So we're getting close to finalizing what we want to do for the 40K GT this year.
This has been a LONG process, with a great deal of input. I think it's possible some minor things will change as we get closer. It's also possible we'll get a bunch more input in the next few days. We'll release the final rules the day before registration opens (Reg opens this coming Sunday at 9:30AM US EST Time).
Here's where we're at presently:
On the question of detachments -
Battle-Forged Rules using 2 Detachments, with no caveats or further restrictions
On the question of Forge World -
All Forge World units legal, but all are considered Unique / 0-1*
* - We might develop a very small ban list for some FW units if we go this route, TBD
On the question of Lords of War / Super Heavies / Gargantuans -
Lord of War Superheavies/Gargantuans ... we're leaning toward keeping them OUT. They were almost universally panned by last year's attendees in the events they were allowed in. This included very large samples of more casual attendees. Adding more big, expensive models to the game when more casual players are opposed to them / did not enjoy playing against them seems like a bone to more competitive-minded players who are going to play top tier lists in almost any meta alignment. We did not receive a great deal of positive support for allowing Superheavies/Gargantuans beyond Codex: Knights.
Non-superheavy/gargantuan Lords of War ... definitely will be allowed.
Knights - We are strongly leaning toward BANNING the Adamantine Lance, but otherwise allowing Knights, inclusive of FW Knights subbing into the Knight Detachment per their rules (they'd still be "Unique" and follow the restriction above when trying to use them as Lords of War). The reason for banning Adamantine Lance is similar to the Lords of War question. There's a TON of visceral evidence from Torrent of Fire, NOVA itself, and more that shows AdLance players doing no better or worse for having it at the top tier, but running over players throughout the mid and low tiers of tournament attendees. MOST attendees are not hyper competitive, most are there to have a great time and do their best. AdLance lists are winning between 65-75% of their games, with most of the losses coming in the top tiers. This isn't a trend we see a great deal of momentum to support.
Further feedback is welcome really to the "buzzer" as we're continuing to refine, discuss, and then correctly phrase these things prior to the opening of registration this weekend.
Just do away with Imperial Knights in general. Getting rid of that codex opens up the game so much more.
ReplyDeleteCouple things for that:
Delete1) Once pandora's box is opened, from an attend/admin point of view, it can be hard to close it. That's a lot of why we're starting FW with a trickle and not a floodgate.
2) FW does in fact scare some of the more super deathstarry stuff from being taken. Goods / bads to that.
The thought has certainly crossed our minds :)
I completely understand. I just tend to think the game is better without them. Trying to make a list that can handle 3-5 Knights means severely limiting the options of many codices. As you mentioned, Knights do scare away deathstar hammer, but it is possible that was going away already in 7th.
DeleteNot sure I personally disagree with you :)
Delete0-1 for Dreadclaws is pretty lame, otherwise 0-1 for FW seems reasonable.
ReplyDeleteIf you use FW rules for something, such as giving a non-FW unit a legacy of ruin, does that count for the 0-1 unique choice?
ReplyDeleteMost likely the ruling would be such that, YES, that effectively happens. This also means someone trying to run a FW army where all his Tactical Marines can be fielded as FW Red Scorpions or something would run into the issue pretty quickly.
DeleteYou know, if you're so worried about the casual players, why not just use a comp system for the pairing in the first few rounds?
DeleteCan you add parameters to Torrent of Fire's auto pairings?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete