Allied Detachment.”

      • Hollismason June 9, 2014 9:56 am #

        Yes so they could have double FOC?

        I really like combined Arms.

        • Adam June 9, 2014 1:12 pm #

          There isn’t double FOC….

          The rules for a Battleforged Army allows any number of CAD or Allied Deatchments, as well as Formations. While that’s what the rulebook allows, it’s not what tournaments are probably going to allow. Even GW events restrict players to a single CAD detachment. The rules for Allied Detachments explicitly forbids it from being the same faction as your Primary Detachment (which is always a CAD).

  25. Neb08 June 9, 2014 6:09 am #

    Would have been cool to know what armies people play and where they voted. I have a strong feeling the heavy votes of keeping Invis the same and no warp charge cap, no change to malefic came primarily from Eldar and Daemons players. Which isnt a great way to look at a poll when the votes are based on a “whats best for my army” not whats best for the game mentality. I could be jumping to some conclusions, and there inst a great way to avoid this since its on a person to person basis. I’m more so just curious…

    Also noticed no change to obj secured on transports. You guys planning to keep that as is?

  26. JeffBDenver June 9, 2014 6:19 am #

    I might have voted to nerf invis if I knew what the options were. Also it’s putting to much faith in players to hope they can put aside what army they play when deciding on a rule.

    • Reecius June 9, 2014 7:56 am #

      Well, we don’t have many other options though, unfortunately, for making decisions as a group. I believe people don’t always vote in their own self interest though =)

  27. David Key June 9, 2014 7:13 am #

    I think if you are not going to limit the psychic phase you need to implement death clock. ie. one hour of turn time per player. Auto-loss when your time runs out regardless of board state.
    An extra large physic phase means a canny player can effectively control what turn the game ends. This is HUGE.

  28. Dax June 9, 2014 7:26 am #

    Picard has more troops to cheer him on in the challenge which of course Kirk would accept.

  29. Kalhoun June 9, 2014 7:41 am #

    Two events would make the GTGT crowd happy, I imagine.
    1 streamlined modified format and one no holds barred beatdown.

    • Reecius June 9, 2014 7:49 am #

      I was thinking about that, too.

      • Eldarain June 9, 2014 7:57 am #

        Maybe a quick follow up poll with the two sides of that coin detailed. You don’t want to have a 13 person turnout like Adepticon’s “anything goes” variant.

        • Reecius June 9, 2014 8:37 am #

          It wouldn’t be anything goes, we would still follow the poll results.

          • Eldarain June 9, 2014 8:45 am

            I wasn’t clear enough in my reply. My apologies.

            I meant that it might be wise to build the two versions you were thinking of. Then fire off another poll asking which version people would like to attend.

            I just referenced the Adepticon event as their splitting it up didn’t have the desired results.

  30. joedrache June 9, 2014 7:43 am #

    i vote for 2 events.

    i know i’m not going to win the big one anyways. i just want to have fun with craziness. might not even bring a LOW but it would be glorious to kill one!

    and it could be a good litmus test for playing RAW.(though even i think there should be some limits to unbound, like only 4 max of the same unit. even i dont wanna fight 7 wraith knights.)

  31. Nuln-Oil June 9, 2014 8:17 am #

    I still don’t understand why there is debate regarding whether one can ally with one’s self. You can ally with come the apocalypse, how someone can theorize that GW may have intended to keep armies from allying themselves is lost on me. Barring armies from allying themselves only further propagates the current meta of Eldar/DE/Inquisition. It also helps Imperial armies. The rules are very expansive. Let’s not create limitations that further the inequities that GW allows to exist. Also, if you want to limit abuses related to allying yourself, limit how many of a unit someone can take.

    The BAO is going to be Eldar, Inquisition, Daemons, AM.

    • Reecius June 9, 2014 8:38 am #

      I think MSU scoring armies are going to be where it’s at, which means SM will be doing very well.

      And the argument about allying with your own book comes from the fact that the BRB quite clearly states you cannot. It is just contradictory in that a lot of the supplements say the opposite. It’s very unclear.

      • Adam June 9, 2014 11:01 am #

        Some books say that they can be taken as allies, while others just state the nature of the relationship when taken as an ally. In the new edition you can be an Ally, but not from an allied detachment (formations, CAD, etc.).

        It will be pretty lame though if Tau/Marines can circumvent the restriction, but the other supplement books cannot, entirely based on the wording of rules which at the time were written to operate identically.

    • z3n1st June 9, 2014 10:54 am #

      I completely concur!

  32. Slaede June 9, 2014 8:20 am #

    Wowee! So the community has voted that invisible beaststars backed by objective secured wave serpents is fine. Invisible Revenants are fine, too. But two CAD? That’s just a bridge too far!

    • Neb08 June 9, 2014 8:36 am #

      Exactly what I’m confused by the poll a bit…. But if youre an Eldar player or Beastard player of course you would vote that way. Its fun!

      Again not the polls fault itself I think its great to get a test for what people like through a poll like this.

    • Reecius June 9, 2014 8:39 am #

      I understand the sense of frustration but sarcasm isn’t going to help anything at this juncture. Expressing if you want a single or dual format event though, would.

      • Slaede June 9, 2014 9:00 am #

        I think rather than trying to cobble together a set of guidelines from the confused masses, it might be better to take some leadership and impose what you feel is, if not a completely fair or balanced system, at least one that discourages armies that are no fun to play against since you’ve established enough credibility and trust with the community at this point that people will go with your decisions.

        • Slaede June 9, 2014 9:08 am #

          Because, if you recall, not two months ago we were all bitching about how crappy deathstar 40k was to play in the wake of Adepticon and how we needed to make some changes to avoid losing more players to the madness. Follow this poll and you don’t fix anything.

          • Japatoes June 9, 2014 2:03 pm


        • Nuln-Oil June 9, 2014 9:11 am #

          This. Frontline seems like the have a sense of what is fair and balanced. Asking the population who regularly abuse the rules and push them to their limits, to the point of absolute absurdity, is of no help. If was running the 2++ re roll with invisibility, I would be voting to keep it that way.

      • Jural June 9, 2014 2:43 pm #

        Sarcasm isn’t going to help anyone… but I did have quite a laugh when I read Slaede’s comments 😉

  33. Oadius June 9, 2014 8:29 am #

    Thanks for polling, it’s an awesome tool. Two events would be quite an undertaking and probably not necessary. If you decide to include an unrestricted: warp charge, maelific and a single LoW(even with restrictions) you’ll probably be close enough for even the most hard core guys(like the Wolfbrothers).

    Best of luck!!

    • Reecius June 9, 2014 8:36 am #

      It’s either that, or, two events. And thanks! Feels like we’re threading a needle here, lol.

  34. Adam June 9, 2014 9:06 am #

    I’d definitely prefer a Single event where we just play 40k out of the book, with some minor changes (no CTA, no Unbound). 🙂

    If you do a two-event system, you really gotta be careful how you sell it. If one is the “40k Championships”, and the other one is something else, there’s going to be a bias towards the one called the “40k Championship.” If you do a 2 format system, you really need to be careful with the names, like what Magic does. You could call one “Extended 40k Championships” event, which would probably be the less restricted event (but still could have some minor restrictions, like no CTA and no Unbound), and another one the “Limited 40k Championships” which would obviously be more restricted.

    • Red Corsair June 9, 2014 9:40 am #

      I am just shocked people want to play 1850 still. The game is so much faster and balanced out of the book at lower point levels. It’s when people have enough points to stack whatever combo they want that seizes the machine.

      • Adam June 9, 2014 10:15 am #

        Yeah, that surprised me. It also surprised me how many people voted for 1500!

      • z3n1st June 9, 2014 11:00 am #

        Also surprised, I would have thought those individuals that were screaming for balance would recognize that it pretty much solves itself as you force them to make hard list choices when you are restricted to a smaller point total.

        Lots of the abusive stuff simply disappears, or it can’t be supported by the rest of the army to be very effective.

        • AbusePuppy June 9, 2014 1:32 pm #

          There are TONS of abusive things in 1500 still, don’t kid yourself. Sometimes they are different abusive things, and the way you build some of them is different, but they absolutely are still there.

          • z3n1st June 9, 2014 4:05 pm

            oh certainly, but the big abuses that people complain the most about are toned down quite a bit

  35. Nuln-Oil June 9, 2014 9:47 am #

    I just want to make sure I am getting this straight. If I play CSM, I can’t ally myself or black legion/Crimson Slaughter (is that how the rule is being interpreted)?

    However, If I am Eldar I can get a 2++ re roll and possibly invisibility?

    • Adam June 9, 2014 10:17 am #

      What you’re saying has absolutely no bearing on the other.

      What you should have said is that CSM can’t ally with BL/CS, but Tau and Space Marines get to ignore that? How is that fair.

      • Nuln-Oil June 9, 2014 10:31 am #

        Actually, that’s a part of what I was saying, although irrelevant for the questions I was asking. It’s an attempt to point out the silliness of one restriction while allowing the absurdity of other abuse. Since you didn’t get it, the point was going to be that noncompetitive army, such as a pure CSM army, has some arbitrary restriction placed on it, while an already overly powered, meta saturated army gets a buff and absolutely no answer to what is clear abuse of the rules.

        If you didn’t understand the point, then ask.

        • Adam June 9, 2014 10:58 am #

          They were two separate votes. People voted in favor of one and not the other, the options weren’t written like “Nerf Invisibility, but not allies” or “Keep invisibility and also nerf allies”. The result of one vote has absolutely nothing to do with the result of the other.

          • Nuln-Oil June 9, 2014 11:41 am

            Don’t change my point into something stupid and then argue against the stupid version. I am talking about the overall impact, not each piece separately. While I addressed certain aspects, I am thoroughly aware of the overall impact.

            The problem with the survey is the people that it is going to. If you want to make armies fair, I think it’s really a job for as neutral a source as possible, such as frontline peeps. I also think surveying people who don’t go to tournaments, and perhaps fidning out why, would be a good idea. Although I am aware frontline probably didnt have the contact information to make that work. I think sending this survey/vote was an awesome idea for pointers, but it’s another thing if they follow it. A large concentration of the people who responded were likely the same people who cause tournaments to be the way they are. The other part of the problem is the system, which is broken when one turns to if for tournament play.

            Anyways, if you want to talk about the impact of each vote in a vacuum, then go ahead. Don’t get huffy-puffy when someone wants to talk about the overall impact of the combined results (which are pretty silly if you ask me).

          • Adam June 9, 2014 1:08 pm

            I think you’re the only one getting “huffy-puffy.” I’m just saying that the two points you presented have nothing to do with each other.

            Yes, the players did vote to restrict to a single CAD detachment. Also, they did vote to not restrict Psychic Powers. Basically, aside from point values, people voted to play the tournament by roughly the same rules as the Throne of Skulls. Fortunately, this isn’t the only tournament in the world, nor will these become the immutable laws of all future events, Frontline or otherwise. For now, they’re just a starting point. In the past Reece has also conducted an exit poll, which I’m sure he’ll do again. Since this is the first major 7ed event that I’m aware of, it totally makes sense to play closely to the rules that GW themselves suggest for tournament play.

            It’s logical to survey the people who go to their events, because they’re most likely the people who will go to their next event. Why would they survey people who don’t go to their events to enforce rules on the people that do go their events?

          • Nuln-Oil June 9, 2014 1:55 pm

            They have everything to do with each other, just not in a direct manner. Each one impacts the overall game.

            You survey other people because are the people who aren’t going. There are a lot of people who avoid the competitive because of the way it is played. Getting their impute may help. After all, looking at the results of the above survey pretty much tells me people want more of the same, which is WAAC, boring repetitive lists, and the like.

  36. Jason L. June 9, 2014 10:01 am #

    With a lot of these results, there really isn’t any statistically significant difference. The votes on Invisibility, Warp Charge, and CTA Allies were close enough that with the small sample size they were essentially tied. I would definitely not take any of those votes as a clear mandate.

    • TinBane June 9, 2014 2:05 pm #

      Hi Jason,
      Sample size is used to determine how well the sampled group MAY represent the general population. In this case, it’s a survey of the entire population of previous attendees. As long as you aren’t talking about it representing gamers as a whole, sample size is irrelevant. If you are, then the calculation for sample size won’t help you because it’s not a random sampling.

  37. DCannon4Life June 9, 2014 10:11 am #

    Leaving Invisibility unmodified is a mistake. Even modified, Seer Stars (backed by MinDAVu serpents) will still be on the top tables. Peeps will be annoyed either way, but rightly so, I think, if Invisibility is left as-is.

    Increasing to 1850 without increasing the time limit = games ending on Turn 3 (if not sooner, due to various time-eating spamminess). Every 1850 point tournament game I played that ended on Turn 3 due to time (3 in the last year) has easily made my ‘least fun’ list–and I won two of them. Yippee.

    Battle Brothers isn’t just ‘still’ an issue, it’s an even bigger issue: So there are fewer BB combo’s? No worries, BBs can get even cozier now.

    The Detachment/Allies/Formations/Inquisition(?) cluster is asking for trouble.

    Maybe I’m not ‘competitive’ minded enough. /shrug

    • Adam June 9, 2014 10:18 am #

      The interesting thing about games ending early is that for Maelstrom of War missions, it’s far less of an issue. It’s really only a huge issue if you’re playing Eternal War.

      • DCannon4Life June 9, 2014 11:16 am #

        That is a point. But running Maelstrom-style scoring also means you could very well just walk away from the board after turn one if you’re down 9-0, knowing you’ll never catch up.

        Regardless, you do different things when you’re fighting a half-dozen people than when you just..have to be…worried…about… one (lights out).

        Kidding–but among the things I *like* about 40k is setting a plan in motion and seeing it develop and succeed (or fail). Three turns doesn’t do that, or if it did, I would have to retool both my lists and my strategies.

        • Adam June 9, 2014 1:03 pm #

          I totally agree, that’s why I like Maelstrom. If your game is called after turn 4, or even worse, turn 3, it’s going to come down to whoever just happens to be on objectives before either players plans could really come to fruition. If you’re playing for cards, then each player has spent every turn up to that point trying to achieve them, and the game comes down to who accomplished more in the limited time, instead of who happened to be on the objectives half way through the game.

          • vonvilkee June 10, 2014 6:28 am

            This line of thought again just shifts the major power. Drop Pod Marines focused on troops is amazing at maelstrom games, I’ve been playing them for years and now I feel like I can’t lose! Objective secured and the ability to deploy first, deploy absolutely nothing then go first is brutal. I also get like three units per troops choice.

            The game gets brutal late as my opponent starts to catch up cuz I bleed units but early game till mid game I’ve been very in control. Absurdly so.

          • DCannon4Life June 10, 2014 10:39 am

            Dusting off my home-made PVC Drop Pods….

  38. Brian June 9, 2014 10:32 am #

    Super bummed about the only 1CAD and/or no allying with yourself. I love the way single codex armies look and play on the table and being punished so heavily for not splicing in another codex. Hopefully enough armies will get formations eventually, but that narrows it down to a single list in most cases. I really do hope that these results don’t remain or spread to other major tournaments just to leave the option for single codex armies somewhere in the hobby.

  39. Tiber55 June 9, 2014 11:11 am #

    I would vote for 2 events, let this one stand as pure poll results and than do a 1500 point no LoW, No Forifications, cap dice on the psychic phase and ban summoning/invisibility.

    I’m still very torn about 7th, and my real question is are you going to put work into changing the BAO missions, because objective secured rhinos/drop pods/ wave serpents, puts a real damper on how enjoyable some missions can be.

    I would say though that on paper depending on what missions show up at tournaments, SM/AM got alot better even against Daemons/Eldar+DE

  40. Jural June 9, 2014 11:25 am #

    I wonder if some people would make different decisions based on how likely they are to show up to the event, how much they have actually played, 7th Edition, etc… When you are looking at a list of choices, it’s easy to stick to your guns.

    A suggestion- run both events at the same time and see who signs up for what. Do all the most experienced players go for restricted? Is there a heavy Tyranid slant towards the unrestricted list? That’s the kind of data which I think is highly missing. Are we just being conservative, or have more of us been pushed into 6th Edition lists and we are resisting the changes of a more open edition?

  41. Slaede June 9, 2014 12:25 pm #

    I figure I could propose a couple gentelmen’s rules that seem fair to me.

    Invisibility – Invisible Draigowing is slow and gets ignored. Invisible Flesh Hounds get tarpitted by a walker. Invisible beaststar/seer council is unstoppable. Invisible Knight Titan also very tough to stop.

    Solution: You may not cast invisibility (or fortune why not?) on a unit with hit and run, or a super heavy. Cry me a river, Eldar players. You’ll just have to make do with your Wraithknights, Warp Spiders, objective secured Wave Serpents, and everything else in your book that totally rocks.

    Summoning: In my games against Blackmoor, I’ve found it isn’t actually very good. In the interest of speeding up the game, allow players to summon any two units with Summoning/Incursion/Possesion/Sacrifice per turn, maximum.

    Big bad unkillable death stars – Everyone hates them because they are no fun. Allow only one IC to join any unit at any time. Death stars go bye bye.

    Multiple CAD- Who gives a rip about six Heldrakes or six Riptides anymore? That army is going to lose hard. What the hell are those armies going to do against six Wave Serpents, which is totally legal under on CAD? The abuses come from stacking USR’s into a mega unit. Allow this so every Tyranid army isn’t Skyblight, please.

    Psychic Phase- It is not necessary to cap warp charge dice. You get off fewer powers now than before as it is. You want to make it even harder?

    • DCannon4Life June 9, 2014 3:27 pm #

      “Big bad unkillable death stars – Everyone hates them because they are no fun. Allow only one IC to join any unit at any time. Death stars go bye bye.” THIS I like! Better than arguing for nerfing Battle Brothers.

    • AbusePuppy June 9, 2014 5:38 pm #

      Seerstar does not require that its Farseers be part of the unit in order to function. It would be very simple to take Mantle of the Laughing God on one Farseer and then attach another to the unit and be totally unaffected by that particular change.

      • Hugz4Genestealers June 9, 2014 5:49 pm #

        They wouldn’t have the baron attached, though, which does help somewhat. That guy is a jerk.

        • Slaede June 9, 2014 6:09 pm #

          Yes. Without hit and run it can be held up for a turn or two, making it as worthless as the Screamerstar was.

          Farseers outside the unit are bait for mindstrike missiles, and other nastiness they have no protection from.

          • AbusePuppy June 10, 2014 4:16 am

            How would that be any different from if they were in the unit?

            I’m not entirely convinced the Baron is a necessity in current Seerstar, but I may be wrong there. With better utility powers (and more of them) as well as tons of psychic options to lay down hurt in many different ways, a Seerstar doesn’t mind nearly so much being locked in combat. “Darn, guess I just have to cast Summoning four times and Incursion twice this turn. You sure got me good!”

  42. Vendra June 9, 2014 1:35 pm #

    I will put this as simple as I can. If you restrict fortifications, lords of war, or change how first turn deployment works at any tournament, I will not go. These are all in the base rules now and should be left alone.

    • Slaede June 9, 2014 1:44 pm #

      You seriously want to play against an invisible Revenant Titan?

      • Adam June 9, 2014 1:50 pm #

        Sign me up!

        • Slaede June 9, 2014 2:10 pm #

          You and about three other loonies!

          • Pascal Roggen June 10, 2014 8:48 am

            Me too, I love the crazy 🙂

      • Vendra June 9, 2014 6:01 pm #

        Yes I do. And if thats all you are afraid of invis can be countered. Heaven forbid GW come out with something that makes people play something other than the usual deathstars.

        • AbusePuppy June 10, 2014 4:16 am #

          Pretty sure the presence of Invisibility is not going to make the deathstar units weaker.

      • Superunknown June 10, 2014 5:17 am #

        From the Imperial Apoc update. (Which also may be in the BRB, I do not have it here.)

        Psychic Powers: Super-heavy vehicles are not affected by psychic powers (either friendly or enemy) with the exception of those that have attacks with a given Strength value, which affect them normally.

        • AbusePuppy June 10, 2014 6:10 am #

          That is from the previous edition and has since been overwritten. From 6E on, superheavy vehicles and gargantuan creatures are affected by psychic powers normally.

          • Superunknown June 10, 2014 11:30 am

            That quote is from:

            Presented here is a brief set of conversion guidelines intended to allow you to quickly put your Forge World models to use in games of sixth edition Warhammer 40,000.

            But I do not know what it says under Super Heavies in the BRB. But that pdf update was for sixth edition.

          • Adam June 10, 2014 4:23 pm

            Superunknown, that quote was also before the latest version of Apocalypse.

    • winterman June 9, 2014 2:25 pm #

      The first turn thing is interesting because the rulebook literally recommends having the guy who deploys first go first — but then their actual missions go totally against it.

      To me I think with GW recommending a 6ed style who goes first then changing it is not all that egregious. BAO will already change a number of 7ed mission parameters, altering one more isn’t.

      Rest of your issues fall under the rules saying to agree with your opponent on how lists will be constructed. Its no more or less 7ed to play a 500 point game with unbound then it is a 2k with only one CAD allowed or a 1500 point game no restrictions. Its all 7ed and its all by player permission.

      • Vendra June 10, 2014 10:19 am #

        You have a fair point. I guess what I would really like to see is just one tournament with rules played as written before the community does sweeping changes. I would love to see what top players come up with.

        • winterman June 11, 2014 10:22 am #

          Back in 3ed/4ed Adepticon and a few others had their gladiator style event. No whining, no comp, bring out all the toys. It was actually fairly popular as at the time it was the only tournament that allowed Forge World amd superheavies and the like. They even allowed one of the more broken things in any edition (the siren prince).

          I can see something like this getting some traction as long as it wasn’t ran simultaneous to a main event. That’s the biggest reason (imo) the escalation event at Adepticon this year was such a bust.

  43. Rich with GSI June 9, 2014 1:48 pm #

    After looking at all of this I have only one question: Will there be a DzC tourney?

  44. Lackluster Batreps June 9, 2014 2:25 pm #

    I don t know guys. I definitely don t want to see a revenant at a competitive event or a c tan for that matter, and I m a necron player. There needs to be some nerfs but I think it needs to be minimal, at first, play it by ear. Unbound is clearly for fun games. As far as daemons summoning, ehhh, lets see it. We ll get to turn three at most due to time constraints and I ll have first blood bc one of their psykers committed suicide. Maybe it s just me, but the psychic phase has gotten completely unreliable. Granted, I only have 6 games in the current edition.

  45. Lackluster Batreps June 9, 2014 2:31 pm #

    I refuse to play the maelstrom missions in a serious game. Too random.

    • Pascal Roggen June 10, 2014 8:50 am #

      it’s serious randomness, you have to have an army that can take it. I may never play an altar of war game by choice ever again, but I love tourney’s so… it’ll happen for a while

  46. Jural June 9, 2014 2:47 pm #

    So Reecius- my advise (free, and worth about the same amount) would be to ignore the polls and go based on your gut.

    Make two events, one of which is exactly how your gut says to play this edition, and a second, “More open” game where a few of the potentially abusive options are opened up. But if you are just 100% certain that Invis needs a nerf, or Lords of War don’t belong in your events… put it in both formats.

    I plan on playing in your open event no matter how you run it, and I’m not even thinking super competitive,,, I want to see how my ‘Nids and CSM can be fielded together for the first time in a decade!

  47. John June 9, 2014 5:02 pm #

    I really don’t like the poll results. I think 7th needs to be play tested much more before we can make any meaningful decisions on tourney restrictions. For this reason I think we need two events. Not to mention there are people who bought tickets already for GTGT under the assumption that there would be 2 formats.

  48. Cruzcontrol39 June 9, 2014 6:21 pm #

    Picard!?!? Must be a lot of young voters… All the OG know Kirk is the man, not some bald French guy with a British accent that would rather bore you with jib a jabba than fire a photon torpedo up Klingon asses…

    • Jural June 9, 2014 9:42 pm #

      But what if you don’t like new Kirk? It muddies the water a bit for me…

      • Cruzcontrol39 June 10, 2014 3:42 am #

        There is only one Kirk! The Shat!

  49. Cuddles June 9, 2014 8:17 pm #

    After reading through all of the comments, I think the the newest edition has done nothing but muddy the waters and make a mess of what was already a mess. I think we need to go to the problems, and make rules regarding those.

    No pure 2++ reroll. Make it so a reroll of a 2++ can only be rerolled at 4++, work from there. Perhaps no stacking of psyk buffs, this will curb some of the fear regarding ++ rerolls and invisibility. No more than one IC per unit. Allow more than one C.A.D. but limit people to no more than 3 of the same unit (this would include troops, transports [wave serpents, especially]. A lot of the rules here just seem to perpetuate the current problems. The same armies that were good in the 6th are still good now and the lower tier are still lower (except the nids).

  50. GDT June 10, 2014 8:13 am #

    Sisko knows best!

  51. Fisticuffs June 10, 2014 8:20 am #

    I think it’s clear that you can’t make everyone happy. I feel bad for nid players especially. Fixing 7th for competitive play seems like a bear. I do think that the results of the poll was to permissive. Reecius, I respect that you brought the questions to the people, but you may have been better served taking a more dictatorial stand. Your gut and the results or the poll differing should tell you something. I think you may regret allowing LoW. You will almost certainly regret not altering invis. and/or the psychic phase. Time will tell.

  52. Herpguy June 11, 2014 4:59 am #

    I’ll be down for putting a cap on psychic powers as soon as there is a cap on how many shots you can make per turn.

    Also, make psychic powers not able to affect superheavies, that will solve a lot of problems.

Leave a Reply