LVO 2015 40k Poll Results


In our time honored tradition, we always poll our attendees about their experience at one of our events and then share those results! It has proven to be a great tool for growth for Frontline Gaming, but, it also provides good feedback for the community as well, in regards to trends in the 40k crowd. While the poll covered a lot of territory about the event, venue, and the overall experience, this article will focus on the 40k Champs portion of the poll. The TOs for the various individual events have all gotten their specific feedback to use to grow!

We got over a 20% response rate on the poll, which was awesome! That is good feedback on something like this and represents a good chunk of our attendees.

The first, and most important question is the simplest: did you enjoy yourself at the event? We are VERY pleased with this feedback. The funny thing too, is that the 1 no vote, gave all positive feedback in other categories, so I am pretty sure it was an accident, but, hey, 1 out of 219 isn’t bad at all!

Preview of your graph

This next question focuses on the 40k Championships event itself. Did the players in this event enjoy themselves? Again, overwhelmingly positive feedback, which is fantastic. Only 1 person reported not having fun, and most loved it! Awesome. We see that we have room to get better, you always do, but this is great feedback.

Preview of your graph

The question of the number of detachments is always a hot topic in 7th ed, but, it appears our attendees want to keep things essentially as they have been, which is 2 detachments with restrictions, meaning no duplicate detachments. The next closest was the vote for 3 detachments with restrictions, but still a fairly distant second. What this means to me, is that more folks want two detachments than 3 regardless of limitations (74 for 2 vs. 63 for 3), and that more folks want to see limitations on detachments than not (107 for limitations on detachments vs. 30 for none). I was a little surprised about this as I felt 3 detachments may have won out, but, am glad we’re sticking with 2 as I prefer that format, personally. Restricting duplicates on detachments is also important, IMO, as it means we won’t see doubling down on very powerful formations.

Preview of your graph

The always contentious rules changes we implement for the ITC have been hotly debated in the past, but, as the numbers have shown, the majority of players support toning down these rules. For those that don’t know, we alter the 2+ reroll save to a 2+ followed by a 4+ (reducing the odds from 1/36 chance of failure to 1/12) and altering Invisibility to hitting the invisible unit on 5’s in combat and BS1.

Preview of your graph

Lords of War, another hot topic this edition, have largely been accepted in our format. However, we are always open to discussing altering the restricted list. The issue of the day was ranged D, as many players had brought it up. As can be seen in this graph, players would like to see more restrictions on which LoW are in their game.

Preview of your graph

A few folks have brought up the issue of the ITC format and scoring missions, as a player that wins First Blood and the Primary, can only tie the overall mission in the worst case scenario. We asked what folks thought about it to get a feel for the overall trend on this topic. The most players wanted to see the format kept as is, however, a total of 111 players (vs 60 to keep it) wanted to see some type of change. We therefore may need to take a closer look at slightly tweaking our mission format.

Preview of your graph

This question pertains largely to the ITC format events which track and award points for those players that perform best with specific factions. However, as more and more sub-Codex factions come out (such as Scions, Assassins, etc.) tracking all this data gets increasingly complex. So, we asked our attendees how they’d like to track it.

Preview of your graph

This question also largely pertains to the LVO format for determining which detachment in your army counts for score keeping purposes. Gamers, being gamers, have been gaming the format to count as a certain faction even if they do not have a majority of points in that detachment. Some players have brought this up, so we asked how to handle it. As can be seen, most players want to see it simple and kept to whichever detachment has the warlord, but a sizable number did want to see it go to the detachment with the most points, which is logical but it creates another layer of bookkeeping that would have to occur and would get very time consuming.

Preview of your graph

The one question I forgot to ask as I was very busy with moving, was if players wanted to keep Come the Apocalypse allies in ITC style events. A large number of players expressed distaste with CtA allies (myself included) and would like to see them removed from the 40k Championships event. We will have to include that question in the ITC format poll going out this week which will guide our decisions for shaping ITC policy for the next year season!


About Reecius

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

212 Responses to “LVO 2015 40k Poll Results”

  1. DCannon4Life March 11, 2015 4:53 am #

    To the last one (Primary Faction); Perhaps a consequence of taking mixed armies (with Come-the-Apocalypse Allies, for example) where each detachment is about as large as the other (or where it is just unclear what ‘kind’ of army it is) could be that the player is not eligible for ‘Best X’ awards.

    You want to be Best ‘Nids? Bring ‘Nids. You want to be Best ‘Crons? Bring ‘Crons. /shrug

    • Rushputin March 11, 2015 7:31 am #

      For that matter, is it unreasonable to require that your primary faction be _both_ the detachment with your Warlord _and_ the detachment with the most points?

      I mean, it’s your primary detachment; IMO it should both be the largest detachment and contain the guy calling the shots.

      • Reecius March 11, 2015 8:57 am #

        I agree that that is not unreasonable at all, the issue then becomes how do you track that data accurately over a large number of players? We have no way of doing that at present.

        • DarkLink March 11, 2015 9:00 am #

          Agreed, in a perfect world it would be ideal, but it’s difficult to actually enforce.

          I would be OK with saying you must play a pure army from a single codex to get best of.

          • Andrew March 11, 2015 10:01 am

            as far as tracking it, can’t you have the players do it for you as part of inputting their score electronically? under all those boxes we clicked (who won first blood, who slayed the warlord, etc.) add a box for “was your opponent’s list legal” or “was you opponent’s warlord in the detachment with the most points”?

          • Reecius March 11, 2015 10:21 am

            Yeah, good suggestion, we do that informally now, but, really checking a list for accuracy takes quite a bit of time and you have to have all of the reference material on hand.

            Really, the holy grail is a cloud based list submission and verification system. That way every player has a profile when they register along with their list. That’s where it’s at, and that is the goal we should strive for as that fixes damn near every issue and it gives a complete index of army lists as people are always curious to see what lists everyone took.

          • Andrew March 11, 2015 10:38 am

            an automated verification or crowdsourced verification? Automated would be cool but far more complex, whereas crowdsourced would be simpler but require other logistics (e.g. requiring a list submission deadline with no grace afterwards so that lists could be released for public scrutiny without people gaming the system). Actually as far as gaming the system by seeing other people’s lists I think the bigger the tournament the less you have to worry about that.

          • Kartr March 11, 2015 3:26 pm

            Too bad Battle Scribe doesn’t have a tournament mode where you can input your list on the organizers website and it checks it automatically. BattleScribe+Torrent of Fire essentially.

        • Wintertalon March 11, 2015 12:20 pm #

          Shouldn’t the warlord be Stated in the army list people turn in to you guys before the tournament?

          I think you check the list for point cost before hand? It would be really easy to check that as well as it should be listed.

          When people turn in the points for the round you can have them say what there opponents Primary army and Warlord was or something. I now it is More paper work for you and some computer programing but it would work I think.

          • Reecius March 11, 2015 3:11 pm

            Checking upwards of 300 lists would take hours, it simply doesn’t work out, logistically. We’d have to do some form of automated, or crowd-sourced checking system.

        • Adam ( March 11, 2015 2:38 pm #

          The problem is that you cannot force someone to take their warlord out of the same detachment each game.

          If I have a Flesh Tearers detachment, plus a Necron Decurion detachment, there is nothing stopping me from having a BA model be my warlord one game and a necron model being warlord the next…

          Saying it has to be your warlords detachment just doesn’t work…

          • AbusePuppy March 11, 2015 4:33 pm

            Yes there is- the rules. Your warlord selection is part of your army creation choices; it cannot change from game to game.

          • Kartr March 12, 2015 12:43 pm

            No it’s not Abuse Puppy, the only restriction on warlord during army creation is that it can never come from an allied formation.

          • AbusePuppy March 12, 2015 1:06 pm

            Yes. And since the warlord is selected as part of your army list, you cannot change it between rounds of a tournament.

      • IndigoJack March 11, 2015 2:37 pm #

        I’m not on board with primary detachment being both the one with the most points and warlord. I’ve played GKs since 3rd edition, and an inquisitor had always led them. If my warlord has to come from the detachment with the most points, this would not be possible anymore. Inquisitors can lead, IG, space marines, and any other imperial army that exists and it would be fluffy. If primary detachment being fewer points and secondary detachment is in contention for fluff reasons, this is a good example of a counter-point based in fluff.

        • Kartr March 12, 2015 12:47 pm #

          Forcing the primary to include your warlord is a bit much, but your primary should be your army with the most points. If you have GK led by an Inquisitor you’re not an Inquisitorial army your a GK army.

    • Logan March 11, 2015 7:58 am #

      I agree! I seen several lists that had a Primary detachment with less than 850pts assigned to it, and let the allies do all the work. How can a list like that qualify for “Best of X” or even qualify for ITC Points.

      • Adam ( March 11, 2015 2:40 pm #

        Not to mention that your Primary Detachment can change from game to game, so long as you’re not using an Allied detachment…

        Want to win best CSM? Take an HQ and 2 units of cultists along side your better army, and who is going to enforce that your CSM HQ is your warlord every round? Policing that seems far more difficult than just knowing which detachment has more points.

        • DCannon4Life March 11, 2015 3:05 pm #

          Dirty. Cruel. Underhanded. But also right to the point: Perhaps only ‘pure’ armies should be eligible for ‘Best Of’ awards. Pretty darn easy to keep track of.

          • Adam ( March 11, 2015 3:09 pm

            That’s not a bad idea, except it means you can never win Best Imperial Knights, unless you only play with 5 Errants, or by a couple hundred point handicap, haha.

        • winterman March 11, 2015 4:58 pm #

          Neither your warlord or primary detachment can change from game to game in 7ed. It is part of list building like selecting units and upgrades and the like.

  2. Loopy March 11, 2015 5:16 am #

    Looking good! Just have to figure out what Traitor Legions counts as. LOL!

    • Nova star March 11, 2015 6:29 am #

      There Faction would be “Traitor Legions” lol. For now if say all HOrus Heresy armies would be lumped with the mini dexes only because the player base isn’t nearly as big as 40k

      • Loopy March 11, 2015 7:37 pm #

        Derp. I meant traitor guard.

  3. Cavalier March 11, 2015 7:27 am #

    I really hope you guys don’t go with banning ranged d-weapons as I think is targeted at banning the Lynx which while awesome is not gaming changing. I think this is fueled by the perception that Eldar are somehow still “king of the hill” which to me is ridiculous rhetoric that is about a year and half past dead in terms of having any credibility (just look at the top 10 at the LVO). It puts the weight of LOW firmly in the hands of Imperial and Tyranid armies which with all their formation and allies combinations for the Imperial players should have no problem dealing with accepted ranged d-weapons particularly the Lynx.

    • z3n1st March 11, 2015 7:37 am #


    • Logan March 11, 2015 8:01 am #

      Here is my thing with Ranged D. Either introduce more Range D or none at all. I’m already a firm believer that the current ITC rules favor Eldar a lot, now your giving them access to the only Range D in the list of allowed LoWs.

      • z3n1st March 11, 2015 8:23 am #

        lol, how is the format favoring Eldar? If anything it favors imperial armies and nids (the two armies that have received the most dataslates/formations to date). Also its probably good to note that at least HALF of the people that voted down the D, couldn’t have played against it at LVO (there was what maybe 8 players with Ranged D in total? 6-7 Lynx, a Cobra and a Fort). Most likely the people that voted it down wanted to keep their deathstars intact, and saw the D as counter to their super units.

        • Logan March 11, 2015 8:52 am #

          The ITC Favoring Eldar is more of a byassed opinion πŸ˜€

          My issue isn’t just the Range D, but the platform its on. Eldar have the Holo-Fied, can easily Twin-Link the D without psychic powers, 1 has the option to fly off the table if needed.

          Having Range D on a vehicle that can sit on a Sky Shield landing pad for a 4++, forces you to hit twice both in shooting and CC, and can easily TL is a bit much. I don’t think Range D on a fortification is bad. It lacks defense except for the -1pen and AV15 and it can’t move. Depending on the terrain, it might not even be able to see since it doesn’t have barrage.

          • Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 12:37 pm

            Seconded. More importantly why do we need ranged d? Does it make the game more fun or more competitive? This edition becomes more & more like 2nd where you don’t have squads or many models, just a few big expensive toys.

        • Ciaran March 11, 2015 2:00 pm #

          I lost 2 knights in 2 turns to the cobra. Its super fun to pick up 800 points in models with no recourse.

          • DCannon4Life March 11, 2015 3:08 pm

            Yeah, and it’s super fun to get ‘stuck’ in combat with a unit that’s going to stomp you to death over the next 1 or 2 close combat phases too, because you happen to be Fearless (and therefore Dumb).

            Knights have the same capacity to make people pick up models with no recourse. Perhaps ban D altogether or else bring a variety of D into the game?

      • Reecius March 11, 2015 8:45 am #

        I think the Lynx is the main target of that topic as it is so points efficient and the most easily acquired ranged D slanger.

        • z3n1st March 11, 2015 11:25 am #

          And that is exactly why it is biased against Eldar, whom really have no LoW options but ones with D to speak of.

          • Reecius March 11, 2015 11:41 am

            Any rule will impact armies differently as they are all different. There is not much we can do about that.

          • Adam ( March 11, 2015 2:42 pm

            Yeah… Plus out of the whole event, only 1 lynx made it to the top 8? Clearly they were dominating, haha.

        • John Parsons March 11, 2015 11:35 am #

          So my thing about ranged d (I played eldar at lvo) is your only interaction when a lynx rolls a 6 is picking up the model off the table. My opponent got 2 d shots off over the course of a 5 turn game, now that was not what caused me to lose that super close game, and it was easy to recover from 1 d, but 2 really really hurt. At least you get coversaves from wraith cannon shots, and they cant instantly remove vehicles from the game. This especially hurt at the end of the game which we were playing for top 8.

          Never at any point did I think a lynx eldar list would have won the gt, you cant base your list around a lynx and go 9 rounds in a major gt by hoping to roll 6s, but you sure will spoil alot of other lists.

          I am honestly ok with lords of war in the format, My list could handle them, and they can be played around. I do think that ranged d is bad for the competitive game on the basis that it removes skill and strategy when major shifts in the game can be decided by a single die roll of a 6

          • Wintertalon March 11, 2015 12:29 pm

            I agree with this. Some army’s don’t even have D in combat let alone shooting. I am a strong believer that AV 15 building should not be aloud either in that regard.

            I don’t have like the power of d weapons personally but I can work around the close combat ones. When one role of a 6 can kill anything from across the table and you have no protection it make for a extremely unfunny game.

          • Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 12:38 pm

            I to agree with this as well also. Whoever this John Parsons guy is he seems to know his stuff.

    • Clayton March 11, 2015 8:56 am #


    • Cavalier March 12, 2015 2:36 am #

      It just seems like a vote designed to stack the odds against Eldar having access to a LOW, while protecting the ever expanding range of LOW for Imperial players or simply those that are collecting the knights.

      It just sucks that unit combinations like Red Scorpions and Grey knights with auto-invisible, teleporting Centurions will never even sniff the ban hammer, while the one LOW the tourney consensus allows Eldar players is gonna be out the door after only a single season.

      Just from where I sit it doesn’t seem to be a game balance issue but stacking the odds against an army with a bad reputation. Of course I’m not blaming the tourney organizers (you guys) just the way the vote went.

      • John Parsons March 12, 2015 4:15 am #

        Eldar don’t need lords of war to make to do well, I know tyler was the only eldar player to make it into the top 8, but Ben Cromwell and myself were also 5-0 with single cad eldar (no allies, no fortifactions, and no lords of war). I also played tyler for entry in the top 8, so one eldar player was going to knock another one out.

        • Cavalier March 12, 2015 6:06 am #

          No doubt but to have the option taken away in ever escalating arms race, seems a bit short sighted after only a single season especially when its impact is hardly game changing.

          • John Parsons March 12, 2015 10:58 am

            I would be ok with losing the lynx, I think its bad for game balance…

  4. Julnlecs March 11, 2015 7:31 am #

    I say keep CtA allies. I don’t use them but I know many who do and it would suck to buy a whole new army if their CtA allies part becomes invalid.

    • Reecius March 11, 2015 8:44 am #

      That is a good point, and one we have considered, too. However, a lot of people are tired of seeing some of the more insane combos like Daemons and Nids, Nids and Tau, etc. which just make no sense from a fluff perspective.

      • Ghost Valley March 11, 2015 11:23 am #

        Restrictions seem to help encourage variety, it seems to me. I’d be happy with no CtA

        • Reecius March 11, 2015 11:40 am #

          I agree. The paradox is that restrictions force creativity, but a lot of folks don’t grasp that concept.

          • Ghost Valley March 11, 2015 11:50 am

            I think all the different armies at LVO help to prove that.

            I always think about old Star Wars Trilogy vs the Prequels.
            They had to change and adapt their story to the limiting factors of technology at the time and that forced real creativity to shine through. Decades later, when “CGI has finally caught up to my imagination” , old George vomited out some of the worst crap put to film.

          • Reecius March 11, 2015 3:26 pm

            Lol, good analogy! But yeah, we’ve had really solid diversity at our events.

          • Maelstorm March 11, 2015 12:12 pm

            I’d vote to go a step further:

            * No Come the Apocalypse Allies.
            * No Battle Brothers Allies (becomes Allies of Convenience).

            Much more balance across the entire range of codex armies – everybody wins.

            2015 LVO is the best tournament event I’ve ever attended…

          • Reecius March 11, 2015 3:22 pm

            Glad you enjoyed it!

          • AbusePuppy March 11, 2015 4:38 pm

            Why not take it a step beyond that?

            No Come the Apocalypse allies (it’s unfluffy for them to ever work together.)
            No Desperate Allies (they would be too likely to turn on each other and besides they were bad in 6E so they should be bad in 7E also.)
            No Convenient Allies (most armies have too many of them and it biases things against the Imperium if they are allowed.)
            No Battle Brothers (there are too many rules abuses possible and it can be very confusing to keep everything straight.)
            No models from the same detachment (because we’ve banned everything else, so why not?)

        • AbusePuppy March 12, 2015 7:31 am #

          Only up to a point, though. “No models that aren’t Toughness 5” doesn’t really encourage creativity, it just stifles it.

      • John Parsons March 12, 2015 4:18 am #

        CTA allies are great for game balance, sure it makes no sense from a fluff perspective, but this is a GT and fluff should not matter here. The goal is for the most lucky skilled player to win the event, not the most fluffiest player. There are plenty of fluff centric events all over the country.

        CTA make it so a powerful list can not just power you through a gt like say in 5th when as a gk player all you had to worry about was the mirror match. Now every list has a bad matchups, there are just too many lists to effectively counter during the list building process.

        This game is now more skill based then ever before, you have to be able to play around bad or average matchups and will not always be able to rely on your list to carry you.

  5. Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 7:34 am #

    I think formations & specialized detachments which are not required to take a codex (ex inquisition) should be banned. They were originally allowed because of nids but with the new nid releases, which should have been in the dex originally, they do not need them.

    • Wintertalon March 11, 2015 7:45 am #

      Not true Several of the formation are not in the new release, Like living artillery or bio blast. I think the CAD= Leviathan should be looked at. Other then that you would be taking away build option. And those option are not that overpowering ether.

      • Reecius March 11, 2015 8:46 am #

        I think at this juncture, the main issue is with the Leviathon formation, as you pointed out.

        • Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 11:15 am #

          What’s the point of any kind of force org chart now? There are already so many formations & detachments. Who can keep track of all their various special rules & who can tell how they interact with the other vague madness that already exists? The CAD will be pointless & obsolete if it isn’t already for may 7th codexes + nids.

          While we are at it let’s ban daemon summoning.

          • Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 11:16 am

            *many 7th Ed codexes

          • Reecius March 11, 2015 11:40 am

            A convoluted as things are now, I assure you they go 100x worse with unbound, though!

          • Hotsauceman1 March 11, 2015 11:58 am

            Because, several armies may only have one formation or two.
            My tax have one
            my am have like 3
            my guard have 2.

          • Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 12:08 pm

            I agree that’s why we need to ban formations. I don’t envy any TO or rules judge going forward. Tournaments used to be more restrictive & I’m just grasping at straws for reasons to stay in the competitive scene or the hobby at all. I feel like I cannot play the type of army I want to play or the kind of game I enjoy. I remember when tabling someone was rare, but it has become common place.

          • Kartr March 11, 2015 1:22 pm

            The combinations are what make it interesting and diverse. You start dumping too many variables and you wind up with cookie cutter lists. Plus if you restrict it to CAD only then no one will ever be able to play certain armies like Inquisition or Harlies.

            You can always play the kind of army you want, all you have to do is learn how to overcome any obstacle with the tools you have. If you can’t adapt and overcome maybe war games aren’t for you.

          • Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 1:48 pm

            You’re right I should just quit

  6. Wintertalon March 11, 2015 7:41 am #

    I am not rally surprised at the results to tell the truth. The one I am most interested is the CtA allies question as well.

    I gladly see the raged D weapons disappear. Other wise I like the LOW for the most part.

    The Missions could have a slight change. Maybe swap out first blood for that Big game Hunter rule you posted about earlier for a couple of the mission. Now picking which ones to do that on is a question. I am thinking the kill point mission for sure. The other ones not so sure about.

    Looking forward to the other poll coming out soon.

    • Reecius March 11, 2015 8:48 am #

      Yeah, it is largely business as usual, which is good in that it means folks like the ways things are being done, now. I feel stupid for forgetting CtA, but, I was just a bit overwhelmed.

      Loopy’s Big Game Hunter suggestion was pretty cool though, I agree.

      • tag March 12, 2015 2:34 pm #

        We sometimes run Big Game Hunter (We call it Dragonslayer) instead of First Blood. I like it much, much better.

        Such a change offsets the innate advantage of going 1st, and thus scoring Maelstrom at the End of the Player turn rather than game turn becomes more viable.

        It is also a minor nerf to the super mobile / shooty armies that tend to win in the LVO mission set. It gives armies like Orks, IG, and Chaos Space Marines a bit more of a chance, and creates a minor dis-insensitive to large LOW or deathstars.

  7. tag March 11, 2015 7:55 am #

    A couple things you may not have considered.
    2 Detachments with Restrictions means to me that people would like 2 Detachments, but only one CAD or CAD-like Detachment. AKA an end to the 3 Hive Tyrants in every army build that was so amazingly common. At our events we are going to start allowing 4 detachments, but only one of them can be a “Major detachment” which we classify as CAD or CAD-like codex specific, and maintain a list. Hive Fleet is on the list.

    How to determine the primary Faction is a false choice. The way we will be doing it at our events in the future is that the largest detachment MUST contain your warlord, and MUST be your Primary detachment. This makes army lists make more sense while not adding the book-keeping that you are worried about, and making Faction classification super-easy.

    • Reecius March 11, 2015 8:51 am #

      Fair points, but, the “major” faction still may not have the most points. Some formations are much larger than a CAD has to be. The issue folks had was with a small detachment with the warlord in an army that had most of its points in another faction.

      However, as I always say, do what makes sense for your local meta. If your crew wants to play a certain way, go for it!

      • tag March 11, 2015 9:18 am #

        If someone is running Ad Lance (approx 1100 points), and a Blood Angel’s CAD (approx 750 points left), does it seem that the “Primary Detachment” is AD Lance or Blood Angels? Because to me it is AD Lance, no doubt about it. So if they had to make a Knight their warlord it would make sense, and would completely solve your concerns regarding classifying armies by Faction.

        I also don’t have any problem with that army construction, Formation + Major Detachment is fine. I object only to Major Detachment + Major Detachment, or to a Smaller Detachment that contains the warlord.

        • Reecius March 11, 2015 9:41 am #

          And again, I agree that that is a totally reasonable statement. However, how do you track all of that data over a thousand+ players? I am not saying it is impossible at all, just that we are not equipped at present to do so.

          • tag March 11, 2015 10:00 am

            I’m missing something, I thought my suggestion was one where you needed to track less/the same amount of data.

            What data is difficult to track?

          • Reecius March 11, 2015 10:18 am

            How many points are in each detachment, it would (possibly) get very cumbersome.

          • tag March 11, 2015 10:57 am

            Do you track how many points are in people’s armies? No, you just set a size, and then it is up to opponents to verify it.

            The same deal for the allowed LOW choices, and the 2 detachment limit. Its a rule that is set, but not tracked or verified by you.

          • Reecius March 11, 2015 11:33 am

            Fair enough, but, it is another failure point in data tracking if a mistake is made.

          • Adam ( March 11, 2015 2:45 pm

            Also, you’re not tracking each game to find out who the warlord is… In this example, the person could easily go between the Ad Lance and the BA for who their warlord is, just picking whichever benefits them the most that game.

          • Reecius March 11, 2015 4:04 pm

            Yeah, but people could also bring multiple lists, too. We assume players are playing by the rules.

          • tag March 11, 2015 2:51 pm

            The failure point is already there (Warlord Designation). Adding a second criteria for a primary detachment just adds a double check.

            Imagine you do decide to verify primary faction at some point. Would it be easier looking through a printout of a list from Battlescribe or Army builder, and finding the warlord designation, or to glace at detachment header and know exactly what is the primary faction?

          • Reecius March 11, 2015 4:09 pm

            I don’t want to check 300 lists at all, for anything, haha, it takes so bloody long at events that we literally schedule to the minute. Logistically it doesn’t work to do it at the event for a large event, there simply isn’t time. And, the other problem, is that if the TOs make a mistake and miss something (highly probable when checking that many lists) the weight of responsibility of a player writing an illegal list is now on the TOs, which is silly. Players should be responsible for their own lists.

            Again, the way to handle it, IMO, is to have a way to upload lists and peer review them. Or have an accurate web based list builder where players log in and write their lists on them which also verifies accuracy. However, that would be pretty complex.

          • Adam ( March 11, 2015 8:08 pm

            Yeah a system to verify that would be horrendously complex. But verifying that the person who is claiming to be best ______ wouldn’t be nearly as difficult. There isn’t a huge need to verify every single list, anyone who wants to win best ______ will want to have a valid list or they won’t get the award.

          • Bellerah March 12, 2015 9:16 am

            Easy, when they write there army primary and secondary detachments on your sheet, they put the point value of each detachment. If the primary is not the most points they are simply not eligibility . You then only have to check eligibility in the event they win, so you are only checking a handful of lists.

          • Reecius March 12, 2015 10:48 am

            The only issue is that you assume everyone actually does this =) You would be amazed at how many folks come to events unprepared without having read all the guidelines. It is a matter of enforcing it that becomes difficult. If someone registers as an Eldar faction player, but actually has more points in Dark Eldar (or whatever) and doesn’t know they made a mistake, they will go through the entire tournament having played it wrong, and then how do we correct it after the fact? If later on, someone finds this mistake, people will get upset and want to revoke prizes retroactively, etc. It becomes a huge mess. You have to be able to verify these things in advance to really have them be effective.

          • tag March 12, 2015 2:20 pm

            In 1,000 lists, there might be 2-3 where the player doesn’t know which detachment is larger. Meanwhile there are probably 80 that have more than 2 sources, 15 that are taking a warlord from an allied detachment, 100 that have the wrong number of total points. 30 that have some illegal forgeworld unit / LOW. 50 that have some error in a formation.

            When it comes to list building error it is trivial. When it comes to list building rationality it is significant. When it comes to Faction Identification it is gigantic. It even has subtle bonuses for interactive (fun) gameplay.

            When I look at it the upside of requiring the warlord be chosen from the largest detachment is much, much bigger than the downside. If you disagree, maybe you could use the same question for faction identification in your next poll, but include this as an option and see what you attendees think.

  8. Logan March 11, 2015 8:13 am #

    I was really hoping to allow 3 detachments. With more Sub-Codexes and Factions popping up, just allowing 2 detachements has become to limiting. My suggestion would be something like this.

    0-3 CAD or Codex Detachment
    0-3 Ally Detachment (maybe still allow self ally)
    0-3 Formation (allow repeats)
    0-3 Special Detachment (Inq, Harlies, Assassin, IK)

    Then you can pick and choose how you want 3 detachment.
    Example 1: Nid CAD1, Nid CAD2, Nid CAD3
    Example 2: Leviathan, LAN1 (Living Artillery Node), LAN2
    Example 3: LAN1, LAN2, Skyblight Swarm
    Example 4: Nid CAD1, Nid Ally, Nid Ally

    • Reecius March 11, 2015 8:54 am #

      I think the examples you make are exactly what most folks don’t want to see based off of the data we got. You are free to play as you choose, of course, but based off of the feedback we consistently get, players do not want to see that much opportunity for repetition in list building.

      • Logan March 11, 2015 9:32 am #

        The major thing with Detachements is you always have a Tax. Even if you do all Ally Detachements, you have to at least have 3 Troops, same as CADs have the Troop Tax. Then we also have things like formations that have a Tax on upgrades or units that your normally wont use, ie LAN (100pt Warrior Tax and if they die you lose the special rules).

        Also, some formations aren’t that cheap. If you decided to use multiple formations you’re hurting yourself in possible objective grabbers for both primary and secondary missions.

        The current 2 Detachment really help’s Imperial armies, who have access to EVERY Imperial Codex to pick allies. With other armies (Orks and Nids mostly), I sit down and I wish I can take a CAD, and 2 Formations to even come close to feel that I can handle a little bit of everything.

        • Reecius March 11, 2015 9:44 am #

          Fair points. But increasing the detachment limit also boosts Imperial armies who have access to the most options (as you noted) and also the most low cost detachments such as Assassins, Inquisition, etc. They increase in power, too, so for me it is not convincing that more detachments=more balance. In fact, I actually believe the opposite. The more options you give for list building, the higher the number of variables, the great the chance for uber combos to appear.

          Formations may have a tax, true, but the fact that you see them so frequently and that some of them are so incredibly powerful more than makes up for this. For example, I hardly think taking two Necron Canoptek Formations is in any way a disadvantage due to the “tax” involved. If a Formation is good, then increasing the number of them will almost always increase the efficacy of them as well.

        • Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 12:42 pm #

          So the tax for taking 3 flyrants is 45pts of mucolids? You are wrong because many formations now don’t have a tax & just give out free rules to already effective units.

          • Reecius March 11, 2015 3:22 pm

            True, the “tax” in may formations isn’t actually a tax at all. Many of them are all, only good stuff.

          • Jural March 11, 2015 3:41 pm

            Some of the first ‘nid formations did a good job with “tax units”, especially when you weren’t allowed to ally with yourself.

            I haven’t really seen much of that since… And I have no clue what GW was thinking with Leviathan and the 3 HQ, Spore mine as troop era…

      • Jural March 11, 2015 11:12 am #

        I think people don’t want to play against 5 HT, a malanthrope, and a barbed hierodule, plus 30 points in troops. Since that’s possible with 2 sources already, I’m not seeing Nids as the best example for moving from 2–>3 sources πŸ˜‰

        I’m not sure what they were thinking with the latest ‘nid additions. They basically just scream “ignore troops, spam Hive Tyrants.” And we were off to such a promising start with the new pods…

        • Reecius March 11, 2015 11:39 am #

          Yeah, exactly. MCs should take cover saves like vehicles, not like infantry. It’s just silly to see a giant monster with the back edge of his base barely touching cover and he has a cover save.

          • Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 12:43 pm

            So change the rule. GW says play how u want.

          • Reecius March 11, 2015 3:21 pm

            It’s not a dictatorship =)

          • Kartr March 11, 2015 1:32 pm

            I concur, change MCs to cover the way vehicles do.

          • z3n1st March 11, 2015 2:19 pm

            as much as my Wraithknights love their cover saves, I have to agree here, it seems silly that the dreadnought that is 4 inches shorter doesn’t have cover but the towering construct does.

          • DCannon4Life March 11, 2015 3:13 pm

            I apologize every time I stick a sliver of a Wraithknight’s base into a ruin. Then I make 4+ saves like nobody’s business.


            FMC’s that aren’t flying shouldn’t get to jink–Jump Infantry seem like they’re equivalent and they don’t get to.

            MC’s in general should gain cover saves the way vehicles do (25% obscured).

          • Jural March 11, 2015 3:39 pm

            Yeah, I’m with you on the GMC, but I look at my list of Tervigons, Exocrine, Spores, Dakkafexes, Mawlocs, etc and I know that they will never see the table if true LOS is in play. AP3 and better is too prevalent, STR 7 and higher is too prevalent, and in most cases they aren;t doing too much in melee…

            You can argue they should be with a Venom or Malan, but then you are forcing the whole army to play as a deathstar (or two)… which is really lame.

            I would be interested to see how many people have had actual issues with the normal MC’s in cover as opposed to the FMC and GMC…

          • Andrew March 12, 2015 11:18 am

            I think the problem with MC’s (as opposed to GMC’s) taking cover like vehicles is that MC’s are so variable. Like Jural said, a lot of his nid models will die quickly without cover. I wouldn’t mind T5-6 MC’s taking cover saves because most armies can still take them down through weight-of-fire, it’s the T7-8 MC’s taking cover saves that are annoying because you have a lot less shots that can wound them to begin with. Of course that makes it a really wonky rule if you start saying “only T5-6 MC’s can have cover but not T7+”. Wouldn’t be a good rule, I’m just saying the T value determines how stupid toe-cover-saves are.

  9. DCannon4Life March 11, 2015 8:27 am #

    Perhaps (crazy perhaps): Reorganize the Allied CAD so that there is no HQ even allowed. You can take your Primary and as many allied as you want, but you only get 2 HQs.

    Yes, yes, crazy. I know.

    • Reecius March 11, 2015 8:52 am #

      There are a million ways to go about it, but, making changes like that, I have found, upsets people a lot and causes more confusion than simply banning something outright. Just look at the alteration to Invis, for example, and the hoopla that caused, haha.

    • Jural March 11, 2015 11:16 am #

      That is a huge boost to armies you take without worrying about HQ, and it would be a huge nerf to armies where the HQ is the reason you are taking the ally slot to begin with.

      Plus it doesn’t solve some of the silly new spam (Example- new nid CAD allows 3 HQ’s, and some of the formations also have a HT in them…)

  10. Clayton March 11, 2015 8:55 am #

    I think the ranged D belongs IFF super heavies are there. I think they provide a strong balancing effect to stomps and superheavy explosions.

  11. deevil March 11, 2015 9:27 am #

    In regards to the ‘less LOW’ it should also pertain to ‘super heavies’ that are not LOW like Knights, rather than give them a free pass to stock up on three before even getting to LOW slot…

    • Reecius March 11, 2015 9:45 am #

      Fair point, however, that means no one would be able to play a Knight army which really stinks for those players that play those armies. I personally am fine with Knights, but I know they can be a hot button topic for some players.

      • Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 12:44 pm #

        IK are made for battletech or mechwarrior or apocalypse. Not the game I used to love πŸ™

        • Kartr March 11, 2015 1:35 pm #

          And what game was that?

          • AbusePuppy March 11, 2015 4:42 pm

            Nostalgiahammer. Back when everything was balanced and perfect and all of the factions were fun and unique and there were no problem units at all. You know, in nth edition, where n = the edition the person started playing the game in.

          • Adam ( March 12, 2015 7:17 am

            ^ +1

    • Jural March 11, 2015 11:08 am #

      Certainly we should consider adding the LoW benefits to armies who take knights (extra VP per 2 HP, +1 to sieze.)

      It’s lame that I have to face an ad lance without that help!

      • Jural March 11, 2015 11:16 am #

        Plus, Daemons can always add more HQ’s in game πŸ˜‰

      • Adam ( March 11, 2015 2:47 pm #

        That would be absurd… I would suggest learning how to handle an Ad Lance instead of assuming it’s OP because you struggle with it… The irony is that the Ad Lance actually forces you to play WORSE as a Knight player, you must do everything wrong to use the benefit of the rules.

        But clearly, since Knights so heavily dominated the top 8, we should be sure to nerf them. πŸ˜‰

        • Jural March 11, 2015 3:12 pm #

          I don’t struggle with Ad Lance, and never said it was overpowered, what were you reading?

          But I do think the Special Lord of War Rules (special Warlord table, +1 to sieze, additional VP) should be added in for any superheavies, not just those in the LoW slot.

          Thinking about it, this probably hits an all Knight list too hard (especially the VP), but there has to be some middle ground. I can tell you, I’d rather face a GBS most of the time than 2-3 Knights for roughly the same cost.

          • Adam ( March 11, 2015 3:26 pm

            Yeah, there’s a lot of complaining about Knight lists and the Ad Lance, despite them not performing all that remarkably in actual practice… Granting the extra VP’s for taking down a knight would just make them terrible, especially in this format, it would effectively mean that they could almost never win the secondary objective, which they struggle with already.

          • Jural March 11, 2015 3:34 pm

            Yeah, i’ll admit the VP part wasn’t perfectly well thought out πŸ˜‰

            I will say this, the Knights were all over the upper and lower tables at LVO (well, lower and middle for sure.) The biggest difference I saw was that the higher performing players knew how to use them, the low end players did not.

          • AbusePuppy March 11, 2015 4:43 pm

            I bet Knight players would love giving up an extra 6-10VP every game for no particular reason. That sounds super-fun and balanced.

  12. Bdub March 11, 2015 9:58 am #

    Maybe we should just allow unbound armies. If every person is bringing an op army then the game is essentially balanced, and then you don’t have to do ANY bookkeeping ahah!! πŸ˜€

    • Reecius March 11, 2015 10:17 am #

      Lol, that is a somewhat fair point!

    • defl0 March 12, 2015 6:53 am #

      No joking aside. It is a good point. the more options you give players the more varied the lists and the more balanced the games, because more codexes have more counters.

  13. somerandomidiot March 11, 2015 9:59 am #

    Reece, I’m curious- is there a reason why superheavies with no ranged STR D are being excluded? I’m specifically thinking of a Warhound Titan with a Vulcan Mega-Bolter and a Plasma Blastgun, which doesn’t seem at all powerful for 730 points, but I’m sure there are others.

    • Reecius March 11, 2015 10:17 am #

      We’re open minded to weapon restrictions to get more Super Heavies into the game, sure. Really, the only issue is ranged D weapons. Those (and occasionally stomp attacks) are the main sources of contention about LoW.

      • Clayton March 11, 2015 10:24 am #

        Don’t forget the scattered D blast, the fact one has to risk a 2 D shooting attacks (stomp+explode) to attack a super heavy makes it a difficult risk proposition to attack.

        • somerandomidiot March 11, 2015 10:47 am #

          Yes, but those are issues for all existing superheavy units, including Imperial Knights, which can be had for significantly fewer points.

  14. Jural March 11, 2015 10:31 am #

    CtA allies would have been an interesting vote.

    But let’s be honest, it’s only an issue for one Codex (Imperial Knights), which frankly can be pretty fluffy in many lists anyway (especially Chaos, or a looted Ork list…) Just Chaos Daemons and Tyranids stand out.

    To me, this speaks less to a fluff issue, and more to a balance issue with Knights and Lords of War in General. Knights aren’t game breaking, but the ability to get one (or three) in the ally slot and not use up the Lord of War slot gives quite a few armies things they never had before.

    Other rules you may want to consider… 2+ toe in cover for Gargantuans and Flying Monstrous creatures.

    • Logan March 11, 2015 11:09 am #

      2+ Cover isn’t a big deal. First, a lot of things still ignore cover. Lets look at Centstar for example, it ignores the 2+ cover, and it wounds a GC on a 3+, because Grav isn’t included in the 6+ to wound rule that GC have. You also have Serpent Shields which are at least S7 and ignoring cover. Tau are still an option to ignore cover and have AP2/3 to ignore the armour of the GC.

      Also, the major GC that takes advantage of the 2+ cover is the Barbed, and staying in cover the entire game with it’s poor BS stat is a waste of points. From experience, the 2+ cover is only good for T1 maybe T2, after that my GC should be up the table getting into assault. The Shroud provider is to slow to keep up. FMC are just MC with wings, so why target FMC and not MCs? A FMC is only really protected for 1 turn with 2+ cover since they will take off and leave the shroud provider behind.

      You should also not be playing on a table with tons of ruins. I think a table should have lots of terrain, but it shouldn’t all be ruins.

      • Smuffle March 11, 2015 11:12 am #

        Are you Logan Mulroney by chance? Also I agree, RUINS SUCK

        • Logan March 11, 2015 4:55 pm #


      • Jural March 11, 2015 11:28 am #

        I wrote that too quickly. I meant:

        1) TIC for Gargantuans and
        2) cover for FMC

        I’m not so worried about shrouding interacting with cover for FMC, I’m worrying about them getting cover at all for being toe in cover in ruins. To me,it’s lame that they can end up over a ruin and then don’t need to decide whether to jink or not. Just my thoughts, but a piece who is flying and already has a 3+ save should at least need to choose whether to jink or not!

        For the Gargantuans, I see your points (although in many cases you just exchange a 2+ for a 3+.) I’m not sure it’s unbalancing as much as it is just aethestically lame. That’s why I equate it with the CtA Ally rules. I don’t think it breaks the game, but having a gargantuan sitting with his tail in a ruin and having 14 inches of model in the wide open, yet claiming a 2+ cover save is lame. Capping it at a 4+ cover save (under any circumstances) seems right to me. Direct line of sight for MC and GMC would be preferable aesthetic wise, but it would kill a whole army…

        I’m a nid player btw (not of any renown), so a lot of this is self loathing πŸ˜‰

      • Reecius March 11, 2015 11:34 am #

        How does the CentStar ignore cover? If you get the right psychic power it does, but that is up to chance, not a given. 2+ cover is, for most armies, a really big deal.

        And actually, a lot of cover provides a 4+, rubble piles and ruins are the main culprits, but not the only ones. Those happen to be the most common in tournament play, though.

      • z3n1st March 11, 2015 11:47 am #

        Going to have to disagree with you there, 2+ cover is amazingly good, especially on resilient units like GC, or flying MC. The big issue here is the abundance of ruins all over the place, people cling to it like security blankets. The rulebook only has really one-two types of terrain that provide 4+, eveything else provides 5+ or 6+. Yet most people count just about all terrain as ruins. Ruins only provide 4+ if WITHIN Ruins, yet many will claim they get 4+ if you shoot through (seriously read the rules on ruins).

        I don’t think flyers should get cover saves (except through jink of course), since they are technically not IN TERRAIN they are above it, last I checked a rock on the ground did little to provide cover to a bird in the sky.

        Ignore cover (except for the units you listed) is actually not very common. I can count on 1 finger how many I faced at LVO.

    • Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 12:46 pm #

      Tyranids 3x flyrants now as well. I’m sure I can think of some others.

    • winterman March 11, 2015 1:14 pm #

      It’s not Knights that make CtA unbearable to folks, its 3 Flyrants + 1000 points of Tau/Daemons/Eldar/Knights/etc.

      • Jural March 11, 2015 3:16 pm #

        Possibly true! But my quick audit at LVO (meaning my walking around looking at armies) only uncovered Knights as CtA with any kind of frequency.

        Maybe some confirmation bias here, it was what I expected to see too! Also, I did play against a Chaos List with a Knight and a Chaos Daemon list with a Knight.

        So maybe I should put it this way; if CtA is a disallowed, it will impact way more people who have knights than anyone else?

        • AbusePuppy March 11, 2015 4:47 pm #

          I would suspect that’s a combination of confirmation bias (there were quite a few other types of CtA armies there) and Knights being the most easily-rationalizable forces to shoe into a lot of things.

          I mean, Chaos Knights, which are explicitly a thing in the fluff, are still not present in the game if you disallow CtA and they don’t look to be making an appearance anytime soon. Let people run their wonky lists if they want- it’s certainly no worse than all of the shenanigans people can do with Convenient or Battle Bro allies.

  15. Smuffle March 11, 2015 11:10 am #

    I would like 3 detachments, but limited in some way, like only 2 can be from the same faction? Idk, I just want to ally both Eldar and Harleys with my Dark Eldar now =]

    Excluding ranged D is okay with me, in fact, as a Xenos player who is also a poor college student and not looking at forge world, ever, I’m totally okay with downsizing the LoW list. I have no problem with any LoW in codecies and tbh I don’t think anyone should so, maybe start there!

    As far as CtA allies I was originally like PLEASE let Nids have friends! But now after all the slates and leviathan I don’t think they need it anymore so going back to fluff-sensical allies is a good idea to me.

    The one thing I feel strongly about is mission formatting. The current missions are bland, repetitive, and easy to build a list that’s good for all 6 missions. I’ve always hated first blood, being a squishy DE player, and would like to see that changed in half the games too. My suggestions that have seemed to work well at the local tournies I run would be to take out first blood in some of the missions and add either Last blood or destroying he opponents highest point cost unit (which I’ve named crippling strike). Additionally, I think maelstrom is cool but 1-3 missions without it (and without FB) could prove challenging and fun. One format I’ve tried that my local guys have liked is a 2 mission scenario where each player picks either relic, crusade, or purge the alien. Both scenarios worth 3 VPs and added a 4th tertiary. Very fun!

    Regardless of how it happens, variety please!!!!

    • Reecius March 11, 2015 11:38 am #

      I am sure you, and almost every other Eldar player wants to ally in Harlies and DE, now, haha, incredibly powerful combos, there.

      As for variety in scenarios, that is something we hear from time to time, but, the more variety in missions the more you stray into “wacky mission” territory which I can tell you with absolute certainty, pisses players off more than any other factor in tournament design. The thing is, I never actually understood that notion. I never get bored with missions as every game is different: different opponent, different terrain, different circumstances of movement, dice rolls, etc. Each game is a unique experience.

      There may be room to alter things a bit, but balance is hard to achieve, the more moving parts you add in, the more likely you are to lose it. Our missions now, are pretty damn balanced, but, we are always open to improvement.

      • Smuffle March 11, 2015 11:58 am #

        Yeah the missions are definitely balanced. I would just like to see 1-3 of the scenarios get a little bit of a twist. Not really wacky, but different playstyle. Right now, going second makes the maelstrom missions more easily attainable, which is awese because going first usually is huge advantage for the primary by letting player 1 alpha strike. I would like to keep that balance but see some different flavor, even if it’s something as little as just changing FB, or doing something like both missions are worth 3 or 4 points so it’s dead even on maelstrom or ‘x’ mission. Just my preference =]

        Also I’m no Eldar player, I’m a Dark Eldar player! We’re far cooler! =P

        • Reecius March 11, 2015 3:27 pm #

          Ah, haha, Dark Eldar, my bad! But yes, we have discussed altering some aspects of the missions slightly in ways as you suggested.

  16. Jural March 11, 2015 11:36 am #

    I am totally fine with ITC counting “primary” as the faction with warlord, independent of points. It’s simpler, and I’m not (personally) worried about it.

    At the end of the day, the fact that CSM with Daemon allies and a BS compete with CSM with no BS and no allies (and we are all OK with that) states that the ITC result is a competitive result, and any maneuvering within the rules is a sign of a list well-made, not an affront to the process.

    • Jural March 11, 2015 11:42 am #

      ^^ BS should be GBS, Greater Brass Scorpion of Khorne.

      You can’t make a Chaos list without some amount of BS (Bulls***)

    • Adam ( March 11, 2015 2:49 pm #

      The detachment with the warlord can change each game, so saying that it’s your warlords detachment only works if someone is policing that you must have the same faction warlord each game.

      You list on the other hand cannot change between games, so using the points spent is the only constant for determining which faction your army belongs to primarily.

      • Jural March 11, 2015 3:20 pm #

        You have made this point like 10 times on this page πŸ˜‰

        I have to be honest, I thought this was illegal, and a player had to declare his warlord when he made his army! So if this is allowed (and I assume you are right), then it really changes things for players who use two sources (one not being an ally).

        For some reason though, I thought that in an ITC event even if you only have a single CAD with two IC’s, you had to choose which one was the warlord when you made your list. Totally could just be a bad assumption on my part though.

        • Adam ( March 11, 2015 3:35 pm #

          Yeah, the whole gaming the system to win “best-of” is why I decided to focus on Imperial Knights for 2015 ITC, it’s impossible to have your warlord be an Imperial Knight without spending a majority of your points on them! Feels like a more honest competition than the players spending less than 100 points to take home some prize support (you could be the best Ork prize by taking only a Mek and 2 units of grots, for 85 points worth of Orks).

          If it is part of army creation, then there needs to be some accountability in list writing, as I don’t think a single person I faced declared their Warlord on their army list… Either way, to enforce it, there should be some accountability if there is going to be prize support.

          • AbusePuppy March 12, 2015 1:04 pm

            You COULD do those things, but is anyone actually doing so? Not really. It’s just not a good use of your second detachment, and with so many good allies and formations around, giving up a detachment for nothing is typically a very poor choice. You’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

  17. Hotsauceman1 March 11, 2015 12:00 pm #

    My suggestion would be that you can have 3 detachments. But one must have only a single model.

  18. Hotsauceman1 March 11, 2015 12:04 pm #

    And reece, ranged d ain’t bad. People are too often thinking about the one time someone rolled a 6, and not the times they just killed a model orvtwo.
    I think it discourages d stars more. And let’s other more powerful aka the barbed hieradule to rule.

    • Wintertalon March 11, 2015 12:56 pm #

      The only problem is when the Barbed gets D’ed turn one. I have had this happen 4 times no in the last 2 months.
      I know In-control had this happen in Seattle as well. I believe. I know it leaves a sour taste in my mouth every time that happened. I am sure he felt the same as well.

      I have never played a game where D of some type only killed a model or two. Ad-lance does a number on Tyranids.

      • z3n1st March 11, 2015 1:30 pm #

        That same Barbed can destroy the unit that shot the D-weapon, 12 shots at str 10 ap2 can certainly do the job, lets not forget that a single voidshield can negate that 6 from the D weapon. In addition that barbie is probably sitting in 2+ cover and therefore ignoring the other 5/6ths of all shooting getting tossed at it. I do not feel sorry for the Barbie

        • Nova star March 11, 2015 2:59 pm #

          The bio cannon is only Ap3

        • Logan March 11, 2015 5:03 pm #

          Barbed has the hardest time killing the Eldar Range D. 12 shots at BS3, sprinkle some Holofield to reduce even more hits, maybe be on a 4++ landing pad, and only having AP3 so no explode for that needed d3 HP. Any way you see it, Barbed is getting picked up off the table with maybe doing 1 to 2 HP to the Eldar LoW.

      • Reecius March 11, 2015 3:30 pm #

        True, but it goes the other way, too. A barbed can destroy a mega valuable unit in a single shot as well.

        I hate that damned thing, hahaha!

        • Adam ( March 11, 2015 3:39 pm #

          Seriously, in my experience it’s far more efficient at killing knights than knights are at killing it!

  19. Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 12:47 pm #

    Can we at least make it so things flying through the air don’t get cover for having a toe in terrain? Really MCs should be treated like walkers for cover.

    • Wintertalon March 11, 2015 1:08 pm #

      I do this if I could ignore most small arms fire like walkers can do.
      You can hurt a MC with a str3 las gun.

      As for fmc have you ever seen a large bird fly around building or a forest. The can bob, weave, and land in the most amazing places.
      You take a falcon, owl, humming bird and a pelican.

      Tyrants, crones are all animals. They have agility that even the most advance planes, helicopters or drones can’t even began to copy. So I have no issue with them getting a cover save from ruins as they are more aware of their body in fight then any plane could ever be.

      • z3n1st March 11, 2015 1:41 pm #

        Sure as long we can insta-gib the MC because we roll high on a chart… oh wait D weapons already do that…

      • z3n1st March 11, 2015 1:44 pm #

        I am of course just messing with you Wintertalon, I know you don’t like the D

      • Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 1:52 pm #

        So a wraithnight standing with the back of his heel in grass gets a 5+, a swooping flyrant gets a 4+ when his base happens to end up in a ruin. Seems legit.

      • Wischfulthinking March 11, 2015 1:54 pm #

        Also when was the last time someone 1 shotted your mc with a melta gun? Don’t try to argue that MCs have it hard & walkers are somehow better. That ain’t gonna fly.

        • Wintertalon March 11, 2015 3:43 pm #

          I may not be able to be one shoted with most of them, but I can killed by almost every gun in the game. When the last time you worried about lasguns taking the last wound of a tyrant landing to score.

          Sorry but I will have to say Walkers have a leg up on MC for the most part. Most walkers have str. 10 and at lest 3 attacks. Some even have a INV++ save. At a much lower cost then our bugs too.

          TMC have 1 attack vs. them if they want a chance to hurt it. That miss33% of the time. We have to get lucky to explode it too.

          The fex is the exception and it is hitting on 4+ and hitting last for the most part. He dies more often then not.

          Not saying MC have it bad, But they aren’t op by getting cover saves either.

          • Kartr March 12, 2015 1:15 pm

            It’s not the fact that MCs get cover so much as they can dip a toe in and otherwise not be in cover and still get their save.

      • Kartr March 11, 2015 2:39 pm #

        MCs don’t roll on the armour penetration chart so they can’t be one shotted by high ap.

        MCs get various other saves that vehicles don’t.

        A FMC that is swooping is moving to fast to utilize cover. On the ground sure, but they’re too big to utilize cover like a person. Making them take cover like a vehicle not only balances MCs it makes sense from a realism standpoint.

        • Jural March 11, 2015 3:27 pm #

          The problem is that a lot of the terrain in 40K is modeled so abstractly, a forest has one tree per 5 inches, a swamp is a lake with some bushes… This is to allow infantry to move through efficiently, but true LoS, especially on models like a Mawloc, means that these models never get cover.

          True line of Sight for 25% cover would basically leave the T6, 3+ Save creatures unfieldable. A drop pod takes out one a turn unless the terrain on the board is perfect.

          Very cinematic, but a pretty big hit on things which are already not fielded much, and barely a hit to others.

          • Kartr March 11, 2015 3:50 pm

            Except the way you have it now is you get some huge MC with the back sliver of its base on a ruin and suddenly it has a 4+.

            Vehicles are larger so it’s even less likely they can get a cover save. Vehicles also don’t get armour saves or invul saves. Your Tyranids can get that MC that shrouds everyone as well.

            Either MCs should use cover like vehicles or vehicles use cover like MCs.

            Alternatively if you’re in terrain but less than 25% obscured count your cover save as one worse.

          • Jural March 11, 2015 4:38 pm

            Yeah, TBH I don’t like either extreme. Maybe jut 50% of the base should have to be in ruins for a MC?

            But for me, I’d start by saying no FMC cover from terrain unless it blocks LoS, and GMC can never claim better than a 4+ in any situation.

          • AbusePuppy March 11, 2015 4:50 pm

            If we’re gonna play the game from a realism standpoint, I bring my Battlefleet Gothic army and vaporize all you chumps that landed on the planet to fight over it.

            Warhammer is not a realistic game.

          • Kartr March 12, 2015 12:41 pm

            It’s just a realism issue, it’s a balance issue. My dreadnought walks into a forest and not only does it not get a 5+ cover it runs the risk getting immobilized and losing a hull point! Your MC can dip a toe in, gain a cover save on top of any armour or invul saves.

          • AbusePuppy March 12, 2015 1:03 pm

            Walkers also typically cost significantly less than MCs do. You have stuff all the way down to 35pts (with the Scout Sentinel) and even the Dreadnought, the “average” walker clocks in at 100pts base. MCs are typically priced much higher- while there is the Spyder (at 50pts), beyond that you are looking at 135+ for even a basic four-wound model with a 3+ armor save.

          • Kartr March 12, 2015 1:25 pm

            So you have an extra wound and an integral save, don’t take immobilize tests in terrain, can’t be one shotted, and cost a little more base. That justifies getting a cover save when only 1% of your base is in terrain?

    • Jural March 11, 2015 3:23 pm #

      Yeah, from a fluff point I agree with you, but most Tyranid MC’s become nigh unfieldable if they have “true cover.”

      I do (as stated elsewhere), think FMC should never benefit from terrain unless it completely blocks LoS, and I think GMC should be limited to a 4+ cover save, full stop. Of course LoS blocking means no shots.

    • Reecius March 11, 2015 3:30 pm #

      Yeah, that is really silly, lol, I am up in the air but this bush way below me is giving me cover, lolz!

      • Kartr March 12, 2015 1:31 pm #

        Actually I don’t think Jink stacks with Terrain. Jink gives a 4+ cover save, Ruins gives a 4+ cover save, neither increases your cover save by one (or two) the way Stealth (or Shrouded) does. So if you Jink while in Ruins you have to pick whether you get 4+ from Jink or from Ruins, you don’t get a 2+.

  20. Aaron St.Pierre March 11, 2015 1:12 pm #

    You need to really add 1 Detachment to that third question, I’m actually not sure why it’s not inherently there to begin with.

    Just your own book with no extras etc.

    • Reecius March 11, 2015 3:32 pm #

      We used to have that option, but, it barely ever got any votes so we dropped it.

      • Adam ( March 11, 2015 3:39 pm #

        I think it would be awesome if in the future there was a more restricted championship (invitational, like Magic championships), maybe even a last-minute qualifier tournament to fill gaps in the invitational should people not be able to make it. Then have some more events where you could do like a 1500, single CAD, no Super Heavies type format, and so on.

        • AbusePuppy March 11, 2015 4:51 pm #

          1500, one CAD, no superheavies, no pre-7th codices, no transports, no infantry, nothing but Monoliths. Every army must consist of seven Monoliths and 100 wasted points.

  21. Hotsauceman1 March 11, 2015 1:37 pm #

    Actualy, Reece. There is a problem with the D Weapon question.
    The pool answer has to variables when all the others have one. And none other say “Im fine with Range D”
    You are including the Less LOW crowd in with the no range D. This is skewing your results.
    You should have made a question just on d with opinions on range D.
    TBH, your variables are nominal when they should be ordinal, such as “On a scale of 1-5, should we get frankie hooked on phonics” Rather than “Should we get him hooked on phonics”
    This will give you more accurate feelings of people. It will also make your events better. Because someone could be a 3 on the scale, while others could be a 5. but you are including them in together.

  22. Ryan March 11, 2015 2:06 pm #

    I am totally biassed here – Because I very much want the new Harlequins to be their own codex, But if lumped in with their parent dex what would they be? Dark Eldar or Eldar? How about Inquisition? Grey Knights or Sisters? Will Imperial Knights be pushed into the Space Marine category? The only clear cut mini-dex I see in Tempestus Scions, which would easily be put in with the IG. The others are iffy at best.

    • Reecius March 11, 2015 4:03 pm #

      True, but, tracking all of that data across a thousand+ players gets very, very cumbersome. You can still play those armies, of course, we are only talking about for record keeping in terms of scores.

  23. Kartr March 11, 2015 2:33 pm #

    0-1 major detachment (CAD equivalent)
    0-1 minor detachment (AD equivalent or any formation)
    0-1 non-standard detachment (Inquisition, Harlies, Assassins. Essentially detachments for codics that lack the ability to be taken in a CAD, AD or equivalent detachment/formation)

    MCs use vehicle cover rules.
    Swooping/Zooming units cannot gain cover from terrain.

    Largest detachment must be primary and must contain the warlord (declared when submitting the list).

    No CtA minor detachments

    Treat a roll of 6 on the D strength table as a roll of 5 against non-super heavy/gargantuan. Or -1 to D table rolls against non-super heavy/GMC.

    Change Impending Doom to Super heavy vehicles and GMCs instead of LoW.

    • Hotsauceman1 March 11, 2015 2:45 pm #

      A 6 aint that bad, because reading the rule, it only affects one model. Its no different from getting your vehicle kaboomed first turn.
      And tey already have done the last one.

      • Kartr March 11, 2015 2:52 pm #

        Didn’t know they’d already changed the later, for some reason I thought it didn’t apply to Knights.

        You would at least get to take cover/invul saves then wouldn’t you? It’d also mean your character would get to take saves. They’ll probably still die, but at least you can try and stave it off.

        • Hotsauceman1 March 11, 2015 2:57 pm #

          With Inv saves and cover saves being handed out like candy, IDC really. Sometimes it happens.

    • Kartr March 11, 2015 2:46 pm #

      Oh and I heard a cool way to do “kill points” on Masters of the Forge. Instead of 1 point per unit you do it based on the unit’s point cost instead. So a land raider is 250 points and a Rhino is 35 instead 1 and 1. Seems like a much more balanced mission that helps keep MSU from being to disadvantaged in kill points.

      • Hotsauceman1 March 11, 2015 2:52 pm #

        Sure, add more math to the game.

        • Kartr March 11, 2015 2:57 pm #

          How hard is that math? You should have a list handy with the points on it anyway, just check of the unit’s as they get destroyed and total it up at the end.

          Isn’t that better than I kill your 6 scout squads and you kill my grav centurions, netting me 6 points and you 1?

          Current kill points favor death stars to a ridiculous degree.

          • Hotsauceman1 March 11, 2015 3:05 pm

            How to you determine partially killed units? or units with wounds still left.
            Keep KP as it is IMO

          • Kartr March 11, 2015 3:20 pm

            The same as you do in KP. You only score the unit once it’s destroyed. The only difference is that instead of 1 point for a land raider you’d get 250.

      • Reecius March 11, 2015 4:05 pm #

        That’s the old Victory Point system that was in place for years prior to KP. The issue with that system is that at the end of a game when you’re brain fried, players don’t want to add up the points. However, I agree that it is a better system.

    • Adam ( March 11, 2015 2:51 pm #

      There is no list submission, so that doesn’t work… Also knights are bad enough as it is, they don’t need to be nerfed more.

      • Hotsauceman1 March 11, 2015 2:52 pm #

        Knights are perfectly costed IMO

      • Kartr March 11, 2015 3:00 pm #

        How is this nerfing knights?

        No list submission? That seems a little sketchy. Plus if you trust players enough to not check their lists beforehand why can’t you trust them to follow “primary detachment must have the most points”?

        • Jural March 11, 2015 3:30 pm #

          There is already no list submission. Yes, it’s a bit sketchy, as you are on the honor system. But I don’t know of anyone who ran into a problem at LVO, myself included.

          • Kartr March 11, 2015 3:52 pm

            Then why not use the honor system for “largest detachment/formation its primary?”

        • Reecius March 11, 2015 4:10 pm #

          We do peer reviewed lists during the event, and then closely check finalists. Again, closely checking lists before a big event is impractical. The players forget to submit, change their lists, and checking them all takes absolutely ages. It isn’t going to happen in large scale events, quite simply.

          • Jural March 11, 2015 4:40 pm

            I played one person at BAO with a scratched out list and two people at LVO. Meh, I think they were all legal or trying to be… but it is something that a jerk could abuse. Heck… let’s not even talk about bringing 4 army lists with subtle sideboards and shifting things in and out depending up match-up. I bet this would never get caught unless you made the final table.

  24. Wintertalon March 11, 2015 3:55 pm #

    I think list submission should be relooked at. It would salve a lot of issues with tracking and the whole warlord thing as well. I know it takes time but it helps to stop some mistakes before it happens.

    And how where Knights being nerfed????

    If it is regards to them giving up VP for every 3 hull points lost.. I agree that is how it should be. You have 5 kill points in a army that are very hard to kill for a lot of armies.
    They are heavy walkers. If the are used as a lord of war for a army they have that rule. It seams silly they don’t otherwise. The rule should be contestant on that.

    • Adam ( March 11, 2015 4:12 pm #

      In ITC, the bonus VP’s are applied to the secondary objective, so it doesn’t fix the problem you are presenting, and it makes them even worse at the portion of every single mission that they already struggle with. So not only does it not fix the problem you have an issue with, but it also penalizes them in the secondary objectives which was not your intention…

      It’s stuff like this where I hope that the ITC organizers have the sense to put more thought into their solutions than the public, haha.

    • Jural March 11, 2015 4:47 pm #

      Oooh, I like the idea that Super Heavy hull point /gargantuan wound removal (3 per)count towards the primary objective in a Kill Point mission, with no benefit to secondaries (ever). I actually am even OK with the small buff this gives traditional LoW in secondaries typically (you can read that as- I typicaly forget to subtract that anyway…).

      Probably would need a slight change so that a model a Super Heavy is worth HP/3 or W/3 instead of awarding the bonus +1 for killing a unit + additonal HP/3… It also solves the problem of characters like Draigo and Ghaz who are LoW… unless they have 6 wounds they end up worth the same as everyone else.

      Something to think about…

  25. LuisUTK March 11, 2015 5:46 pm #

    I would really like to know who that 1 person was that did not have a good time!!

  26. dr.insanotron March 11, 2015 6:02 pm #

    I really have a hard time understanding why people have a problem with 2 detachments with no restrictions. and would prefer 2 with restrictions

    • Adam ( March 12, 2015 12:30 pm #

      I usually assume shortsightedness, or that they have incredibly specific detachment restrictions that they have in mind.

      No duplicate detachments really is just a punishment to armies that don’t have a faction-specific detachment, and it also requires inventing a new rule allowing an Allied Detachment to be the same faction as the Primary Detachment…

      • Reecius March 12, 2015 12:44 pm #

        It doesn’t only punish anyone, it applies to everyone. Really, it prevents double stacking some of the more powerful formations more than anything else.

        • Adam ( March 12, 2015 1:06 pm #

          I gotta to disagree. The armies that have their own faction-specific detachments generally have much more access to HQ, Fast Attack, Heavy Support and even Elites. If you only have access to CAD and AD, then at most you can get 4 of the fun slots, while armies with their own detachments can often get 6 or more FA/Elites/Heavy.

          So sorry, you don’t get punished, everyone else just gets rewarded for being new. πŸ˜›

          Are there even any formations where in a 2-detachment maximum format that people would double down on? With Necrons, they can already go 10x on the Wraiths in the Decurion Detachment.

        • dr.insanotron March 12, 2015 2:32 pm #

          I have to say I like you are 100% wrong on this one as well. And your big concern is doubling powerful formation, witch is silly has almost none of the most powerful formation if taken twice come anywhere near 1850. 2x wraith formation is about 1000pts, 2x fire base is about 1500pts, and you can fit 2x Ad lance so really what are you talking about

          • dr.insanotron March 12, 2015 2:35 pm

            cant fit 2x AD lance I mean.

            the fear of double formation is totally unjustified and allow only some codex to basiclly take double CAD is wrong IMHO

            Look at the top 2 armys at LVO both basically had double CAD

          • Adam ( March 12, 2015 2:50 pm

            Yeah, if you allowed 3 formations with no restrictions, then you could actually start running into lists built around double formations (aside from Necron Decurion, which can already do the double wraiths no problem). I really can’t think of any current formation where taking 2 with no other detachments will net you a decent 1850 list.

          • AbusePuppy March 12, 2015 5:44 pm

            What double-formation (+ other detachment) list do you think we’d see that would be so problematic? I’m not really coming up with anything.

            The worst thing I can envision with a triple-detachment limit is a proliferation of cheap Inquisitors and Assassins on the Imperial side of things. It’s not particularly horrifying, but on the flip side the advantages of opening up the third detachment don’t seem all that big, either.

  27. jmanj321 March 11, 2015 6:58 pm #

    Reece, just ask the question everyone seems to be alluding to. Ask, “Should monstrous creatures be allowed?” I mean with the exception of the lynx and knights a bit, every time these conversations start, and based on your nerfs the last two years, MC’s and FMC’s have been directly targeted. It is clear that if its not on the ground and easy to be shot at, people don’t want to play against it. Lets just play 5th. sigh…………………….

  28. Ciaran March 12, 2015 6:39 am #

    Can we make it so that blasts that scatter can hit flying MCs again, like it is in the rule book. Did flyrants really need the buff?

  29. Kwodd March 12, 2015 6:52 pm #

    Spawn Termagants is a very clear rule, if the tervigon is taken as part of a CAD or AD the spawned gants should receive OS. Is the FAQ nerf on tervigons out of fear that the OP tervigon will make it into an army list every once in a while? Or does everyone just enjoy the flyrant spam so much that we don’t want to allow another legitimate HQ option?

  30. nathan March 12, 2015 9:46 pm #

    it seems like a lot of people are salty about MC’s and want to go play 5th edition with allies from these comments.

    MC’s without the current cover rules are flat unplayable. i would not attend an event that used vehicle rules for MC’s.

Leave a Reply