Monday, June 25, 2012

6th Leanings - The Big Questions

I'll expound on this article when I get in today, but it can't hurt to start the inevitable conversation.

Most of the new rules for 6th are actually quite fine so far ... and a lot of the rules in 5th didn't change all that significantly.

The things as a TO crew that we'll have to rapidly assess are as follows:

1) Doubled non-ally FOC at 2,000 points (I'm quickly and rather easily leaning toward simply keeping at one bog standard FOC at 2k, instead of doing something silly like making it a 1999 point tournament)

2) Allies ... this is the biggest of the elephants in the room; how deeply does it impact balance and fair play to allow Allies per the new rulebook?

3) Flyers ... if you've read the details of the flyer rules, this one's not a big deal ... their zoom abilities are quite managed by the movement restrictions placed upon them

4) Mysterious Terrain ... since this seems to only apply to a couple of piece types, we're leaning toward disallowed, but it's something we'll have to evaluate with the actual rulebook

5) Purchased Terrain ... almost for sure NOT going to allow Fortresses of Redemption; but should we be planning to allow some of the smaller pieces? Leanings in both directions

6) Missions ... how do the new Eternal War missions blend in with tournament play, and how will we structure them within the NOVA? Remember, the key is w/l, so we're not opposed to creating a slightly different approach to missions if the rulebook forces that ... but will it, should it, etc.?

Will expand on these, and in reaction to comments, as the day or three wears on.

 - Mike

85 comments:

  1. Naturally, some of this is dependent on how tightly its integrated into the core rulebook..
    1. Double FOC at an arbitrary point level seems odd. Unless there is a compelling case for it, we've all been playing one FOC at 2000 for years, keep it that way.
    2. AFAIK, allies are 1HQ, 1-2 troops, and 1 of all other choices once you've done 1 HQ and 1 Troop of parent choice. I've /heard/ that no Ally SC's are allowed. Even without that SC restriction, allies seem a fantastic addition to both help balance the game (help an army fill capability holes) and expand the game (instead of 14 codexs, we'll have in excess of 100 codex combos). New scary combos are just like new scary codex combos - scary at first, but we'll learn to manage (Nob Bikers, Leafblower, etc).
    3. Yeah, fliers.
    4. Since it seems to be one type of terrain out of many (ex: we sometimes play with no ruins, we sometimes play with no forests, etc) and we are striving for an evaluative environment, i can see ignoring them.
    5. Purchased terrain: Logistic and real estate must be a consideration. I'd lean to disallowing the Fortress strictly due to sheer size and how it would physically affect terrain on the table (breaking it). Keep in everything else.
    6. don't know enough yet.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Could you imagine trying to transport that massive fortress and your 2K army around between tables all weekend long? Accident waiting to happen.

    Another issue I think should addressed for tournament play is "counts as" allies. Ex. Say I ally in Sang Priest, Jump Pack Troops and Mephiston into my Space Wolf army but don't want to accept the fluff behind joinig forces with Team Edward of 40K. So I mode up a "counts as" Wolf-ish Priest and Super Rune Priest (Mephie) being followed around by Blood Claw Jump pack marine (Jumpers). There is going to be some opponent confusion as some point I have to imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tao, standard tournament rules for proxies, counts as, WYSIWYG, etc would handle that for you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The fortress seem to that big a deal. Your army sits in it on the display board so it doesn't take up more space to move around. When it deploys, any terrain that is moved because of it is taken off the table. It has to deploy in your deployment zone and someof the victory conditions force you to move out of your deployment zone. In some games it could be just a big empty 220pt bunker that the Ymgarls would love to deploy out of.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 2. We need to see more rules first but I say no just based upon stupid combinations like fateweaver and chaos terminators, or plague marines and epidemius, or whatever.

    3 and 5 Flyers-yes. But if so you need to allow skyfire units such as bastions and aegis defense line weapons. No on stupid gigantic fortress.

    4. I say go with what the rulebook states. I hate forests now though. Can we use trees as flora? Please?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know there is one very good example of why purchased terrain is garbage. This might get some hatred, but the example is from yesthetruthhurts.com.


    Example: "I deployed 10 Plague Marines with two meltaguns and a power fist, in cover. They go to ground continuosly. They also have impassable purchased terrain placed all around them, making it so nothing can get to them. Oh and they are holding an objective"



    Now, what if I did that with two or three objectives?



    ----Colonel Colm Corbec

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what part of any of the purchased terrain was completely impassable? Tank traps were impassable to non-skimmer vehicles, but that's it. Hardly game breaking.

      Delete
    2. Not entirely accurate, Chris. Many armies don't have ready access to skimmer transports that can get inside of a tighly wound impassable section and successfully drop dudes off to cap objectives.

      Having to take allies of weird vehicles just to attempt that is a little much. It's one of the things we have to figure.

      Delete
    3. I believe that you can only buy one terrain piece. Even if it is a set of 4 traps, you are only locking down a single objective. Of all of the crazy things that could be done, this seems relatively minor.

      Oh and I so want to hide my whole DE army behind a Fortress of Redemption. No more going into full reserve if I don't go first... and I'm driving so transport isn't an issue and it's also painted.

      Side point. Mike purchased terrain must meet standard painting requirements, no?

      Delete
    4. By the way, I am not one of the lucky few like Stelek who has a copy of the rulebook. I have to wait until the 29th or 30th to read mine.


      So that terrain piece could be wrong, but I thought that from the white dwarf article people were saying you could do that.


      What if I buy terrain and box in someones land raider with it?? Wouldn't that be stupid?


      ----Anoymous Colonel colm corbec again

      Delete
    5. Terrain purchases have to go in your own deployment zone, so you can't box someone's LR in with them.

      Delete
    6. Here is an interesting thought. If the purchased terrain and mysterious terrain is optional in the rulebook, then that would seem to mean that you need your opponents permission to use it. So if that is the case, that means that someone could just refuse to give their opponent permission at a tournament. So by extension, all purchased terrain and mysterious would be illegal at tournaments. Is that the right sort of logic??



      ---Anonmymous Colm Corbec

      Delete
    7. BTW, Dark Eldar can already do this tactic with WWP portals. I know from personal experience. ;)

      Delete
  7. You're literally setting the standard for 6th Edition- a monumental task when you stop to think about it. No pressure, lol.

    If it were anyone but you and the crew (with the exception of the 11th Co.), I'd have concerns!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think you have to sigh and allow it all, because the criticism you'll get otherwise will eclipse the '3 points' thing, and the terrain from last year put together.

    ReplyDelete
  9. All your thoughts are in the right direction in my opinion.

    The allies issue is going to create some powerful combinations. Unlike last time though, those powerful combinations aren't necessarily going to be restricted to certain armies. In the end, we will get some powerful combinations, but I would bet there are enough out there to create the same overall sense of balance that exists now (as there already are powerful combinations but enough that we still have variety).

    Without a rule book, hard to comment on fliers. My only real concern here would not necessarily be the rules governing their fairness but the rules creating an impact on the current mission set. Just don't know without rules.

    Double FoC seems totally unnecessary to me, but that is coming from a 5th ed. perspective. (2 fortress of redemption then!)

    Mysterious Terrain - Sounds horrible, but hard to tell without rules. If it's like Fantasy, you'd be safe to ignore it, most likely. Lots of Fantasy events already do. (Some don't as well but this just towards the question of ignoring it or not)

    Purchased Terrain - Again, hard to tell without rules. Yes, a Fortress would probably be a bit ridiculous. I as well am worried about their impact on the current missions. To early to tell anything at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. Less one less thing you'd be "changing" if you made the tournament 1,999. And for some people (and there are always some) whose first GT it is and don't read all the rull packets super carefully is going to show up with 2 force orgs if it's at 2k.

    2. Assuming SC's aren't allowed I'd say it's rules, let it in.

    3. Flyers are part of the rules. Again include them. 6th is designed for it.

    4. Don't know what mysterious terrain is but if it's optional in the book I'd vote no. Even if their not optional I'd still probably vote no but that's cause I think they are ridiculous in fantasy.

    5. Since flyers are part of the rules and most armies don't have anti-flyer weapons (without knowing the FAQ Updates) I'd say yes on smaller terrain peices. Basically anything that isn't a full building (i.e. no bastion or fortress) but the little stuff and landing pad would probably be fine.

    6. Can't offer an opinion till I actually see the missions :)

    So basically 6th edition at 1,999 with all rules included and only buildings and mysterious terrain pulled out. Seems good to me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I vote for all 6th edition rules, regardless if whether we like them or not. NOVA gets to be the first 6th edition tournament, and I think it makes sense to make it an actual 6th edition tournament, not a 5thified 6th edition tournament. If someone wants to use two FOCs to bring two Fortress of Redemptions, then I'll have the opportunity to play against two FoRs. That would be kind of interesting by itself!

    Commit Fully!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, it is the rules. Remember that the current FoC can start breaking down at 2K for some lists (IOW, you have to take less than optimal choices). So, double FOC at 2K, let them pay for it.

      Allies are in, then allies are in. Especially true for me if GW pops all the new codex FAQs quickly that trash my current build in an older codex. Easy way to make that up? Allies. BTW, on the double FoC, IIRC you can "ally" with yourself if you really want one extra FoC slot...

      Buildings? Let them in, its in the rules. Proviso that they must set up entirely in your deployment area and cannot be on or move any other terrain on the board. I saw many pictures of NOVA 2011 tables with terrain on them and there usually was plenty of room, especially around the edges with all of the terrain on almost all tables being shoved towards the center to limit access.

      If this has to be, then let's do it. Period. Put the boot in, don't piss on it.

      Otherwise, stick to 5th rather than making up some bastardized NOVA2012 Edition loosely based on GW's 6th Edition rules, so it can kinda sorta be said that NOVA used 6th.

      Again, the only two things I ask are:
      1. A drop dead date when everything will be locked in stone, at least six weeks out so that lists can be finalized without fear of more last minute changes.
      2. A guarantee of some relaxing of painting standards. I promise to do my best at it, but if the 30th brings what I think it will, then I have a whole lot to do. Pretty much everything except my basic Marines will be tossed. It won't be a matter of them being "sub-optimal", a number of my units will probably be illegal after the mass FAQ release.

      Delete
    2. The only restrictions currently being considered are Bastions and Fortresses of Redemption. There's also consideration for not using the Mysterious Forests rules, especially since we don't have / can't have forests on every table.

      We also are going to go with 1999 points most likely, with 1 grace point allowed. Moderately more elegant than 2k and having to take out the double FOC. That GW did not intend any meaningful balance with this rule is highlighted by the fact that they literally stated 0-1999 = 1 FOC, 2000+ = 2. I'm not sure how a 1 point change suddenly causes every codex to work entirely differently, nor should anyone else be.

      That said, we're not ruling ANYTHING until release, and after release, we'll be ruling WAY before 6 weeks ... well, as much before as 2- weeks can allow.

      It is highly unlikely at present that we will fully prohibit fortifications, or touch Allies at all, etc.

      Delete
    3. "That GW did not intend any meaningful balance with this rule is highlighted by the fact that they literally stated 0-1999 = 1 FOC, 2000+ = 2. I'm not sure how a 1 point change suddenly causes every codex to work entirely differently, nor should anyone else be." - I could not agree more and this makes me very sad indeed.

      Delete
  12. Fliers shouldn't be much of an issue, and I don't think allies will be as well. Now a double FOC, for some armies that will be ridiculous....although marching 18 Kans up the table would be...interesting.

    I'm unfamiliar with the terrain rules, but I heard that's in fantasy, perhaps we should take some cues from the way you guys run that tournament?

    ReplyDelete
  13. mike i agree on many points heres my opinion with only limited knowledge of the rules.

    1. I agree 1 FOC to rule them all. 1999 +1 or 1997 3po

    2. allow allies but not
    "bothers in arms" The army wide powers are bullshit and unbalaced. However allowing armies fill weak spots in there armies with allies is in my opinion awsome.

    3. Agree

    4. Mystery terrain is supposedly optional... either way ignore it.

    5. Agree FoR i wouldnt allow. The others not sure. AA might be needed for armies to purchase. Maybe the ageis defense line with aa gun is enough ?

    6.Deployments are mostly trash and the missions look bad for tournaments.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think we need to wait and see the specific rules for Bastions and Fortresses before we decide what to do with them, as well as the way that they and others interact with flyers. It may be that these are necessary balancing elements.

    One other thing to consider is the way these will interact with other events. While NOVA will undoubtedly be fine terrain-wise, bringing your own terrain will likely be allowed (and indeed encouraged!) at events that don't have enough terrain. Disallowing such at NOVA might then alienate people who buy GW's terrain kits for use in their armies, adapt their lists accordingly, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Long time reader, first time poster.

    1. If you're going to allow allies then this needs to be allowed as well. By allowing allies and not double FOC you're telling Nid players to piss off.

    2. Yep let them in as well. Sure there are some potentially powerfull combos out there, but that was going to happen with a core rule change anyways. Consider some of those top tier armies like Wolves and IG. They're successful on the tourney scene because they have tools to deal with all comers. If you disallow allies then how much does the status quo really change. Atleast with allies in I can get some melta hunters in my Orks or some durable tanks in DE.

    3. Not too much of an opinion here other than I say allow them.

    4. Everything I've read says these are optional and not part of the core game so do what you want with that.

    5. Everyone seems to be in an uproar about the FOR. All I can say is that there are other 200+ point AV14 models out there and noone is really destroying the tourney scene with them. Meltas still wreck armour even in the new edition and as long as allies are allowed everyone but Nids can get them. As for Nids, it looks like monstrous creatures are going to be relatively nasty against armour.

    6. I can't say much about the missions except I like the inclusion of nighfight to give assault and hoard armies a fighting chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Coyote, you are right about the 'Nids, I hadn't thought about that. That is a finger to 'Nid players.

      I was blowing it off because I realize what another poster noted well...Where in your 2000 point list are you going to pay for all these extra FoC slots?

      For me, if the Black Temploar don't end up too borked (by getting Sistered or Smurfed), I see one potentially abusive situation... Two Emperor's Champions with different vows, but we have no clue what the vows are going to be or the costs until Saturday sometime. It might not be abusive, just rather stupid.

      Delete
  16. I don't envy your position having to make all these choices so early in the edition, and you're going to invariably get some flak from the squeaky wheels (if I may mix metaphors HORRIBLY). But my .02 cents:

    1) Double FOC at 2K seems frighteningly good for some armies, but it's going to be hard to full assess until army lists start to appear. Everyone whines about double heavy support and double elite! Well, it's still 2K... how are you paying for all that shit, exactly? I don't think it will be game-breaking, but allow a variety of builds to emerge which should be good. By god, if I can field 6 Ravagers and 6 Trueborn, I WILL.

    2) Allies seem "beardy" upon initial glance, but again, hard to full assess the impact. Even "Battle Brothers" level seems relatively minor, but there are certain to be some great hidden combos. Honestly, it's part of the game now, so probably should let them in. Too bad that Nids get fucked, but having a double force org will take the sting out of that a bit. 6 units of hive guard? Why not?

    3) The issue here is skyfire, but really mass fire against low armor, low hull point vehicles should not be an issue. If someone's going to spam Valkyries, Vendettas, Stormravens, or Razorwings, I don't know that I see it as gamebreaking in any of those scenarios.

    4) Mystery terrain is already optional and seems imbalanced/random from first glance. Probably fine with banning it.

    5) Purchased terrain is also part of the FOC, so hard to justify banning, but perhaps a cap would be best. IIRC, you have to place those BEFORE placing the rest of the terrain, so with a fixed terrain tournament, seems logical to disallow. Sort of a "mutual exclusivity" clause.

    6) Missions are the thing no one seems to be spilling much about, so this will be tricky. Kill points seem to be gone, though, so you may need a third basic mission if you intend to keep Victory Points as a tie-breaker. There will likely be some tweaking, but I imagine you should be able to draw a standard mission variant out of the new missions that people will accept as being fair.

    Overall, I think most people trust you and your team to assess the situation fairly quickly and still provide adequate notice to participants. My only complaint is that your tourney is at the end of August, right near my wedding anniversary, and I doubt the wife would let me disappear for four days to attend. So, could you move it to September? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Whatever decision you make people are gonna be angry, it is unenviable position to be in. Do you really wanna send the message that you and a small group people, after TWO weeks with the rulebook, know whats best for the game and are gonna start removing core rules of the game?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ugh, the more I'm reading details, the more I'm sweating. So, if I attach my EC to a huge combined squad of IG, then this 20 strong squad of Necron Warriors hit me with 40 Gauss Flayer shots (~27 hits and 18 wounds), I have to roll one die up to 18 times if the EC is the closest model. Or at least until I manage to roll the second "1". These games are going to go sooooo slooooow.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1) Coyote had some really good pts, an extra FOC is like the Nids version of allies. Honestly, all the 5th ed codexes can fit so much within the current slots, often as troops, what are you afraid of? (OK, besides 6 cheap psyflemen) But even that's really not an issue, because after the novelty wore off, most GK playes don't take as many Dreadnoughts as they COULD, they take as many as they need.

    To that point, the more recent codexes tend to be more balanced between the different Force Org selections, and have better troops overall, so there's much less pressure on them to cram everything they can in their Elite or heavy slots (can't think of anyone off hand that really needs Fast Attack). So, when you loosen the restrictions, you're really helping out the older codexes, like Tau, eldar and tyranids.

    2) Same thing as 1, really, and this also goes for brothers in arms. Think about it: This is the only way Tau can get decent psyker defense, really. Part of what was starting to make Tau unplayable was the ramp up in psychic powers. With a SM libby or farseer, those would be much less of a problem. But the new Hood, at least is an aura effect and besides that works much better when the libby is embedded in the Tau unit.

    3) I'm not sure I like the flyer rules (and I say this as the proud owner of a Storm Raven) and I think they will actually be horribly disruptive and unbalancing (though this massively depends upon the frequency and availability of skyfire weapons......which we apparently have to wait until the FAQs to know). Just the same, you have to leave them in. SO many things revolve around the new flyer rules, you just wouldn't be playing 6th without them, not by a long shot.

    4) I do believe they are listed as "Optional" and the whole "magic forest" thing is silly. Nothing is hurt by leaving them out, excpet for one psychic power that people can choose not use if they don't want to.

    5) as people have pointed out, the whole reason to leave them in is because of flyers. However, if post-FAQs people can get tons of skyfire weapons, maybe that's unecessary. I don't see any harm in one Bastion or smaller sized building though. However, make the rule that the fortifications have to be placed around the terrain you set down, not the other way around (as curreently stated in the book.

    6) It always seemed the hallmark of Nova was to come up with new, better mission types. I don't see any reason why you have tob e limited to the missions in the book. However, you certainly should be infomred by them. Kill points are still in there, in one mission, but they're now 1/6 of mission types, rather than 1/3. Table quarters seem to be gone. I'd go with that as a starting point.

    ReplyDelete
  20. What sort of timeline do envision for the decision? And who has the bookie action going on this? I have a fat wad of cash I'd be willing to lay down on which way this settles.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So not much has been FAQed to have skyfire...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All missile launchers have flakk ammunition for free with skyfire, so actually most Imperial armies are fine. Xenos though, not so much.\



      ---Colm Corbec

      Delete
    2. According the beatiary in the back of the BRB. "Missile launcher" has the flakk missile type, cyclone, typhoons, ork, even eldar missile launchers do not. So yeah, every smurf army has flakk for free, but the eldar can't figure out how to hit fast moving targets ?!?

      Delete
    3. No, they are listed as upgradeable options, so no one has Flakk missles right now.

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yeah, long fangs (devs) being able to hit fliers with S7 will be nice... assuming that is 'correct' use... and I feel all marines with 'missile launcher' will be able to use the one out of the BRB. Interesting that they did not include cyclones and typhoons in that mix though.

    ReplyDelete
  24. We wait with baited breath for your ruling on 5th/6th and what rules are allowed so that we can get working on our armies either way.

    ReplyDelete
  25. In the actual Missile Launcher description, folks, it states that some units have the OPTION to purchase Flakk Missiles as an upgrade.

    So, unless the entry has the option ...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Newsletter should release today with formal announcement, but it's not 5th.

    We'll have all the nuance of decision within the week at most, but anticipate one FOC + allies as a starting point, with at least Aegis fortifications.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I predict flyers are gonna wreck it this year, unless someone can figure something out.

    My buddy's beating me senseless with Flying Fateweaver and four other flying monstrosities, which I can never assault, only shoot at BS6, while they use Breath of Chaos to glance my vehicles to death and destroy my infantry. Yeah, I guess I could take the defense line or ally with Imp to get hydras, but what is that going to do against stuff that has no flyers? It's like I'm dead if I do or dead if I don't. Tough call.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, preliminary evidence is flyers are broken, even WITH fortifications to counter them.

      I got two words for you: Necron Airforce. 3 Doom scthes + 6 night scythes.

      Delete
    2. I don't think that army will be so great. It's still BS1 to shoot units on the ground and they still have to come out of their transports to take or contest objectives. On top of that, they'd get completely tooled by a list with 6-9 Hydras in it.

      Delete
    3. Can you explain to me why they have BS1 to shoot ground units? Because I said that and he said that it doesn't say that rule applies to FMCs. Also, verses the Hyrdas, he says they'll just land and destroy them, then fly merrily unhindered.

      Delete
    4. My bad, they can turn skyfire on or off, so they can shoot ground targets fine.

      Delete
  28. 1) Doubled non-ally FOC at 2,000 points (I'm quickly and rather easily leaning toward simply keeping at one bog standard FOC at 2k, instead of doing something silly like making it a 1999 point tournament)

    Agreed.

    2) Allies ... this is the biggest of the elephants in the room; how deeply does it impact balance and fair play to allow Allies per the new rulebook?

    It's the smallest, actually. Unless you want 5th edition, Allies are there to make the armies that suck, not suck.

    3) Flyers ... if you've read the details of the flyer rules, this one's not a big deal ... their zoom abilities are quite managed by the movement restrictions placed upon them

    This is the inexperience talking. Flyers are the biggest elephant in the room.

    4) Mysterious Terrain ... since this seems to only apply to a couple of piece types, we're leaning toward disallowed, but it's something we'll have to evaluate with the actual rulebook

    It's as lame as it is in Fantasy.

    5) Purchased Terrain ... almost for sure NOT going to allow Fortresses of Redemption; but should we be planning to allow some of the smaller pieces? Leanings in both directions

    I'm not buying terrain I won't use anywhere else to play in your tournament. GW needs to make anti-aircraft available in other ways. If they won't, then you need to do so. I'm already having a hard time jamming everything into one bag, terrain...just say no.

    6) Missions ... how do the new Eternal War missions blend in with tournament play, and how will we structure them within the NOVA? Remember, the key is w/l, so we're not opposed to creating a slightly different approach to missions if the rulebook forces that ... but will it, should it, etc.?

    It will. Half of them are apocalypse style fun missions. None are balanced. Add the NF rules and blend in some of the features. Please, for the love of...keep the short table edge deployment crap out.

    Thanks for listening!

    ReplyDelete
  29. For grey knights I need my dreads to be able to buy skyfire for 5 more points! :)

    You can only keep half of your army in reserve except daemons, so an entire flyer army will not work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd have to double check, but IIRC, units that must begin in reserve do not count in the 50% only in reserve rule. Which means if you load up everything in flyers & drop pods, nothing has to start on the board. OTOH, remember the rule that if at the end of every (game?) turn, a player who has no forces on the board is considered to be wiped.

      If they hadn't borked the Black Templar Drop Pod Assault rules (stipid "half must come in on first turn) I probably would have just used my 5th Ed list fairly straight, swapping Accept Any Challenge for Abhor The Witch for my vow. Well, that and the fact that GW screwed up and gave us one shot Cyclones and Typhoons again. AA firepower, no problem, Aegis with gun, I have to cash in my Assault Terminators anyway since they went from top 5 nasty to vanilla, so I could get a Dread and the Aegis out of those points.

      Delete
    2. THe daemon FAQ states even though they drop their first half they are in reserve. Either way, you can't field an all flyer army.

      Delete
    3. Necrons come close with six slots for flying DTs, the Night Scythes. So if you load the troops with RCs & HQs into the transports, they are 100% flyer for this purpose. Doable, but I'm not commenting on its worth.

      Delete
    4. So yes, all flyer armies would be legal, if it must come in from reserve, it doesn't count towards the limitation.

      Necron airforce will be devastating, I think. 3 doomscythes fly up, 36" and murder basically all their tanks. 6 nightscythes fly up, maybe only 24" and can deploy normally. The nightscythes and troops dakka down all the people who had to get out of their tanks.

      Tweak to taste.

      Delete
    5. This is correct. Fliers that are also Dedicated do not count towards nor do the units inside if they are kept in reserve due to them having to be there.

      You can field an entire flier army with the 1 HQ choice. You will have to probably put the HQ on the table.

      (you will have to do a little more than that too if NoVA adopts the new rule about if you get tabled during any turn you lose :P)

      Other than that, though, the 9 Flyer Necron list, 9 Vendettas, or Flying Circus is pretty unfair as the game currently stands. :)

      Delete
  30. I read everyone's arguments and offer:
    - 6th at 1999 for this year, otherwise you are offering the benifit to only those who have the resources to create a second force org.
    - If fliers, then at least the Ages Line as terrain so a player without flyers in their codex can get additional antiaircraft
    - Other terrain rules I can go either way as long as the benifit or penelty is evenly ballanced

    ReplyDelete
  31. My biggest new concern after minimal play testing now is time limits for finishing games. Even with complete rules mastery, when you have to take lots of saves (read 15+ or something similar) one die roll at a time, the game gets considerably slower. This complication gets compounded with very complicated assaults at many different I steps, pile ins, multi-wound models, and so on.

    Further, with Paladins and Nob Bikerz now all being characters, the 1 die at a time roll becomes even more hilarious when a second roll is added to "Look Out, Sir!' one die roll at a time as well. :)

    With minimal play testing, I have been developing some serious concerns so far about 2000 point armies completing games in 2;15. Not stating the sky is falling on this yet, but wanting to rather just bring it up for discussion.

    Also, the total lack of Skyfire as led to the obvious Necron All Flyer list as well as the Fateweaver + Flying Circus of doom which is going to be quite the gimmicky armies till we get some resolution from GW about how exactly one is supposed to take out a flying army needing 6's to hit. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that's obvious Neil. Buy more flyers and Fortifications.

      I changed my mind from earlier, flyers were added specifically to sell two types of models are generally bad for the game. Nothing nowhere has Skyfire really and it really angers me how blatant it all is.

      Ban flyers, or allow them under the old skimmer rules. GW has chosen to no longer contribute to it's own tournament scene, and made a ploy to force players to buy $150 of stuff they wouldn't otherwise need. Ban, set the precedent for the tournament scene, it will seve GW right.

      Delete
  32. Our playtesting is showing issues with time, what with the wound allocations rules for a mixed unit forcing you to roll saves one by one. MVB: Could you please take a look at the size of the armies that would still allow a game to be reasonably done in the 2.5 hrs timeframe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your very first games with a brand new edition are taking time?

      NO. WAY.

      I'm kinda with you, I know some things are slower; some things are also faster; 2 days is too soon to tell for sure here, and the die may be cast on army sizes. At the least we have the longest round times out there right now, points size regardless.

      Delete
  33. Hey MVB, it doesn't say anywhere and am kinda curious, the trios tourney, points lvl?

    As far as the 6th ed thing... I'm scared lol...

    Looking thus far, anyone who plays a paladin list is going to eat up the time with silly "Look Out Sir" and crazy wound allocation(which they already had) but besides that its much faster for wounds from shooting. No need to allocate wounds on a squad with all the same toughness then roll saves, roll saves then allocate deaths to people down the line closest to farthest.

    This edition seems to be more for casual play than tournaments. Random charge distances can seriously hurt some assault based armies when going against very shooty armies.

    Flier lists are going to be insanely powerful in this edition with there being next to no AA in the codexes as written, and majority of tournaments being fixed terrain, therefore unable to purchase terrain to deal with the pesky fliers. You can't dis-allow fliers because they are simply a part of the army lists now. Back when they were forgeworld only, it was very easy to ban fliers, but now that they are going into the army entries, kinda hard to disallow them.

    For the time issue, I'm sorry to say, anyone fielding a pally list I'm going to immediately drop their sportsmanship score by a point out of the sheer fact that we won't finish the game in 2.5 hours, and they will know that and try and use it to their advantage for holding game objectives.

    With the new shooting and assault rules, it may be time to pull the daemons back out and go with the Flames of Fate list, because anyone charging that mess will get torn up hard...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The kind of people that do that (paladins and slow playing) really suck and should just get penalized by the judges. cheating is cheating no matter what words you use to describe it.


      that sounds like such a dirty "tactic"


      -----colm corbec

      Delete
    2. It is highly likely we'll FAQ Nob and Paladin wound allocation shens leveraging Look Out Sir! in such a way that - TBD but - when you have a unit entirely composed of Characters (not counting IC's), Look Out Sirs automatically default to the next in line (and since you can't subsequently re-allocate a look out sir, that largely solves it).

      Delete
    3. When you do that, please do consider that a big part of the LOS gimmicks is to put wounds on the NFW stave for the 2+.

      I duuno, overall, I think that won't take any longer than it did previously.

      Delete
    4. It would be great to have you guys FAQ that. It just seems a little silly and one would hope that GW would eventually fix it. But with GW, sometimes there fixes take 3 or 4 years.........




      ----anonymous colm corbec

      Delete
  34. Mike... Flakk Missiles... Who gets them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RAW, nobody does - the description for Missile Launchers in the BRB being the source. The quick ref guide in the back is not the full story, so we can't go with just that and let all ML's have them.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Mike. I hope you understand why I asked. I also know this isn't the time nor place for the discussion.

      Thank you again,

      CK

      Delete
  35. Anonymous: It seems pretty unfair to your opponent to drop their sportsmanship score because you don't their list. That is a great argument to get rid of the sportsmanship scores altogether.

    Fearspect: We'll learn the game and it will speed up. I had insta-panic when I started hearing about the rules as well. As Douglas Adams says ... :)

    ReplyDelete
  36. The wound allocation will definitely take longer in some cases, I don't know how else to slice it. That plus people generally have to be more fiddly with where each model is placed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is also faster in some cases (i.e. focus fire).

      Delete
  37. Fliers are no big deal. I play Orks all the time and my shooting sucks. Welcome to my world. Volume of fire. It's a thing.... Daemons will probably get to you, but they might just crash on the way and get shot to death too. The Aegis gun isn't going to help to much against and army of fliers.

    The would allocation look out shenanigans has me a little concerned purely because it eats up a lot of time. The easy fix is just to say that ONE squad leader per squad and IC's are the only ones who get it. Problem solved, a lot of time saved, game not ruined for either player.

    It needs to remain 1 FOC simply because two months is not enough time for the majority of attendees to put together and paint up what they need for 2 FOC's. Next year it will probably be fine.

    -Bat Manuel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're going with 1997/3PO (or 1999/1PO) for the FOC this year. So, it'll be 1997 points with up to 3 points over allowed (reverently mocking a certain someone).

      Delete
  38. Personally, I do not see any need to include Fortifications or Flyers in the tournament setting, especially when not every army has access to flyers. I do not really see excluding them as impacting anyone's lists either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While time may agree with you, it's very hard to just blanket make that statement as the first major TO/GT of 6th Edition. I'd almost rather have people irritated at GW's idea of new balance, then angry at me for taking a 2 week 'guess' at what is and isn't right/wrong about the game.

      Delete
  39. Went through and tried to reply to various comments.

    I'm in Amsterdam, damnit!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hey Mike,

    I agree with basically all of your initial leanings. There is no way to know if anything is really busted in game balance at this point, erring on the side of "play it as is" is the wisest course of action. Here are some specific ideas I have at this point.

    I do worry about fliers being too good, and I was rocking with nightscythes in 5th edition so my army is already pretty close to the Necron Aircav everyone is worried about. However, you certainly can't outlaw fliers or anything that drastic, and activating flakk missiles would be unfair to xenos, so....

    I think you should allow aegis defense lines as they give people an option for anti-aircraft fire with interceptor. I think the fortifications are also designed to compensate for the reduced normal cover save. Without them, first turn alpha strike is much nastier than it used to be. Bastions and fortresses, my gut says no way. But aegis line, that's reasonable.

    Keep the allies rules as written. Its not as easy as we thought to break it, and some allies combos give new life to previously obsolete armies. (tau, eldar, etc.) Bottom line is like everything else, we have no idea where any problems lie, so fiddling at this point will probably do more harm than good.

    As for missions, I would do exactly what this guys says:
    http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/07/thoughts-on-missions-deployments.html

    Combine kill points and objectives in a neat way, whoever gets more VPs wins. Vary the deployment type each round, that's it. The new edition is going to add PLENTY of variety to each round so no one is going to get bored. Keeping the missions simple will allow us to better understand what armies did what when the dust settles.

    -Ben M.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As much as I dislike the idea of bastions and fortresses in tournament play, you cannot have flyers and not allow bastions and fortresses. They are one of the few AA options most armies have. I really think they go hand-in-hand.

      Delete
    2. Ben I think you should at least size up to Bastions on the fortifications but you need to allow them regardless otherwise its going to be flyer fest

      Delete
    3. The aegis line still gets you a quad gun or lascannon, but is managable in size and doesnt add the weirdness of intact buildings. I'd be fine with bastions I guess, but I think the giant fortress is just way to large to place on a tournament table.

      The thing is, one quad gun or icarus cannon, or even two, isn't going to stop my fleet of necron fliers.... I'm really not sure that there is any easy solution. I think the first couple tournaments are just going to have to wait and see how bad fliers and nobs/paladins are in practice.

      Delete
    4. The same can be said for inability to stop armies that bring 3 vendettas, 3 throwaway hydras, a stormtalon, and then a bunch of crap to deal with other things.

      An Aegis or Bastion will at most get one of those fliers on arrival (if not simply ganked ahead of time); the point would generally be that these are affordable buffers ... not solo solutions. Almost every army has a way to build to manage the updates that will come to the meta ... and trying to hamfistedly slam a Fortress of Redemption into a tournament environment isn't that solution.

      Delete
  41. Bastions could probably be lived with too unless they change the NOVA terrain placement drastically from last years and Fortresses could go on most tables as well without shifting a terrain piece.

    OTOH, the Aegis only is a good compromise because it actually fulfills two functions: 1) A gun with Skyfire & Interceptor and 2) a ~29" wall that can be used to control a large chunk of your deployment zone or "fort up" an objective.

    My lists (yes I have two, almost identical though) are stuck at ~1900 pending NOVA & GW fiddling with the rules. Then I'll make my final decisions on what I have to buy and get ready.

    About Sir Biscuit's post, I read what he puts up carefully, every time. I agree with the mysterious terrain and objectives being out, but on Night Fighting, I'd actually like to see that one rolled for and called at the start of each round for NOVA over the PA system for the entire round instead of preassigned.

    I actually don't see a reason why five objectives (center of table + center of quarters) plus KP(VP) won't work. Sure, vary them up some games so that the center is worth 4, the one(s) in the enemy deployment are worth 2 to you and 1 to him, etc. I'd fix the KP/VP thing though, that is exploitable when 800 points of Paladins isn't any more "valuble" than a 30 point IG Platoon Command Squad. Maybe divide by 50 and round up? Which would make the little IG squads worth 1 point each, Rhinos & Chimeras 1, Land Raiders 5, Paladin squads 16. Or just flat out go with a point cost count and then divide the result at the end of the game by 50 or 100 or 200 to convert it into VP.

    Throw in "kill the FA" (double points for killing FA plus points for your surviving FA), "purge" (double points for killing stuff), "hold" (double points for home objectives), "seize" (double points for enemy objectives), etc. and there should be plenty of variety for all.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Well, after reading everything completely about 3 times now, here are some key points.

    1) Doubled FOC at 2,000 points? Don't need to! The rules state that they CAN go to a second chart @ 2k points. You are not required to. This has been the case before (such as the 'ard boyz) where the points size has allowed for multiple FOCs but the tourney has restricted it to one. Very simple, Very easy, and has the precedence in the Tournament Scene.

    2) Allies? - The previous Daemon Hunters Codex had rules for allies in them as well and I remember many tournaments stating that the ally rules cannot be used. Again precedence. Allowing them slaps nid players in the face, and throws a rude gesture at some of the armies that are not allowed nearly as many options due to ally restrictions in the book. Ally rules appear to be for casual gaming, not the tourney setting.

    3) Flyers? - Will they be annoying? yes. Are they hard to kill? Slightly. Will they go down like a chump to mass fire? yes. They also are required to come in on reserves, which means they are off the board the first turn. Also, if they elect to deep strike, they cannot zoom for that first turn due to their inability to progress the minimum of 18" from their starting point. So what does this mean? 1 turn of them not on the table(at least), and if they DS then 1 free turn of shooting at them before they become annoying.

    4) Mysterious Terrain? - It's there, but really kind of just annoying for tournament play. Seems designed for narrative battles or casual play to create a twist. This also applies to the Mysterious Objective rule.

    5) Purchased Terrain? In all actuality, if the tournament is fixed terrain, this should not be allowed, IMHO. On the counter side, you are only allowed a single fortification in your list. Reducing what can be taken seems fair, but the people that are taking these pieces of terrain need to understand that for the most part they are blowing points on things that are, mostly, only useful against Flyers, which if you are fielding a solid 2k tourney list, you should be able to deal with anyways.

    6) Missions? - The missions appear to be fairly straight forward. Every mission in the book has Night Fight and Reserves. I'd keep this. The Secondary objectives seem cool, but also seem very easy to accomplish in some cases. Like a turn 2 kill on a Night Scythe that happens to be carrying the Warlord... Boom, two secondary objectives accomplished. I do like the inclusion of the Warlord special characteristics because it allows vanilla HQ choices to be used and give them a special ability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In addition to 6) Night Fight has it's own rules for if it is in play or not, and when, during the game. Very easy to figure out when you play.

      Delete
  43. Gorress WidowsbaneJuly 4, 2012 at 6:10 PM

    My two cents...with a big thank you to the NOVA crew for shouldering a big burden with open arms, i.e. not hiding inside their fortress of redemption with fingers in the air...

    Having one FOC at 1999/1 grace point seems to be the most "graceful" way of handling FOC issues...thumbs up here

    Allies are not broken by any means...there are power combinations but they all have counters and generally guide a list in a way that can actually be hampering is some missions or against some opponents...i.e. a fateweaver lead Tzneetch CSM deathstar falls after one dakka's fatey off the table...or just ignores the entire slow moving deathstar...just one example...

    Fortifications can easily be covered by applying a point limit to the fortifications allowed...they should be fully painted and count into the painting score...and be judged for accuracy of size, etc, if being custom built...

    Flyers very simply do not break the game in any fashion even with the lack of skyfire units out there...their movement options make them quite quirky and fall quickly to volume of fire...I see absolutely no problem here...

    I believe that the more tricky issue lies in "Look Out sir" shenanigans...how to rule if Hammer of Wrath gets rules like rending, poison...again these seem to be easily hammered out...

    I vote for throwing mysterious terrain into the narrative and that is it...would just slow down tourney play...

    As far as missions...I believe the NOVA staff has set the bar for designing equal and fair mission packets for competitive play and will continue to do so...with that said I see nothing wrong with the missions in the book...actually I think they seem quite fun and balanced...

    Thanks again to the NOVA crew...See you kids in about 50 some days...

    ReplyDelete
  44. A memo scanner is made to read and erase difficulty codes in cars, especially for individuals Do it yourself repairers. Then you definately have to have some programming tools or commanders for benz SD connector C4 to plan or reprogram.

    ReplyDelete