Wednesday, February 19, 2014

GT/Invitational 40K Rulings - What's Legal and What Isn't; Terrain Layouts; Narrative Concept Artist Selected!

Based on survey and discussion, the following are our rulings at present. This is of course subject to change if GW does something like release a brand new edition in May with everything formally and firmly made legal, yada yada. That said, we will not ban anything currently allowed below, so you can list build with confidence that we won't render what you've planned illegal.

1) Stronghold Assault will not be used, but improved rulings addressing pre-existing fortifications will be
2) Escalation will not be used, nor will Lords of War in general
3) Forgeworld will not be used, though you can freely use Forgeworld of any sort in the Trios and Narrative events (both of which have play-to-win singles elements, and both of which have more laid back elements, whatever suits you)
4) Character-type Dataslates will be legal

Up for discussion:
Formations - Illegal (prevents Riptide/Broadside formation, and 6 Storm Talon formation)


Formations - Take up the army's Allied Detachment (allows use in a more regulated fashion, including throwing Tyranid a bone)

In Narrative news, first off, get your Warlord ticket if you're planning - they're starting to run out.

Second, we've settled on the concept artist for the first visualization of Humanity and the Virtue.
Cedric Debled's first concept sketches will be visible here and in our newsletter in just about a week's time!
Examples from his portfolio, linked here.

Finally, these are the concept terrain layouts for 40K this year. We're open to feedback, and will be demo'ing these updated layouts at the Torrent of Fire Invitational next week.

For days inclusive of only Dawn of War and Vanguard deployments:

For days inclusive of only Vanguard and Hammer and Anvil deployments:


  1. I don't really have a problem with Formations, as long as they take up an ally slot. Is the Tau formation that much worse than:

    3 Broadsides
    10 Kroot with Hound

    I tend to think that it isn't. Besides Tau, no one really seems worried about the other Formations. Additionally, their legality does help out Nids a bit (as you mentioned).

    The rest of the rulings seem legit. To be honest, I've warmed a bit to the idea of adding more into "standard competitive 40k." Would having the non-d-weapon-toting Lords of War really matter? Would a 0-1 Forgeworld slot really matter? I think that at this point, it may be worth considering them.

  2. It's also a real shame that you are looking at ignoring the good stuff in Stronghold Assault. If you are afraid of the D, then include Stronghold, but don't include the D/Vortex weapons. Further, we've been playing w/ non-D weapon Lords of War (plus 40k approved) in our campaign and the general consensus was Lords of War (stompa & warhound in this case) are not only not overpowered, but possibly underpowered.

    1. I think it's problematic and well-reflected in survey to include a supplemental ruleset but only in part.

      "HEY use Stronghold, but not this, that, those, these, etc., and also all of your things that aren't designed have to be modeled to these standards and sizes and shapes and heights, and ...."

      In terms of Escalation, without D I don't see the point to adding the supplement ... again, it'd just be like adding Planetstrike rules. The narrative that these are meant to be and ready for inclusion into the standard game right now is one that's been purveyed by non-GW sources, with even folks like Jervis publicly writing that they are to be looked at in a similar way to Planestrike. No, local staff at Nottingham aren't equivalencies.

      Long story short, Stronghold and Escalation are embarrassingly incomplete rulesets that even their advocates do not advocate using unfettered and in totality, and that themselves require (Especially in the case of stronghold) TOs to not just FAQ them, but to create wholesale rules additions, amendments, etc., in order for many of their included units to even be legally fieldable.

      Rambling $.02 of course.

  3. I know it may be early, as the codex hasn't dropped so the full rules aren't out (just those in WD), but I would hope that with Escalation not allowed, then Imperial Knights won't be either. They are amazing models, but game wise, at the same as other Escalation units, IE: OP to the extreme.
    As for formations... eh. So far they haven't added anything that matters to nids.

    1. But...they aren't escalation units. They reportedly do not take up a Lord of War slot, and they are slotted on the GW website right between other legal codexes like Imperial Guard and Necrons. They will, in fact, be a legal codex. Also, as we only have some stats for two units and the codex has yet to drop, it seems just a bit premature to declare something we've properly played at overpowered.

    2. They are escalation units as they use escalation rules, IE: Super heavy and D weapons. Now, if the codex drops and that changes so that they are simply super-deadnaughts, that's one things, but as it stands, they are far more powerful.

  4. Since I own a Tyranid force, having formations would allow me to flex a bit. I think it will come down to what just came out and the last dataslate we are going to get. The new Skyblight swarm has some insane rules. Having scoring units that you can not deny and had a chance to come back when destroyed is fairly interesting.

    I wouldn't bring any of the formations that came out in the first one, as they just don't really fit, nor do I think they are overly useful. The skyblight I would use for sure but I've seen a lot of fussing about it already.

    1. Skyblight definitely looks powerful... but I would say no more powerful than something like Ovessastar. If "expansions that allow strong combinations" is where we draw the line then Skyblight should have a lot of company in the 'not allowed' category, starting with Farsight and Inquisition.

  5. Just ban the shooting phase while you're at it Nova ;) Forgeworld and the rest of these things are all totally legal in GW's eyes. You're just letting the death stars and the same old borings lists be played again and again by banning all this.

  6. Next you're going to say I can't bring my totally legal 5 imperial knight army? It has a codex, its a whole new army, if you're goign to ban Imperial Knights, please ban Tau and Eldar and Daemons while you're at it :)

    1. So, why ban escalation but still allow the knights? or any other given codex? I'm not planning on using either, but it's kind of dumb to ban something GW deems an official part of the game

    2. We're still in a world where Jervis himself compared escalation and stronghold to planetstrike. Being an official part of the game doesn't make something mandatory no matter what.

      Also, we're all doing our best here, especially TOs and their staff. I don't think "dumb" rationally applies.

  7. If the knights are allowed how do you expect most armies to deal with them. Their offensive capacity is not my concern it's the durability and str d explosion that they drop when they die. A lot of armies won't have the shooting capacity to put them down and when resorting to cc vs them any unit you send in has to be a sacrifice squad. That's a lot to ask of non super heavy armies to have three or four units that can kill a knight and be a sack squad and fit into 1850