Bay Area Open 2014 Warhammer 40,000 Championships Format

news

NOVA Open and the Bay Area Open (BAO) have been in close communication over the basics of how to build a list in a 7th edition Warhammer 40K tournament setting.

The NOVA Open (NOVA) and the Bay Area Open (BAO) spent the past several weeks in close communication over the challenges and nuances of how to structure Organized Play army list constructionin the setting of a newly-released 7th Edition (7th) of Warhammer 40,000 (40K). This article was jointly written by Mike Brandt and Reece Robbins – heads of the NOVA and BAO respectively.

The basis for our shared discussion and conclusions began with the understanding that Unbound/Battle Forged list construction per the 40K Rulebook (BRB) is designed in a fashion that works best when players are able to discuss rough guidelines for what type of game they’d like to play prior to list construction (i.e., limitless detachments, unbound, lords of war, Forge World, etc.). In an Organized Play environment, event administrators must determine this for all players prior to registration.

The NOVA and BAO Grand Tournament (GT) formats are widely copied or emulated across the local tournament (RTT) and GT scene in the United States and abroad. By working together toward similar army list construction rules, we are able to provide a wide array of players who enjoy Organized Play with the ability to invest in lists with confidence they can be used at more than one or two events.

Several issues comprised the focus of our discussion.

First Issue – Detachment Construction Using Multiple Codices

BAO and NOVA both concluded that per the Rules as Written (RAW), a Detachment in 7th (either Combined Arms Detachment (CAD) or Allied)is built from a Faction, not a Codex. This is a substantial change from long-standing 40K tradition (BRB 118).

  • A CAD is built of units that are the same Faction (BRB 122)
  • A Codex and a Codex Supplement are considered the same Faction (BRB 118)

Therefore, a CAD may be built using units from both a Codex and a Codex Supplement.

Logical? Yes. RAW? Yes. Convoluted and confusing? Yes. When you create a “Blended CAD” (BCAD)using units from a Codex and Supplements (sometimes multiple Supplements) it creates bizarre rules situations, difficult modeling clarity issues for opponents, and – quite simply – confusion. This can result in unpleasant games and unwittingly illegal lists at the Organized Play level.

Second Issue –Impact of Faction vs Codex Differentiation on Allied Detachments

An Allied Detachment must be comprised of units in the same Faction. This must be a different Faction than the Primary Detachment (BRB 122).

A Codex and its Supplement are considered the same faction (BRB 118).

Therefore, you cannot ally a parent Codex with its Supplement.

Third Issue – Single CAD Restrictions and Consequences

Many tournaments (including Games Workshop’s own Throne of Skulls) are restricting army construction to a maximum of one CAD. Given the rules clarified above, players would consequently be unable to self-ally. Important changes were made by Games Workshop to the way Battle Brothers (BB) function within the new edition, however, by restricting the number of different Factions that are BB with each other to more fluff-related guidelines and simultaneously making all Factions BB with themselves, they send a clear message that they intend for every Faction be able to access additional BB-level HQ/Elite/Fast/Heavy/Troop choices beyond just a single CAD. By restricting army construction to a single CAD, however, in conjunction with the non-same-Faction base rule within Allied Detachments, Organizers create a potential problem not intended by the designers, and substantially different from the same restriction in 6th Edition. This merits an additional rule tweak.

Fourth Issue – Unclear Factions

Some Codices do not clearly belong to a Faction.

  • Example: Codex: MilitarumTempestus and Codex: Legion of the Damned.  These are presented as Imperial Factions, but the BRB Faction Listing (BRB 118) does not include either of them.

Solutions

We contacted the Games Workshop Headquarters Event Organizer for additional input on how the parent company was dealing with some of these contradictions, especially how to construct a Detachment (limited to a single Codex, or Blended via Supplement / Legion / Tempestus inclusion?). The very nice and helpful gentlemen told us he interpreted this as such: consider Supplements, Militarum Tempestus, and Legion of the Damned as their own distinct, independent Factions.

While this directly contradicts the BRB, it makes sense and it alleviates Detachment confusion.

NOVA and BAO/LVO choose to follow the same conclusion as the above Organizer (though we do not consider GW Organized Events binding precedent, it doesn’t hurt to understand their choices). Further, we decided to correct the unintended consequence of single CAD by allowing all Allied Detachments to be selected from the same Faction as the Primary Detachment.

This achieves the Games Workshop intent for all Factions to be able to access additional detachments with BB-level characteristics while simultaneously addressing the broadly polled concern of the player community (at least presently) with allowing more than a single CAD. We therefore come to a compromise that gives all factions the same options for a CAD and Ally while avoiding the confusion of blended detachments.

NOVA and BAO/LVO Formats – Joint Army Construction Guidelines and Individual Event Variances

  1. Armies will not exceed 1850 Points across all Detachments.
  2. Armies may be constructed from a maximum of 2 Detachments (as defined in the 40K BRB), no more than one of which may be a CAD.
  3. Allied Detachments may be selected from the same Faction as the Primary Detachment.
    1. Formations are permitted as one of the 2 detachments, but not Apocalypse or Fortification Formations.
  4. 4) Detachments may be produced from a maximum of one Codex / Codex Supplement.
    1. Example – You may not selectively include units within one CAD from both Codex: Tau and Codex Supplement: Farsight Enclaves, despite them being within the same Faction per the Detachment creation rules in the 40KBRB.
    2. Exception – Units available to various Factions by means other than the primary or supplemental Codex are permitted (e.g., Dataslate Characters, Forgeworld 40K approved units where allowed).
    3. Example – Consider each Supplement/Codex to be it’s own Faction, ie. Farsight Enclave, Militarum Tempestus, Legion of the Damened, etc. Use the Ally Matrix of their parent codex or the Imperial Ally Matrix if an Imperial Army.
  5. 5) 0-1 Fortification chosen from the following list. All of the rules may be found in the Stronghold Assault supplement. Please note – the following is just the shared list; additional Fortifications are allowed within the event-specific variances listed below.
    1. Aegis Defense Line
    2. Imperial Bastion
    3. Skyshield Landing Platform
    4. Firestorm Redoubt
    5. Vengeance Weapons Battery
  1. 6) Conjured Units are considered to be under your control, but not part of any Detachment. As a result, benefits from your Warlord such as Conqueror of Cities and benefits granted by being a part of a given detachment do not apply to Conjured Units. Furthermore, as a RAW clarification,Conjured Models interact with other models as per the Allies Matrix, regardless of the Faction that summoned them.

Event-Specific Variances:

While the overarching intent of our shared construction rules is uniformity and investment security for our attendees, each event will still retain the independent flexibility and flavor that is so appealing in an Independent Tournament environment. To that end, the following variances apply between NOVA and BAO/LVO formats:

bay area open logo

BAO

  • – Forgeworld 40K Approved units are allowed following faction guidelines
  • – Failed 2+ saves, if re-rolled, may never succeed on better than a 4+
  • – Lords of War are permitted, but only from the following restricted list:
    1. All of the Baneblade chassis vehicles except for the Hellhammer (and Traitor’s Bane variant) and Stormsword, which are not allowed for the BAO 2014.
    2. Crassus Armored Assault Transport
    3. Gorgon Heavy Transporter
    4. Minotaur Artillery Tank
    5. All Macharius chassis vehicles.
    6. All Malcador chassis vehicles except the Malcador Infernus which is not allowed for the BAO 2014
    7. Valdor Tank Hunter
    8. Marauder Bomber (may not take Hellstorm bombs)
    9. Maurader Destroyer
    10. Fellblade
    11. Cereberus Heavy Tank Destroyer
    12. Thunderhawk Transporter
    13. Greater Brass Scorpion of Khorne
    14. Obelisk
    15. Stompa
    16. Gargantuan Squiggoth
    17. Kustom Battle Fortress
    18. Kill Krusha Tank
    19. Kill Blasta
    20. Cobra
    21. Scorpion
    22. Lynx with Pulsar (but not with Sonic Lance)
    23. Tiger Shark (Escalation version)
    24. Orca Dropship
    25. Scythed Hierodule

– The following additional Fortifications are permitted:

– Promethium Relay Pipes; Fortress of Redemption; Void Shield Generator

NOVA 2014

 

NOVA

  • – Lords of War are not permitted at this time

 

Tags:

About Reecius

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

175 Responses to “Bay Area Open 2014 Warhammer 40,000 Championships Format”

  1. Captn Dees June 10, 2014 8:44 am #

    My kingdom for a recovered password… 😀

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 10:14 am #

      That’s weird. Maybe make a new profile?

      • Captn Dees June 10, 2014 10:48 am #

        Tried that too, still no email. 🙁

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 11:25 am #

          Hmm. We have had some issues ever since we migrated servers. I will have to look into that. In the meantime, we can invoice you for a ticket via PayPal.

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 1:48 pm #

          Should be fixed now.

  2. Nuln-Oil June 10, 2014 8:51 am #

    I like the attempt at fixing some of the rules. The allowance of some, but not all, of the LOWs is a great! That will certainly mix things up. I am a little disappointed about the limitation of 1 CAD, which will perpetuate the current meta, which is either fine without it, or able to do much of the same thing with the allies that are available through allied detachments. While I am happy about these changes, I predict there will be several unrepresented armies in the top tiers.

    Anyways, nice rules. Let’s see how they change things up.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 8:55 am #

      Thanks! I feel like we made some good choices as a community and hey, after the BAO we will reassess where we are at and make any adjustments everyone wants to see. This is a good starting point and I think it will allow for a really fun tournament.

      • Nuln-Oil June 10, 2014 8:59 am #

        It’s a thoughtful response to a very large problem. The consideration of certain LOWs is great. While some will be unhappy, I think a lot of people are going to be happy. really glad you guys do what you do.

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 10:00 am #

          Thank you, sir, and yeah, threading the eye of the needle =P

    • Joe TwoCrows June 10, 2014 10:17 am #

      I agree; nice rules. My only observation is by disallowing the Revenant, you also deny DE players a LoW, as it’s the only allowed choice for DE in Escalation.

      • Reecius
        Reecius June 10, 2014 10:20 am #

        Yeah, I know, that was a bummer, but several factions don’t get access. We decided to be conservative this time around and then we can change as we go.

      • Adam "Loopy" Fasoldt June 10, 2014 10:46 am #

        They get the best LOW of all… a Seer Council Ally. LOL.

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 11:20 am #

          Lol!

        • Joe TwoCrows June 10, 2014 3:56 pm #

          I had not considered the Seer Council as a DE LoW….

  3. Fredrik June 10, 2014 8:51 am #

    No Khorne Lord of Skulls allowed?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 8:54 am #

      No, we avoided any Hellstrom or larger than 5″ blast weapons that ignored 3+ armor and cover.

      • No_wegian June 10, 2014 1:14 pm #

        You guys could have said Ichor and Hades Gattling Cannon only. COME ON GUYS!!!

      • No_wegian June 10, 2014 1:26 pm #

        Seriously, as a Chaos/Daemons player this would piss me off. No reason you couldn’t have put the restriction on the stomach cannon to just the Ichor Cannon.

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 1:51 pm #

          No nerd rage, please =)

          We made the choices we made for fairness sake. Anything with a larger than 5″ blast or Hellstrom template that ignored cover and armor was nixed.

          • No_wegian June 10, 2014 2:04 pm
            #

            Thanks for being flippant and making fun of my opinion. That wasn’t nerd rage, but this is:

            If you knew anything about the Lord of Skulls, which obviously you don’t; you could have just said “No Hellstorm Weapons”. You did it with 3 other vehicles in the list so why not this one? Just admit to being lazy, that I would believe. “Fairness sake” is such a BS cop-out.

          • Reecius
            Reecius June 10, 2014 2:18 pm
            #

            I didn’t see that you could opt not to take the Hellstrom weapon, I thought it had to take one.

            Now, instead of being a dick about it, you could have just pointed that fact out, hahaha, but hey, you do tend to flip out a lot =)

            And for what it’s worth, I wasn’t trying to be rude to you in my earlier comment, I was just laughing at your strong reaction, not trying to be mean to you.

      • TheWarRoom June 10, 2014 6:00 pm #

        Never thought I’d hear the day when a Scythed Hierodule was banned! Heh.

        I like your rules and will thus be stealing them as an outside source for my gaming group.

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 6:03 pm #

          Steal away, sir!

          And yeah, we decided to do a blanket ban on any big template/blast weapon that ignored cover and armor. We felt it would help to avoid the shock and awe of LoW.

  4. Adam
    Adam June 10, 2014 9:03 am #

    Two quick questions!

    For the CAD, are you intending for that to mean that I could fill my single CAD with choices both from the Chaos Space Marine Codex, as well as the Black Legion Book? i.e. I could take chosen as troops, just because, but run non-black legion everything else? Or I could take Crisis Suits as troops in my Tau Empire army because they’re Troops in Farsight Enclaive?

    Also, what’s happening regarding the Golden Throne ticket holders?

    I gotta say, I’m looking forward to the event!

    • Adam
      Adam June 10, 2014 9:18 am #

      Also…

      6. Roll for Night Fighting.
      7. Roll for Warlord trait per usual in the BRB Pg. 124.

      Shouldn’t that be switched since there are Warlord Traits that let you pick if it’s night fight?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 10:00 am #

      Yes on the C.A.D., read page 118.

      Golden Throne Ticket Holders are already good to go.

      • Adam
        Adam June 10, 2014 10:29 am #

        Awesome, thanks for the info

  5. Douglas June 10, 2014 9:17 am #

    Is Paint score included in determining the Top 8 etc?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 9:59 am #

      No, it is only for Ren. Man and Best Painted.

  6. Douglas June 10, 2014 9:18 am #

    Will there be ANY “area terrain?”

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 9:54 am #

      There is no longer area terrain in the codex, but, a lot of things behave like area terrain such as ruins.

      • Douglas June 10, 2014 10:20 am #

        Moonscapes, twisted corpses, they all have area terrain-like special rules. I have read the rulebook, area terrain exists in this fashion – will there be any at the BAO?

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 10:21 am #

          As it says in the tournament format, terrain functions as it does in the BRB. I only noted exceptions in the guidelines that deviate from that.

          • Douglas June 10, 2014 10:25 am
            #

            I just want to know if there will be any on the tables, not what is printed in the rulebook. Will there be any of these on any of the tables:

            Shrine of the Aquila, Manufactorum, basilicia Administratrum, Sanctum Imperialis, Battlescape, Crashed Imperial Aquila lander, Twisted corpse, or Moonscapes?

            Will there be moonscapes and twisted corpse pieces on every table?

          • Reecius
            Reecius June 10, 2014 10:35 am
            #

            Ah, I misunderstood you. Yes, all of the terrain described in the terrain section will be there, but no terrain data slates.

    • DCannon4Life June 10, 2014 10:18 am #

      The ‘copse’ and ruins both provide (exactly?) the same kind of protection afforded by what used to be called ‘area’ terrain. In fact, Ruins got better because they provide the cover save regardless of whether a model is partially or wholly on it (if it has a base) and also regardless of whether or not the model is 25% obscured. The ‘copse’ (5+) also provides the cover save regardless of whether a model is partially or wholly on it (yay for more Wraithknights with their toes in cover, amirite?).

      So, so long as some terrain pieces are described as copses (copsii? copsese? whatevs), there will be ‘area’ terrain.

      • Reecius
        Reecius June 10, 2014 10:22 am #

        Exactly.

      • Douglas June 10, 2014 10:22 am #

        Exactly – will there be dataslates for the terrain at the BAO (as planned by other large tournaments) or is everything a hill a ruin or a can tower? (read: area terrain Does exist…. will it be at the BAO?)

  7. The Hidden Bruce June 10, 2014 9:34 am #

    Wait? No Transcendent C’tan? That actually counters invisibility really well and makes a totally non psychic army viable, but it isn’t allowed. What kinda of comp bullshit are these rules?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 9:55 am #

      No Tranny C’Tan and thank for sharing your opinion there, slugger, next time feel free to really let it all out. You don’t have to try and be polite, we’re all adults, lol!

      We went off of the poll results, and the vote was for limited LoW. And, Necrons are still 100% viable, they are extremely good this edition as they were last edition.

      • The Hidden Bruce June 11, 2014 12:05 am #

        The vote was nearly a 50/50 split on LoW with restrictions. The list of what you are actually going to allow might as well be no LoW at all unless you play IG. The C’tan is powerful but no more broken than 2+ rerollable inv. save, invisibility, Tau putting out 100+ wounds a turn! last minute objective grabbing troop Eldar jet bikes, daemon summoning armies, etc.

        The BOA rules are such a convulsed bastardization of 40k. It sets a really sad precedent for what the tournament scene is shaping up to be in 7th edition. It’s bleeding players from the game in my area.

        You have no idea what 7th edition is really like if you don’t play with all of the rules, give it a full tournament or two and let the meta shake out. If something overly dominates deal with it then. But it’s not like this doesn’t happen any way.. GK, Taudar, Flying circus, etc. these all come and go. But it seems like when a army like Necrons gets something amazing there is all of a sudden a call to nerf restrict and reshape the game.

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 11, 2014 12:31 am #

          First off, thanks for writing something more reasonable and less inflammatory. It’s hard to take someone seriously when they seem like they’re just attacking with no thought at all.

          As for your point, we’re not attacking Necrons at all. Quite simply, anything with a large cover ignoring, armor ignoring attack we banned. It has nothing to do with the army. We’re trying to make a fun event for everyone, not punish anybody. If you think that makes us jerks or necron haters or whatever, that’s your prerogative, but that’s not what we’re trying to do.

          • The Hidden Bruce June 11, 2014 7:02 am
            #

            So then you are banning Tau buff commanders that ignore cover? And broadside units, formations and O’vesa? What about units that ignore 90% of my attacks with rerollable inv saves and/or invisibility?

            The C’tan counters a lot of what the top tier meta will be, and it is beatable as well and high point costed to match.

          • Reecius
            Reecius June 11, 2014 9:43 am
            #

            Buffmander can no longer join Riptides per the BRB, so that isn’t a concern. We already nerfed the 2+ reroll though, too. So that is not a concern anymore, either.

            I understand what you’re saying, but I ask that you understand that we are doing what our attendees asked us to do. We are allowing the moderate LoW in so that it doesn’t turn people off to them right away. Then, we will see how it works in application and reassess. It’s a process, one step at a time.

          • The Hidden Bruce June 11, 2014 11:32 am
            #

            O’vesa can still join the buff commander, FYI.

          • The Hidden Bruce June 11, 2014 7:01 pm
            #

            Is the psychic ability that let’s you drop vortex D bombs being banned too? My Necrons can’t get that.

        • Jason
          Jason June 11, 2014 2:51 pm #

          Well go ahead and run your 250+ person 40k tournament and allow everything from 7th edition and let us know how it goes.

          • The Hidden Bruce June 11, 2014 7:38 pm
            #

            If 250+ showed up to play! it would go with out saying it went pretty well.

  8. Invisiblade June 10, 2014 9:34 am #

    Maelstrom missions being turned in at the end of each game turn, and the Eternal War objectives being last on it, both give a huge advantage to the player that goes second. He can deny both mission types, while the player that goes first can’t so much.

    I believe Maelstrom missions should be turned in at the beginning of your turn, before reserves or anything, so it’s the equivalent of end of the game turn for both players. Maybe not allow it in the first turn though.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 9:57 am #

      You have to see what they objectives are, some of them are about kill points which gives the advantage to the player going first. Also, both player will know what they are in advance so the player going first can move to stop them.

      We are still playtesting these though, and may alter them slightly. If you do it on the player turn, it can be really unfair for the player going second too though, as they don’t get a chance to stop anything.

      • Invisiblade June 10, 2014 3:45 pm #

        Fair enough.

        Do you by chance have your altered objectives posted somewhere? Or do you plan on posting them closer to the event after some more play testing?

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 4:32 pm #

          Not posted yet, we have them like, 90% done, and will be play testing them to polish them off. We will get them up ASAP though, so everyone has a chance to practice.

          • Invisiblade June 11, 2014 8:46 am
            #

            Awesome, thank you!

          • Reecius
            Reecius June 11, 2014 9:43 am
            #

            You’re welcome =)

  9. DCannon4Life June 10, 2014 9:43 am #

    So the Maelstrom ‘Tactical Objectives’ are worth 1 point toward winning the Secondary Mission regardless of how many points they are worth on their own (D3 or even D3+3)? What about Tactical Objectives that do not, themselves, stipulate that the conditions be met during the current Game Turn, e.g. the D3 points for killing the enemy Warlord (during the turn or any turn prior, iirc)?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 9:58 am #

      We are using modified Maelstrom Objectives, the chart we will be using is much simpler. My advice would be to wait to see it before passing judgement, but yeah, only 1 point objectives.

      • DCannon4Life June 10, 2014 10:15 am #

        Purely information gathering at this point. I like to be right when I pass judgment! 😛

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 10:22 am #

          Sounds good! Feel free to tell me we’re stupid AFTER playing it, lol =P

          • Adam
            Adam June 10, 2014 10:47 am
            #

            We all know that’s not what 40k players do!

  10. Slaede June 10, 2014 10:03 am #

    Is the one tank with the 10″ S10 AP1 primary weapon blast that ignores cover (Stormsword?) a baneblade variant? And if so, you’re really allowing that?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 10:23 am #

      It is called the Hellhammer and no, it is not allowed. Almost nothing with a large Ignores Cover template/blast was allowed.

      • Adam
        Adam June 10, 2014 10:28 am #

        Hellhammer is the Baneblade with the S10 Ap1 7″ blast that ignores cover. The Stormsword is a totally different Baneblade Variant (more like a shadowsword) with a S10 Ap1 10″ blast.

        • Adam
          Adam June 10, 2014 10:30 am #

          …which ignores cover.

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 10:30 am #

          Correct, neither is allowed.

  11. Hotsauceman1 June 10, 2014 10:04 am #

    You are allowing Void Sheild Generators, That saddens me 🙁
    Also, Im guessing We cant draw the cards, but can we still bring them for ease of refrence?
    And Why are you not allowing the Manta? That saddens me.

    • Adam "Loopy" Fasoldt June 10, 2014 10:17 am #

      Void Shield Generators are going to limit Alpha Strikes. It isn’t a silver bullet against Alpha Strikes, of course, but they will help.

      This is a good thing. A very, very good thing.

      And gives ‘Nids something to do with their Mycetic Spores.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 10:23 am #

      A single VSG is no big deal, really.

      And you do not need the cards at all, our objectives are similar but different.

      • Adam
        Adam June 10, 2014 10:31 am #

        Exactly, Void Shield Generator is fine to go against. A Void Shield Relay is a bitch.

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 10:35 am #

          I share the same feelings.

          • Adam "Loopy" Fasoldt June 10, 2014 10:43 am
            #

            Agreed. I was going to add the same caveat, but you guys beat me to it. LOL.

  12. Slaede June 10, 2014 10:12 am #

    Can I take wargear from Crimson Slaughter and Black Legion and CSM on a character? Like, can I have Daemonheart, Last Memory of Uranthos and the Brand of Skalathrax?

    • Slaede June 10, 2014 10:16 am #

      On the same character?

      • Reecius
        Reecius June 10, 2014 10:24 am #

        No. You can take one of each, but not mix their gear.

      • Adam
        Adam June 10, 2014 10:26 am #

        To quote the Black Legion book:

        “Any character in your Black Legion detachment that can select Chaos Artefacts cannot select from those listed in Codex: Chaos Space Marines, but can instead select from the Chaos Artefacts of the Black Legion at the points costs shown.”

        I’m pretty sure that clearly states that if you take a Black Legion lord, he cannot take artefacts from the Chaos Artefacts list, and instead takes the Black Legion artefacts.

  13. Vendra June 10, 2014 10:22 am #

    Question, why no Macro-Cannon Aquila Strongpoint?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 10:24 am #

      Too big and disruptive and, honestly, I am not familiar enough with it. We’re taking this step by step, there are a lot of changes to digest here.

      • Vendra June 10, 2014 12:46 pm #

        I appreciate your honest answer, thank you

  14. Slaede June 10, 2014 10:23 am #

    And are you ruling that ruins/ceilings no longer protect you from barrage weapons, and all blasts and templates have no vertical limit?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 10:25 am #

      We are going right out of the book on those, for better or worse. We will reassess how these play out after the BAO, but we’re going with the book for now.

      • Douglas June 10, 2014 11:08 am #

        murderChant, MurderChant, MURDERCHANT!!!

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 11:21 am #

          Blood for the blood god!

          • Slaede June 10, 2014 2:31 pm
            #

            Can’t tell you how thrilled I am that you’ve also allowed Thud Guns!

          • Reecius
            Reecius June 10, 2014 2:39 pm
            #

            Eh, well, is it any worse than Wyverns, Manticores, etc.?

            But yeah, Thudd Guns will be pretty brutal as they are. Transport vehicles will be back in a big way though, which will really mitigate the impact of Barrage Weapons.

          • Slaede June 10, 2014 2:49 pm
            #

            So long as you play a race whut’s got ’em!

          • Reecius
            Reecius June 10, 2014 4:43 pm
            #

            Haha, well, yeah, good point! lol

          • AbusePuppy June 11, 2014 6:02 am
            #

            Also, my Thudd Guns _love_ it when units get disembarked from a transport. Everyone clustered up within 3″ of an access point? Time to lay down eight or twelve blast markers on those jerks!

          • Reecius
            Reecius June 11, 2014 9:45 am
            #

            Oh, I agree. I am not at all trying to say Thudd Guns are anything but amazing.

  15. Gary Frank June 10, 2014 10:27 am #

    Just a suggestion. I found the placing objectives before rolling for deployments zones is much more balanced than placing them after the role. 7th edition BRB made that change and so far it has been great.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 10:36 am #

      Good catch. However, a lot of our scenarios require you to place an objective in your or your opponent’s deployment zone.

    • DCannon4Life June 10, 2014 10:53 am #

      Placing objectives before determining deployment type (when not pre-selected) and deployment zones is definitely better. Perhaps in scenarios where an (one) objective must be placed in the opponent’s DZ, that objective marker could simply be placed after the DZs are determined?

      • Invisiblade June 10, 2014 3:50 pm #

        That, or just need to specify that you place them in opposite deployment zones, after determining deployment type. Like if you need to place one in yours and there’s, instead you must place one in each. Different mechanic, but might be worth trying.

  16. Adam "Loopy" Fasoldt June 10, 2014 10:47 am #

    The fact that you can bring a Stompa makes me want to fly out for the event. HNNNNNNNGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!! Good thing my wife is around to make sure I don’t spend all my money on plastic man doll parties. LOL

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 11:24 am #

      I know, right?! I love the Stompa, so much fun! And totally not OP, either.

      • AbusePuppy June 11, 2014 6:03 am #

        The Stompa is arguably one of the best-balanced LoWs out there, although a number of the Baneblade variants are in the same range. The lower AV and lack of really ridiculous weapons actually make it fairly interesting- although the Kustom Stompa is pretty stupid.

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 11, 2014 9:47 am #

          I totally agree. The Stompa in our games has just been a lot of fun. Good and powerful for sure, but not overpowering. I love using mine.

  17. Jason L. June 10, 2014 10:57 am #

    In a very technical, rules lawyer sense, the wording of the sent composition section implies that you must bring one of everything listed. There is no text stating that you must bring one CAD and may bring the other items.

    Also, no CTA allies? Very sad, as you have basically set a precedence that other groups will now follow without having any reason for it other than a statistically insignificant result on a poll.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 11:24 am #

      I can change the wording for the CAD section.

      And I myself did not set a precedent, we as a group decided which rules we wanted to use. If after the BAO that changes, so be it. I am sorry if you do not agree with that ruling but that is 7th ed for you. We must all make compromises if we are going to play this game as a group. I don’t think many folks are going to get everything they want in a single event.

      • Britt June 10, 2014 2:12 pm #

        Well no, that’s not 7th really. It’s 6th ed with a psyker phase. I’m hoping people attend actual 7th ed tournaments instead to show that we’re moving on.

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 2:22 pm #

          Well Britt, when you throw your tournament I am sure it will be a perfect example of all that is 7th edition =)

          Not trying to be flippant, but we made a group choice as what we wanted for our event. If you do not like it, that is your prerogative, but 7th ed is so wide open that choices have to be made about what to include and what to look past. There is no “right” or “wrong” way to play this edition, really.

          We made choices, this is what we’re doing, and after this we will look to see if we want to implement any other changes going forward.

  18. Tommy June 10, 2014 11:25 am #

    This looks solid so far Reece and gang! I’ve forwarded it to the guys organising the 40k national tournament 2014.

  19. That Other David June 10, 2014 11:38 am #

    Am I right to assume that Coteaz grants Objective Secured to henchmen units from C:=][=?

    Also, the link to buy a ticket brings me to a prompt to sign-in or register, but it never sends the email with the password when I try to register (I checked my spam folder). Any advice on how to work around that?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 2:03 pm #

      The email server was goofing up, it is fixed now!

  20. Japatoes June 10, 2014 11:47 am #

    Why aren’t vengeance weapon batteries allowed? I think it offers effective AA to everyone.

    Can buildings take upgrades per SA?

  21. Pete McGwire June 10, 2014 12:01 pm #

    Is the Imperial Knight stomping still going to be nerfed in that they can only stomp units they are in base contact with?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 12:14 pm #

      Yes.

    • Novastar June 10, 2014 1:43 pm #

      How is that a nerf? Do you really think GW meant for it to hit things outside of the combat? Stop trying to cheat the spirit of the game

      • Reecius
        Reecius June 10, 2014 2:00 pm #

        I don’t think he was trying to be nasty, he was just asking.

      • Jural June 10, 2014 10:16 pm #

        I do think GW intended it to be RAW… I’m at a complete loss as to why they would, but yeah, I think it was intentional.

      • AbusePuppy June 11, 2014 6:06 am #

        Stomp is pretty explicit that you’re allowed to place each marker up to 3″ from the last one- if you are only allowed to hit units that are part of the assault, that’s a rather odd allowance. Is the enemy unit actually stretched out over 10″+ of ground even after pile-in moves?

        • Adam
          Adam (Thediceabide.com) June 11, 2014 6:39 am #

          IIRC from their FAQ, it just has to be placed so that it is touching a model in combat, it can still stomp out if you’re too close to combat. The problem is that you don’t just reach 10″, you can potentially stomp up to 15″ away, and 27″ away with a brass scorpion.

        • Novastar June 11, 2014 8:00 am #

          Is it a mob of orks or pack of gaunts?

  22. Incarnet June 10, 2014 12:18 pm #

    I didn’t see anyone else comment on it so…

    Under Mission Order of Operations General Guidelines there seems to be a paradox. Determining who deploys first is determined at step 8 “The player that wins the roll can choose to go first or second. The player going first then deploys first…” however order of deployment is used during step 5 “the player that deployed first places the first objective.”

    I would suggest connecting order of placing objectives to the decision of who gets what deployment zone. Something along the lines of “The player that did not get to choose their deployment zone places the first objective”

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 2:00 pm #

      Good catch, thanks. Fixed.

  23. Eric Falsken June 10, 2014 12:35 pm #

    I just want to verify that you score the Tactical Objectives at the end of each PLAYER turn, not GAME turn. Otherwise, whoever goes second has an ENORMOUS advantage.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 2:01 pm #

      No, it is intentionally game turn. That was not a mistake. The player going first would have a huge advantage if it were not as turn one they could jump on objectives with no chance to react by the player going second.

      And, the objectives are not all about taking points, half of them are about destroying enemy units. In those missions, the player going first has the advantage.

  24. puretide1 June 10, 2014 12:48 pm #

    Why aren’t you allowing the tigershark AX-1-0??

    • Adam
      Adam June 10, 2014 1:00 pm #

      My guess is for the same reason he’s not allowing any super heavy flyer with a Destroyer weapon.

      • Reecius
        Reecius June 10, 2014 1:47 pm #

        Yup. And a huge AP3 blast+marker lights is a bit much for the first go around, IMO.

        • puretide1 June 10, 2014 2:11 pm #

          I see what you mean but that is a lot of marker lights to ignore cover for everything under the blast 😛

  25. Adam
    Adam June 10, 2014 12:50 pm #

    Any chance you can upload a sample of what a table will look like? It’d be nice to be able to approximate it at home.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 2:02 pm #

      Can do! Give me a bit, though.

  26. Clover362 June 10, 2014 1:19 pm #

    Reece, it might help a lot if you included some examples of what constitutes legal and illegal lists under your rules. just saying.

  27. Jural June 10, 2014 1:56 pm #

    I’m getting a strange message when I try to register (while signed in)… It Says WordPress Error, you are not allowed to edit this item when I use the link.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 2:02 pm #

      Yeah, the new server had a few hiccups, but it is fixed, now.

      • Jural June 10, 2014 3:40 pm #

        Thanks Reecius- all signed up now.

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 4:31 pm #

          You’re welcome and see you there!

  28. AbusePuppy June 10, 2014 2:40 pm #

    Why pick deployment zones before objectives? I’m assuming you are going to use similar missions to the ones from 6E, which solves some of the problems, but it still feels like a bit of a change for change’s sake. Objectives before deployment solves most of the problems those modified missions were out to fix.

    Also, I hope you’ll be reasonably liberal with counts-as/conversion rulings. I tend to use a lot of non-GW models in my armies (for a variety of reasons >.>) and that’s one of the things I’ve appreciated about TSHFT, Guardian Cup, etc- they are very open to interesting conversions and alternate models. I don’t fall in with the rabid anti-GW crowd, but neither do I feel any specific obligation to purchase their stuff.

    Through Attrition, Victory counts towards the secondary mission? That’s a little unusual. Not specifically a problem, though, I suppose.

    I’m not sure I’m a huge fan of using Maelstrom for the secondaries, but I guess it would depend a lot on what the chart has on it and such. Do you think you could open a window there and show us what it’ll be? I don’t actually have numbered objectives or any of that stuff made up, and having six objectives numbered plus the 2-5 “normal” ones on the field seems like it could get pretty confusing.

    It would also be nice to see some FAQs on how the tournament will handle certain things- Infiltrating ICs, superheavy walkers through cover, multiple powers from a psyker unit, etc.

    • Adam
      Adam June 10, 2014 2:46 pm #

      There is actually already a BAO FAQ that addresses the infiltrating IC’s and super heavy walkers through cover.

      • Reecius
        Reecius June 10, 2014 2:47 pm #

        Yeah, it needs to be updated for 7th ed but we will largely go with that. I simply have not had time.

      • AbusePuppy June 10, 2014 2:56 pm #

        Ah, fair enough. Wasn’t really sure how that stuff was gonna be handled.

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 3:08 pm #

          Fair question for sure. I will get to that FAQ ASAP.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 2:51 pm #

      Hey dude.

      We will be 90% likely providing some numbered objectives. Hammering out the details of that deal now.

      We do deployment zones first as it is important for the way we have players place objectives, fortifications, etc.

      We are pretty laid back on the modeling side of things, really. So long as the conversions are reasonable or very artistic and consistent with an overall theme, we tend to be cool about it.

      Attrition will count towards secondary, yes, as players will be counting points every turn for secondaries already, and this makes it easy to simply add those points to the count as you get them.

      These missions are going to be like the ones in the book, but much simplified and more fair. We have a plan for how to handle things, I think it will be quite straightforward. We will make a video to show how it is done, that should clarify a lot of it.

      We will update the FAQ as soon as we can but as I am sure you can imagine, we’re very, very busy right now.

      • TheWarRoom June 10, 2014 6:13 pm #

        You mention the ITC FAQ, what is this?

  29. Redwulfe June 10, 2014 2:44 pm #

    For the first time in a while I have looked at a tournament format for 40k and thought to my self “that looks like a lot of fun” I think it is a great start for a format and can hardly wait to see the results. Wish I could be there but I hope that this format is accepted in other areas as well.

    Good work,
    Red

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 2:46 pm #

      Thanks, Redwulfe! Wish you could make it but maybe next time.

  30. Jural June 10, 2014 3:47 pm #

    I don’t own one, but I’m quite curious about the Harridan ruling! I have always thought they were a bit poor for the points… Is it the Flying MC thing? I am not really familiar with the Hierodule…

    • Umbo June 10, 2014 4:28 pm #

      Harridan is amazing!!!! So so good, and now with cant be grounding during the shooting phase, hardly anyone will have the AA required to take it down

      • Jural June 10, 2014 10:10 pm #

        Yeah, good point. The change to grounded does make a big difference. I’m still not sure it’s worth 700+ or can do the damage, but it would be nigh invulnerable to many lists…

  31. Jural June 10, 2014 3:50 pm #

    Also- I think the rules are a nice transition from 6th to 7th. Should give a pretty good playground to see how the Maelific and new psychic phases impact the game without muddying the water with the cards, Unbound lists, multiple CAD’s…

    Wouldn’t have been my first choice for the “most fun” 7th Edition rules, but it certainly is going to be useful and I expect quite fun.

    A shame my CSM + ‘Nids still can’t play nice together!

  32. Umbo June 10, 2014 4:26 pm #

    ‘ In missions using these rules, at the beginning of each Game Turn, both players roll twice on the Modified Maelstrom’

    I cant attend so trying not to be bias, but doesnt this give the player who goes first a big advantage? As second player can’t block them from getting their objectives (say capture objective 1) and the player going first can attempt to block the 2nd player getting an objective.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 4:31 pm #

      You score at the end of the Game turn, but generate objectives at the beginning. This way both players know what the other is trying to do and can try to stop each other while getting their own.

      • Umbo June 10, 2014 4:32 pm #

        just to be 100%, so each player generates their own cards at the start of their turn or the opponents?

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 10, 2014 4:45 pm #

          At the beginning of the Game Turn, both players roll twice on the Modified Maelstrom Chart that we will provide in the player packet. Each player writes down what number they rolled and show it to each other.

          At the end of the Game Turn, you see if you have scored your objectives. If so, you note it on your score sheet. Next turn, you start the process over again.

          • Umbo June 10, 2014 5:08 pm
            #

            but this gives a massive advantage to the person going first, unless I am being stupid, which it could be the case. Second player cant really stop the first player as they wont know what objectives they will get at the start of the game turn. But the first player will know what the other player has

          • DCannon4Life June 10, 2014 5:15 pm
            #

            When you say “rolls twice” do you mean a) each player rolls the “D66” TWO TIMES or do you mean b) each player rolls a D6 two times (in order to generate a D66 result)?

          • Reecius
            Reecius June 10, 2014 5:28 pm
            #

            @Umbo

            So both players roll their missions at the beginning og the turn and they both know what the other player is going to be trying to achieve that turn. Both players have the entire game turn to try and get those points. Both players can try to stop one another.

            Does that make more sense?

            @DCannon

            It is a D6 chart, we simplify it a lot.

            Each player generates two objectives from the mission chart (you don’t need the cards at all) and those are your two Modified Maelstrom Missions for that turn.

          • DCannon4Life June 10, 2014 7:08 pm
            #

            @Reecius: I look forward to seeing it. I’ve been playing with 7 objectives chosen (3 must be ‘hold X objective’) by the players themselves. It’s been all right, but the D3 and D3+3 still seem to F things up.

          • Reecius
            Reecius June 10, 2014 7:18 pm
            #

            Yeah, the D3+3 is a bit much. We’re restricting it to just 1 point per to keep it simple.

  33. Umbo June 10, 2014 6:04 pm #

    I must be an idiot.. but how can player 2 stop player 1 achieving them, if he is not already by chance on the objective? especially on first turn?

    • Umbo June 10, 2014 6:10 pm #

      oh so you dont score your objective points until the end of the opponents turn? if so that makes better sense and is a good rule

      • Reecius
        Reecius June 10, 2014 6:13 pm #

        Yeah, player 2 stops player 1 by moving to block them after player 1 has gone. Player 1 moves to stop player 2 by moving to block the move BEFORE player 2 goes as he will already know what player 2 is trying to do.

        • Umbo June 10, 2014 6:27 pm #

          thats a great rule Reecius, bravo… I would suggest have no scoring first game turn (gives chance to ditch a crap card)..

          • Reecius
            Reecius June 10, 2014 7:17 pm
            #

            We’ve been thinking about that, too. We have most of it planned out, but, we want to play test some more, before committing.

  34. thunderingjove June 10, 2014 6:47 pm #

    Reecius et al.,

    Has the comment section on this post been the rudest yet for your group?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 10, 2014 7:16 pm #

      Hmm, yeah. Funny most of the rude stuff has been about LoW, though. People just react emotionally. I laugh about it, personally.

    • Hugz4Genestealers June 10, 2014 7:20 pm #

      Most of the ill will is likely a result of the by-necessity controversial decisions the Frontline group had to make with regards to how they will be running one of the first major 40k events for 7th edition. People on the internet can get a bit salty when they disagree with other people.

  35. DoomVendor June 10, 2014 7:35 pm #

    So if detachments are a combination of all the faction’s sources, how do rules such as the compulsory unit of 3 crisis suits apply?

  36. mercutioh June 10, 2014 8:28 pm #

    Wait a damn minute…..

    No Jort Requirements?

    ROBBED! I call BS! NERD RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!

  37. Oadius June 10, 2014 9:15 pm #

    I am so glad you guys went the way you did. I am allowing you to call yourselves Zero Comp again. Your welcome.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 11, 2014 9:52 am #

      Lol, well thanks! We shall wear our team name again proudly!

  38. Oadius June 10, 2014 9:27 pm #

    “Reecius et al.,
    Has the comment section on this post been the rudest yet for your group?”

    NO! I(General Oadius – scourge of the faithless and 1st company captain of the victorious Wolfbrothers) have been much ruder than all these people put together(on several older posts). I will have to try harder to make a lasting impression….

    I am very proud of Reece and even Frankie for nutting up and allowing some of the things they thought were out of hand at first glance. It takes courage to listen and react to such a diverse crowd. I am confident that they will have their best BAOGT yet!

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 11, 2014 9:53 am #

      Well thank you, sir, appreciated. We’re not worried about, this is what everyone wanted, so this is what we’re doing. Now that it is all settled, we’re just excited for a fun event!

  39. M0rm0k June 10, 2014 10:40 pm #

    So what’s up with the fortification list. Why can you take a bastion but not a bunker? Why is the only wall of martyrs kit allowed the firestorm redoubt? Why can’t you take a wall of martyr defense line? I understand not allowing the defense networks because they are big expensive and multiple units, but i don’t get why we can’t take any single thing fortification. Can you speak to this Reese?

  40. michael June 10, 2014 10:43 pm #

    First of all….anyone who thinks the black lion was a legitimate leader and deserved to be the head of voltron is fucking crazy. The Green lion was clearly way cooler. That is a totally legitimate reason to give a thumbs down!

    • AbusePuppy June 11, 2014 6:09 am #

      Oh, sure, take away the legitimacy of the black guy. We have a word for that where I come from: RACISM.

      I hope you’re proud of yourself.

      • Novastar June 11, 2014 8:09 am #

        Racism: the most overused and lazy counter argument of the 21st century,

        Besides we all know red lion got all the ladies and in the end isn’t that what counts the most?

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 11, 2014 9:51 am #

          Come on, fellas, the Pink Lion was the coolest! She was a hottie with a giant robot lion! Boom!

  41. YojimboJones June 11, 2014 1:22 pm #

    So, just to be clear, Formations cannot be taken from the same faction as your primary CAD? For example I was interested in running Codex Eldar CAD, but having a Ghost Warrior Warhost Formation as well. You could see this as a way of getting around “no eldar allying with eldar” but formations are very restrictive in what you can take.

    So legal or illegal?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 11, 2014 2:10 pm #

      Formations follow the normal rules in the book, so you can do Eldar with Eldar, etc.

      • Jural June 12, 2014 9:45 am #

        Finally a way to field 11 units of genestealers! And then…

        victory? For my opponent? And a quick beer afterwards?

Leave a Reply