Tournament Guidelines for NOVA and Bay Area Open/Las Vegas Open Event Formats – Early 7th Edition

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. Barbed 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!

74 Responses to “Tournament Guidelines for NOVA and Bay Area Open/Las Vegas Open Event Formats – Early 7th Edition”

  1. mercutioh June 19, 2014 9:27 am #

    So the method of construction that was detailed in the podcast is no longer valid. Not trying to dump haterade just trying to figure out how to build lists. If i want a black legion sorceror and a crimson slaughter one i need to ally. not cherry pick.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 19, 2014 9:30 am #

      Yes. And yes, sorry for the confusion. We are changing direction (both NOVA and BAO) after a lot of consideration.

      It was just too confusing the way we were doing, and after seeing the GW wasn’t doing it that way in their tournament we decided to change course now with still plenty of time to go.

      Sorry for the confusion again, but 7th ed has been really confusing for us, too.

      This format will not change from now till the BAO.

  2. Nuln-Oil June 19, 2014 9:39 am #

    This is a good change. Certain armies have real issues with being taken as a C.A.D.. For example, CSM has terrible elites. Tyranids have other issues, too. Good change.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 19, 2014 10:06 am #

      Glad you like it! This should make everyone happy we hope. Nice compromise between dual CAD and RAW.

      • Novastar June 19, 2014 1:04 pm #

        I like the other version better lol, and not sure about others but I made a “legal” BaO list within minutes of finding out the format, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who got it right off the cuff

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 19, 2014 1:26 pm #

          You did, but we were getting a LOT of folks who just didn’t get it.

          Eh, we’ll never make everyone happy. We try to just appeal to the most people possible.

          • Novastar June 19, 2014 1:36 pm
            #

            Oh I get that and it’s fine, my grief was I started painting my list, and now I need to rework some of it, at least I was going to paint the models up anyway lol

  3. DCannon4Life June 19, 2014 9:39 am #

    Simple things are best.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 19, 2014 12:53 pm #

      KISS all day, every day =)

      • Novastar June 19, 2014 1:07 pm #

        I wanna rock and roll all night and party every day!!!

  4. Rcketscientst June 19, 2014 9:48 am #

    Your exception for data slate characters, do they still take up a “slot” (i.e. Belakor or Cypher take up a HQ slot if they are used, whether it is in a CAD or an Allied detachment?). And the same would apply to any Forgeworld 40K Approved widget?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 19, 2014 9:55 am #

      Yes, they take up their slot, or battlefield role as normal.

  5. Eldarain June 19, 2014 9:53 am #

    Really positive change. I can understand wanting to stick with the book as close as possible but that is a really convoluted system (Good in the fact you have a great deal of freedom)

  6. joedrache June 19, 2014 10:06 am #

    so now this is true?

    3) Allied Detachments may be selected from the same Faction as the Primary Detachment. –

    so all armies can ally with themselves?

    i do think it would be bogus if only SM can do it. SM have enough buff with just atsknf.

    i like it, but i think i wanna do the friendly anyways-n lets get crazy!

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 19, 2014 10:24 am #

      Yes, all armies can ally with themselves =)

  7. Loopy June 19, 2014 10:13 am #

    Awesome. Allowing the older armies to keep up with Imperium, Eldar, and, soon, Orks (rumored extra HQ, etc) was absolutely the right call, IMO.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 19, 2014 12:52 pm #

      Yeah, we think this is fair and equitable to everyone =)

  8. Bigpig June 19, 2014 10:44 am #

    Good changes. Much clearer and less open to cherry picking, which limits variety. …..oh, and yay for nids. 🙂

  9. winterman June 19, 2014 11:00 am #

    This is an excellent change and I am happy to see a good deal of consistency between the two events as well (even if there’s a few differences these are minor in comparison to major differences in ally and CAD allowances).

    Kudos to you guys and NoVa.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 19, 2014 12:54 pm #

      Thanks! And yeah, we wanted to keep things as similar as possible. Makes it easy to transition between events.

  10. JM June 19, 2014 12:38 pm #

    Any reason why the imperial bunker isn’t allowed?

    It’s much harder to take advantage of it’s 8 fire points now that you can’t cast blessings inside anymore.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 19, 2014 12:52 pm #

      Unfamiliar with it, honestly. We will open up to more if the BAO goes well.

      • AbusePuppy June 19, 2014 10:19 pm #

        I believe he means the Wall of Martyrs bunker. The same could probably be asked about a lot of the other pieces- the G.I. JOE PLAYSET, the Wall of Martyrs defense line/emplacements, etc, etc- with the new 7E rules, I don’t really think anything in Stronghold Assault is at all problematic. Sure, some of the fortification networks are annoying, but the nominal worst offender, the Void Shield Network, loses most of its punch when you can just kinda drive up next to it and shoot the guys inside to death. Even the Aquila is pretty meh not that you can get cover saves against it 5/6 of the time.

        The only real argument against them I’ve seen is that they take up a lot of table space, but BAO already has guidelines for how to handle that, and since you have to put them fully within your own deployment zone, it’s not like you can even really abuse their size.

        • DCannon4Life June 20, 2014 8:00 am #

          You sure can abuse their size–played in a 1500 tournament last year that allowed the fortress of redemption (not the crazy missiles). The player that brought it (a decent guy otherwise) deployed it in a corner and stuffed the space behind it with artillery units (back when Imperial Guard were Imperial Guard)–completely out of LoS and proceeded to yippee-kai-yay his way to total domination. He got beat in the final round by a 2-wraith knight (dual heavy wraith cannon) list that just blew the thing up. So, it wasn’t invincible but it sure as heck was annoying and, so far as I’m concerned, ‘abusive’.

          • AbusePuppy June 20, 2014 4:40 pm
            #

            If you consider anything you don’t like “abusive,” then yeah, there’s gonna be a ton of abusive stuff in the game. Hiding your whole army in a corner wasn’t a good plan in 6E and it’s a terrible plan in 7E.

      • tjkopena June 22, 2014 7:38 am #

        You should really allow it if you’re going to allow the Firestorm Redoubt, and I have trouble envisioning either as uber powerful. The Bunker is indeed much cheaper than the Redoubt, but the latter gets a nice weapons setup that justifies the cost.

        The Bunker is definitely reasonably robust, but also very limited. In particular, with decent terrain coverage it’s pretty hard to get good sightlines out of it since it only has fire ports on the front. It’s also true that its low height makes it easy to tuck away out of sight, but that same low height also means even the guys on the battlements typically have extremely limited sightlines. Add the blessings restrictions JM mentioned, plus IG similarly not being able to dispatch orders into or out of it, and it’s not even a super powerful place to castle up some command types.

        Long story short, it doesn’t seem to follow any logic whatsoever to allow the Bastion and Redoubt but not the bunker.

  11. Chip June 19, 2014 1:17 pm #

    Great changes, and glad to see cooperation between east and west.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 19, 2014 1:26 pm #

      Thanks, and yes, I agree on both counts.

      • Darkwynn June 20, 2014 6:53 am #

        Good to see Reece 🙂

        It is like it someone happened out of magical thin air 🙂

        • Reecius
          Reecius June 20, 2014 1:59 pm #

          I know, quite mysterious isn’t it 😉

  12. Dalamar June 19, 2014 1:57 pm #

    Hi guys Here is why I think GW’s response makes sense. I posted this is the signal’s post but nobody responded. So I shall duplicate here.

    Feel free to copy this elsewhere or delete. This is longer than I originally planned.
    I would like to start by saying good job guys; you do a hella’va lot of good for the tournament scene. I also want to say I completely understand what you are saying about C.A.D lists and how you create them.

    Stating that, I would like you to consider the weirdness that this creates. For the purposes of this conversation I ‘m going to talk about Farsight and Iyanden supplements and there new F.A.Qs, because these are the ones I own. According to the F.A.Qs all references to Army have been replaced with detachment except for the first.

    Ex. “A Farsight Enclaves army is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire.” And “An Iyanden army is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Eldar.”

    Now all this means is that when I create my army it is a Farsight Enclaves Army or Iyandren army, and I can use these new rules from the Supplement, nothing that effects the C.A.D yet.

    Now let’s look at what happens when we start taking options from these Supplements.

    Iyanden: As soon as I select the Shadow Council option from this supplement my C.A.D becomes An “Iyanden Detachment”. Here is the rule with the F.A.Q in effect: “Shadow Council An Iyanden detachment may take up to…” However, for your purpose of army building it does not matter because all of the rules in Iyandren say “MAY” when you select them and don’t effect the entire detachment.

    Farsight Enclave: Here is where we get weird. As soon as I select option from this supplement my C.A.D becomes A “Farsight Enclaves Detachment”. Here is are truncated rules with the F.A.Q in effect: (No full quotes for legal purposes)

    “BATTLESUIT SPEARHEAD
    In a Farsight Enclaves detachment, all XV8 Crisis Teams are troops choices instead of elites choices. However, when choosing a Farsight Enclaves detachment, you must include …

    ORK HUNTERS
    Units in a Farsight Enclaves detachment have the Preferred …

    TA’LISSERA BOND
    Units in a Farsight Enclaves detachment that have the option … must do so.

    SIGNATURE SYSTEMS
    Any character in your detachment that may select Signature Systems may not select from those listed in Codex: Tau Empire, …

    FARSIGHT’S COMMANDER TEAM
    When choosing a Farsight Enclaves detachment, you have access to a special unit called Farsight’s Commander Team. …

    DIVERGENT DESTINY
    A Farsight Enclaves detachment cannot include Aun’Va or Commander Shadowsun.”

    Here is where It messes up the C.A.D rules. To use any of these rules your detachment must be a Farsight Enclave detachment. And unlike Iyanden There are a lot of “MUST” in those rules that effect the entire detachment not just the units.

    Example: If I wanted to use the rules for “Battlesuit Spearhead” then I can no longer be a C.A.D because the rule states that I must be a a Farsight Enclaves detachment, and I can no longer have XV8’s in the elite slots. Because the rule effects the entire detachment, and now that I’m a a Farsight Enclaves detachment I have to take everything that I “must” take that comes along with it. IE. “ORK HUNTERS”, “TA’LISSERA BOND” “SIGNATURE SYSTEMS”, “DIVERGENT DEsTINY”. All these rules are detachment wide. You cannot have fire warriors
    without “ORK HUNTERS”, or Units without “TA’LISSERA BOND” that can take them.

    Boy that was Long!! OK, now that I have stated the perceived problem it would not be right or polite not to offer up a possible solution to get ripped apart.
    As the BRB says you can and should create your own detachment types, C.A.D and Allied are just the ones given, so let’s do just that.

    Tournament Primary Detachment:
    Uses Combined Arms Detachment Force Org Chart from BRB.

    Restrictions:
    All units chosen must have the same Codex or be a codex supplement detachment or have no Faction.
    Your Warlord must be in this detachment.
    (I’m not good at rules writing, but I hope you get my meaning)

    Command Benefits:
    Ideal Mission Commander: This is your Primary Detachment, you can choose to re-roll the result on the Warlord Trait table.
    Objective Secured: All Troops units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured special rule. A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.

    Tournament Secondary Detachment
    Uses Allied Detachment Force Org Chart from BRB.

    RESTRICTIONS:
    All units chosen must have the same Codex or be a codex supplement detachment or have no Faction.
    Cannot use secondary detachment if your army has a formation.
    Reference Allies matrix, No Come the apocalypse with Primary Detachment.

    Command Benefits:
    Objective Secured: All Troops units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured special rule. A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.

    And there you have it. This solution allows for the supplements to abide by their rules, also it allows for an elder detachment to ally with an Iyanden army, or a Farsight detachment to aid and regular TAU detachment. It also allows you to ally with yourself without the full C.A.D chart issues. IE. You can’t have 4 SM commanders running around. No one can have more than 3 HQ.

    Sorry if this is too long. Feel free to delete or copy it to the boards.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 20, 2014 2:01 pm #

      Hey Dalamar, thanks for the thoughtful feedback! That was well thought out.

      • Dalamar June 23, 2014 5:14 am #

        Your welcome Reecius, Writing this took me back to my CCG playtesting days of the 90’s.

  13. Tron June 19, 2014 1:57 pm #

    I think you guys hit a home run here, good job!!

  14. Jural June 19, 2014 2:06 pm #

    1st- I salute you for listening to the community and making a change after originally posting a ruling. I like the change, but even if I didn’t, I respect the process.

    2nd- IMHO, this is a good change for all, and a lot of fun. It opens up some CSM and/or ‘Nid fun for certain!

    3rd- I hope I read this wrong and you aren’t setting the LVO in stone just yet. my advice would be to keep LVO fluid on a few points for now and decide how to react after other tournies are complete.

    Finally- I don’t see any mention of the Come the Apocalypse restrictions. Will this be adopted by both groups, only BAO, or has it been removed?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 20, 2014 11:37 am #

      Thank you, sir.

      LVO is going to be like this, but may change in some of the finer details.

      No Come the Apoc for the BAO, but they are allowed at NOVA.

  15. Black Blow Fly June 19, 2014 3:19 pm #

    Always a great thing to see TOs for the major events working together !

  16. Lackluster Batreps June 19, 2014 3:38 pm #

    Good jobs guys. Still not certain about LoWs.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 20, 2014 11:36 am #

      We’ll see, soon. SO far they have been pretty underwhelming.

  17. Chris S June 19, 2014 4:59 pm #

    I’d still like to understand the logic behind Codex Militarum Tempestus somehow existing in a limbo when they tell you right in the book what faction they are.

    • AbusePuppy June 19, 2014 10:21 pm #

      They are not listed as one of the Imperial factions, though they do have their own ally relationship chart.

      • Chris S June 20, 2014 8:16 am #

        True, though all the information is there in their Codex:
        It states that their faction is Militarum Tempestus
        It states that they are battle brothers with Armies of the Imperium, etc.

        Honestly, the only reason that I can come up with why this is an issue in the first place is that a lot of people seem to assume it’s an Astra Militarum supplement, even though it explicitly states otherwise.

        What bothers me about this is that events like the BAO set the tone for all later events and the various TO’s tend to just follow suit with whatever they decided to go with and when they make a ruling like this, going so far as to change an army’s entire faction, it creates more problems then it solves.

        Yes, some stuff needs clarification on things like The Legion of the Damned due to it not listing a faction, the actual supplements due to them interacting oddly with their parental codicies, but I still can’t fathom why the omission of them from the allies chart in the main rulebook suddenly renders a very explicitly worded book somehow questionable.

        • Adam
          Adam June 20, 2014 9:23 am #

          I’m not sure where the confusion is, they even put a catch all in the rulebook to cover things like LatD and MT:

          “In the case of older publications, the Faction of all the units described in a codex is the same as the codex’s title. In the case of codex supplements, the Faction of all the units described in that publication is the same as the codex it is a supplement of. ”

          That said, I would have vastly preferred of those two were treated as the same faction as AM and SM, but we can’t have everything.

          • Chris S June 20, 2014 10:54 am
            #

            My point is that for Militarum Tempestus there shouldn’t even be an issue, it says on page 60 of the Codex that all units in this book have the Militarum Tempestus faction.

            There is no question over what faction they are, it says it right in the book, yet for some reason people seem to be ignoring that.

          • Reecius
            Reecius June 20, 2014 11:34 am
            #

            Hey Chris, yes, it does say that in the book, but, the BRB says also quite clearly which factions are in the game and neither LotD or TM are listed. As the BRB came out after, it is confusing. Further, a lot of things listed in the Codices and Supplements that say something quite clearly the BRB quite clearly contradicts. So when does the BRB override the codex and vice versa? No matter which way you slice it, there are implications that go further than just one book.

            It is not as clear as it may appear at first glance.

  18. Brian June 19, 2014 5:09 pm #

    So happy about this, though you guys sold me on the 40k friendly event anyway. I really prefer this approach, excited to see what armies make it into the BAO.

  19. kalhoun June 19, 2014 6:06 pm #

    I’m 100% hip to the conjured units clarifications. That makes a lot of sense from a fluff perspective as well as neutering potential abuse.
    If they’re not from any detatchment, are they still scoring? Just checking.

    • AbusePuppy June 19, 2014 10:22 pm #

      All units, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are scoring.

  20. Japatoes June 20, 2014 1:13 am #

    Do Knights count as their own Detachment too?

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 20, 2014 9:59 am #

      Yes, see pg 118 of the BRB.

  21. Baal Viper June 20, 2014 4:49 am #

    Great format guys. Reecius thank you so much for putting in the time and effort to poll the community, talk to the NOVA people, and come up with some clear guidelines on how we are going to approach organized 40k.

    You are a great asset to the community at large, even over hear on the East Coast.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 20, 2014 9:59 am #

      Thanks! Much appreciated, Baal Viper.

  22. Derrick June 20, 2014 5:09 am #

    Perhaps this was answered earlier and I was to lazy to read ever comment. With maelstrom mission points being tallied at the end of the turn, doesn’t that put even greater power in fast moving “objective secured” units, such as jet bikes? I go first and move a Land raider out to secure objective “X”, and my opponent can go second, turbo boost a jetbike to it and “steal” it because the points are tallied at the end of each turn, not each player turn?

    • dr.insanotron June 20, 2014 5:58 am #

      Sure but what if the jetbikes have first turn. its pretty easy to kill one unit of jetbikes. Also that would mean the jetbike player has to expose them to enemy fire early in the game witch is the opposite of there normal strategy of late game contesting/scoring.

      • Reecius
        Reecius June 20, 2014 11:35 am #

        Exactly. The progressive scoring means you have to expose your scoring assets earlier in the game. Jetbikes are still awesome, no doubt, but now you have to think about how you use them.

  23. Chuck June 20, 2014 8:09 am #

    My only question about this setup is does this supersede the SM FAQ about self-allying?

    “Space marines can be taken in an Allied Detachment (see page 122 of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules) even if your army’s Primary Detachment contains units with the Space Marines Faction, provided that they have a different set of Chapter Tactics.”

    So according to that, SM can self-ally but *only* if they have different chapter tactics. With your new ruling about everyone being able to self-ally, is that still the case (i.e. SM have to have different chapter tactics to self-ally), or are you overwriting that and just allowing them to generically self-ally, the way everyone else can?

    It’s a minor thing, but might come up in list building.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 20, 2014 1:57 pm #

      Yes, you can self-ally. Space Marines (or anyone) can have an allied detachment that is the same faction as the CAD.

  24. Agateszor June 20, 2014 9:04 am #

    I am glad you have seen the light and now allow this.

  25. CNitram June 20, 2014 9:11 am #

    http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?394043-Ork-Rumours-MorK-II/page97

    BL put up the ork codex for download early by mistake, a few people were able to get it before GW fixed it.

  26. onecrazymojo June 20, 2014 12:25 pm #

    What exactly is the issue with double CAD as opposed to CAD+ally? All the abuses possible in double CAD still exist in CAD+ally. 6 foc slots aren’t much better than 3+1 when you have point restrictions, particularly when double CAD has an additional troop tax. Which in the end, means double CAD would be no worse, and often less abusive than CAD+ally since it requires that additional tax.

    • winterman June 20, 2014 1:44 pm #

      Additional troop tax? You mean taking more of the stuff that wins games in 7ed? It’s also not much of a tax when the cost/benefit ratio is so favorable.

      3 min warrior + scythe units for 4 Anni barges VS 4 min warrior + scythe units for 6 Anni barges. I just got more bang for my buck with dual CAD. And I have better scoring to boot.

      The point is moot though. This isn’t about curbing abuse, this is about appeasing attendees. The community is split 50/50 on army build restrcitions. So a compromise is in the best interests of all involved.

    • Jural June 20, 2014 3:41 pm #

      Well, it opens up silly things like 4 minimum cultist squads, two minimum lords and 6 Helldrakes.

      Or four flyrants, minimum gaunt squads, and 6 units of zoanthropes.

      Not that the above are necessarily overpowered, but the move from spam 3 to spam 6 (or 2 to 4) is quite big for some armies, and the intermediate step of CAD + allies seems to help there.

      HOWEVER- I dislike that now Chaos Daemons can ally with themselves and bring 8 3 WC heralds to the table. Granted that’s 1030 points, but with all of them summoning, ther potential exists for things to get out of hand… a nice houserule might be that only one detachment of CD can benefit from the 4 herald/ one HQ rule, or alternately return it to primary detachment only status.

  27. Marko June 20, 2014 7:14 pm #

    Much better than the original thing you had on the podcast and makes much more sense.

    each detachment comes from 1 book only

  28. michael June 21, 2014 9:19 am #

    Are the Necrons allowed to take any of their lords of war choices? I don’t see the transcendent Ctan or the Pylon on this list!

  29. Wargamer Shawn June 24, 2014 6:05 am #

    Hey Reece,
    I noticed the Scythed Heirodule is on the list, but not the Barbed Heirodule… I think the Barbed Heirodule is more balanced – yeah it has S10 shots, but only ap3 and BS 3, with less attacks. The hellstorm template can be devestating on the Scythed.. So what is the reasoning for not including the Barbed Heirodule? I personally think they are both okay and both not as bad as a Stompa which is on the list to.. Just a question. A local league that I started we are voting on stuff to include, but we have agreed that the Barbed is okay too… Thanks for your time.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 24, 2014 9:28 am #

      Hey Shawn, yeah, it should be the Barbed Heirodule, not the version with the Hellstrom template. It may be a typo, thank you for pointing it out.

      • Wargamer Shawn June 24, 2014 9:44 am #

        Cool Reese Thanks… We just had our first tourney this last
        saturday. Good turnout – Chris M from Adepticon won best general. But we all enjoyed your battlemats… thanks again…

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

          Awesome, glad to hear it!

Leave a Reply