We have talked about this more than once, and yet the trend is getting worse not better. Tournament Organizers changing the 6th edition rules.


You may have started seeing a certain lack of tournament notices here on the site, well, its mostly due to a large number of tournaments that still think they are using all the rules and then not following through. Examples of tournament changes..........

1999+1
For Pete's sake, play a little game. Drop down to 1850 or something if you cannot get yourself over the double FOC charts. Enough drama already. The game is written this way to open it up, allow for a greater divergence of army lists, and get rid of the cookie cutter lists we are still seeing in tournaments that do not allow double focs.

Warlord Traits.
I have heard so many different changes to these, its rather sickening. Changing the way they are picked etc...Changing these almost makes me want to vomit, because it most often does have so little effect on the game. (unless a list is designed to take advantage of them, or the tactics play out on the board).

Terrain
Terrain is most often a problem for TO's, and often because they do not have their hands on enough terrain, or its just plain bad terrain for a 40k table. However, if you want a balanced game, the rules do have the basis for it, simply alternate placements. Time arguments are invalid. Once you have a pool of terrain sitting alongside the table, and set up using this method a few times, it is really quick. Players worried that bad TOs are going to terrain screw them (this happens at most TO placed tournaments) no longer have to worry about with alternating terrain set up.

The second problem, is the amount of terrain. This has always been a problem. The average number of pieces on the table is 12 for 6th edition, no longer 25%. This is often an increase in the amount of terrain on the board. So if you as a TO are going to set up the terrain....... remember its generally 10-14 pieces on the table.

TO's do yourself a favor, just pick 15/16 pieces of terrain and put it into the terrain pool with each table ( a box at the end or underneath) and let the players do.

Secondary Objectives
What is going on? Really. Why do I keep hearing and reading that these are vanishing? Objective games are much different now and when and how they are placed is an all together changed monster from 5th. This puts a strong importance on other factors of the game... Secondary objectives. Lists should be designed to take these into consideration

Fortifications
Enough said. Just use them.

I know around here its mostly one bad store downtown doing this, and then it spreads like a disease here in my local area. The bad part of this, is it's not just a local phenomena, I read about in a lot of tournament rules that are put online.

Im going to put out the call again.... Any tournament using the rules of 6th edition that wants a front page post, send me an email. TO's that are sending me emails, and changing or not using the rules, please stop asking me to post up on your event (unless of course you want to give 6th edition a chance)

146 Comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Dark star only limited the fortress of redemption for obvious reasons. Great tourney

      Delete
    2. Still a limit of the total rules. Maybe I want to play my fortress!

      Delete
    3. double FOC doesnt mean more diversity. after a little bit of time power gamers with already top tier armys for single FOC will make standard lists to bring to double FOC and continue to dominate the leader boards.

      Delete
  2. I can personally vouch for the lack of terrain issue having played Eldar and Dark Eldar at the doubles tournament at GW HQ a few weeks ago.

    Having hardly any terrain makes 40k a pretty crap game in my opinion.

    Scissorheart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I help run two UK events (one tournament and one team campaign weekend). The tournament is run at 1750pts now that we have included forgeworld units. The campaign starts from 1000pts up to 2000pts with a greater allowance of forgeworld.

      Our tournament will not be using the secondary objectives because we use our very own 'secret objectives' which encourages players to use units in a different way, have we have done for 5 years now. Its part of the brand of our particular tournament.

      We have always raised the bar where terrain is involved. To my knowledge, we where one of the only UK events that actually used the intact building rules during 5th. We will not be using the player terrain set up as this will eat far too much into the events schedule time table, and isn't really needed as we place great effort into terrain placement anyway….. many of our boards having their own individual theme.

      However, Allies, double FOC, Warlord Traits and fortifications are included. In the case of fortifications, an equal 'foot print' of terrain pieces is echanged.

      We have also included measures to encourage balanced army lists and have activily discourage the cookie cutter types.

      For an example of the terrain we copy and paste this URL
      http://www.bristolvanguard.co.uk/Bristol_Vanguard/Home.html

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

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hallelujah Brother! Here in Reno/Sparks Nevada our Local store, Heroes games & Hobbies has been running a monthly 6th edition tournament exactly as you described. Right down to terrain placement. The only "modification" of sorts is that the TO (John Allison) rolls up an average terrain density that day for all tables and selects a pool of themed terrain for each table to match the rolled up density. It has been a real breath of fresh air!

    http://heroesgamesandhobbies.com/ - Heroes Games & Hobbies on Facebook.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agree with most. Smaller games with player-placed terrain would balance out time-wise.

    Main thing I'd disagree with is the warlord traits. I rather like the idea of one roll, pick from any column. Makes it much more likely for both players to get an advantage, instead of the frequent "official" result of one player getting an advantage and one getting nothing useful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The warlord traits in the main book are just a holdover until codicies are updated to include them. They're not really meant to cover every army which is why, as you stated, it's much better to manipulate the rules to make it fairer to both players.

      Delete
  6. I agree on most accounts, but I have some issues.

    1) Double FOC is REALLY boring to play. I've tried it 5 times now, 3 of which were at 2k. It worked really well at 2500 points, but at 2000 it's incredibly dull. For example, Necrons can and should take 6 annihilation barges. For 540 points, this gives them the fire power of 9 rifledreads. If the player also takes 2 CCBS and gives all barges gauss cannons, 10 man squads of marines just disappear. It actually takes away diversity, not introduces it as people gain the ability to take pretty much whatever they want - which will always be the best units in their codex. The reason 2000 points was good to play in 5th was because it forced hard choices to be made when selecting an army. With 2 FOCs, that disappears.

    2) Terrain placement. Now, the concerns here aren't just time but also logistics. When 2 people are handling terrain unhurried, it's fine to use the rulebook way. When 8+ people are using the same pieces of terrain and there's 8+ games going on simultaneously and need to place them quickly to get in a good game, things break. When something does give, fixing it then takes additional time which you don't have in a tournament. Not to mention the game turns into "and this LOS blocker is going here, conveniently also where I'm putting this objective". In a friendly, you'd tell them to actually try and have fun but in a tournament, they're still following the rules and there's little you can do about it.

    3) Fortifications. This goes hand in hand with the above problem. Travelling with a fort is pretty hard sometimes, but that should still be fine. The issue is you can't really allow them to be put on pre-placed terrain, as things like the Fortress of Redemption are big enough to totally block areas off combined with ruins. So, if you don't allow terrain placement, you can't really allow some of the fortifications.

    Just my two cents. In smaller events, there's very little excuse not to disregard my points for 2 &3, but 1 will always stand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So I must disagree witn you...

      1) Every game I have played at 2000+ points have been fairly interesting games. The new metagame needs to be tested and explored in all its extreems not just boxed up and never given a chance in TO's.

      2) Terrain has alwasy been an issue in TO's. I would much rather have some say in the board setup than be given a table that is just bad for my army all around. Sure you oponent is going to try and LOS block you and so what plan for it do the same to him. For me a FUN! game of 40k is one played by the rules not where I try and manipulate my friends into playing the way I want to.

      3) I love them all. Now you just need to think about what can be done with them when building your list for a TO and act accordingly.

      I would just like to say that 40k has changed. So stop trying to change it back and change with it.

      These are my opinions but I cant be alone in them.

      Delete
    2. Almost nothing in your post is even close to true. it does not take longer for more players to place terrain, use a time limit and competent TOs like everything else. Your reasoning for no 2xFOC is that there are required army lists and boredom? Could that be a dumber reason, and also not even close to the truth?

      Talk about crazy talk. These are some of the standard reasons for modifying the game into oblivion by the "expert-hats." Always relying on almost No Truth and random "proofs." Its just not true. Play the game. Learn to swim.

      Delete
    3. ShotDownMind, I didn't say that more players took more time to place terrain or anything like that. I said when you're rushing to place reasonably fragile ruins and forests, things can and will break, slowing it down. Heck, some of my stuff breaks when I play normally with no time limit, let alone when I do. As I say, it's not so much a game play issue as a logistical one.

      For double FOC, I didn't say "required" lists, I said you would see less variety, which is true. If I was playing with IG, why would I NOT take 6 Vendettas? If I was playing with Grey Knights, why would I NOT take 6 psyfledreads? You can build lists without them, but you need very good reasons. Seeing the same units again and again I think we can all agree is dull. So, that's my argument - I think you would just see the same thing over and over. I'll admit I'd be interested in seeing a large tournament using 2 FOC though, just to see whether I'm right.

      Mojjo, you have an interesting point in terrain placement, so much so that I'm going to abandon defending my stance on people placing LOS blocking terrain. I guess we should consider it another skill, not just go "this is every 40k board, deal with it". The rulebook allows for some incredibly dense terrain which massively changes how the game plays. I still think there'd be logistical issues but it'd be interesting to see.

      So yeah. Not massively disagreeing here, I'd be in favour of using derelict buildings too as they're built into the rules. Just my opinions.

      Delete
    4. The double foc i find is very fun. As a necton player too i dont like to be limitrd in what i can take. Higher point games reprrsent bigger conflicts so more units. To me there more of an incentive to collect more so you dont have to fear not neimg able to use all your models.

      Delete
    5. ShotDownMind is dead on...!

      Delete
    6. Its not true by any means that all GK lists will include 56 psyfleman or necrons with 6 barges. Both of those lists at 2k are very hard builds to field and win with in the current competitive envornment (vs missions and other list builds.) 2k is specifically the sweet spot as there is SO FEW points to go around once so many toys are available. With allies and Add in Forgeworld ( as almost all competitive events are ) and the options at specifically 2k grow to an amazing extent. As we are already seeing with 6th edition, tabletop variety has increased and will continue (vs decreasing.) The 6 on 6 2xFOC nonsense is really nonsense in application, especially at 2k.

      Terrain breaks. Its part of life. Lac of variety (not true) and breaking terrain are both silly reasons to ban the BrB.

      Delete
    7. I tend to agree with the dislike of double FOC, I think it encourages spam lists far too much. You used to have to make a balanced list... that's what the FOC chart was there for in the first place. But doubling it encourages people to take 6 of the same power unit. I think they should have doubled it at 3000pts not 2000pts

      Delete
    8. Double focus is just a way for GW to sell more models. Anyone that thinks 2k with a double focus is "more fun" must be playing fluff bunnies and not in tournaments.

      Delete
    9. Double force org at a TOURNAMENT is what we're talking about here though, and let's be completely honest, 13/13/10 on a 90 point platform that puts out at least 4 s7 twin linked shots each time it fires is a really powerful thing. Talking about the points there being the sweet spot where there's not a lot to go around is silly when as it was cited, 6 of those costs 540 points. So if I field 6 of them I basically still get a 1500 point army, just with no heavy supports. Good thing I have 6 of the best ones in my army.

      In friendly games, I think double force org is awesome, it allows for you and your friends to make really interesting lists. But at a tournament removing a limitation on spamming is not going to stop people from spamming...

      Delete
    10. hey cas, what is 13/13/10 and puts out 4x s7 twin linked shots? nothing necron and nothing GK so what is it that you are talking about?

      Delete
  7. I can agree with the terrain or secondary objectives, but Warlord Traits?
    They are just bad. Either they do nothing for both sides or can heavily change the outcome (a though HQ as scoring unit or points for characters killed). They are not "fluffy" too. Why should a warlord that is somekind of stealth ops expert and can infiltrate units be with an army that has no use for it? Or rerolling reserves when there are none?
    It would be more realistic that the warlord with such traits would choose to tailor the army in a way that it atleast in a little way profits from them.

    Maybe thats just a temporary problem though, because the codex specific traits in the new CSM dex seem usefull.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally right, Warlord Traits differ from useless to very strong. Imagine a +1 for cover for e.g. ruins on a table full of it or the undying St. Celestine a scoring, fast unit.
      Good tournaments force you to choose one trait for the whole tournament.

      Delete
    2. Choosing is bad too. People tailer their army around it. Some benefit more than others.

      I think the randomness helps here. Its never too strong as you where not able to tailer you list for a 1 out of 6 chance. And it pushes you to play slightly different for every result - guess thats what GW wanted it to be.

      Delete
    3. & those are just a few examples. It's always great when one player gets something that makes their deathstar that much better while the other guy gets something that they already have or can't use ; P

      & "Sickening"? ...Drama much?

      Delete
    4. I think we will see less of this issue as new codex's are released as each codex with have army specific warlord tables to roll on as well and some HQ units just have a warlord trait. attached to them if you don't like rolling on the tables. So I see this problem going away very soon.

      Delete
    5. We just played our first full fledged 6th edition tournament in Atlanta, GA with ALL OF THE RULES and it was awesome. 20 players on 10 tables and we used 2.5 hour rounds. Worked like a charm. Everyone had a good time. 12 pieces of terrain per table rolled and placed by players, Warlord traits, Mysterious Terrain & Water...

      They even threw in a little twist and offered different bonuses to armies that brought either Allies, Double FOC and or "An Army of One" which was just a single FOC w/o Allies.

      This was 2000 point tournament and almost everyone made it through 5 rounds except for a few newer players. It can be done and it can be done well. You just have to have the courage to try!

      Delete
    6. Even in the unbalanced situation where one army benefits greatly and the other gets "nothing useful" not one of those situations is so overpowered to ban or change the trait system entirely. Learn to play the new game, there is a whole rulebook and everything.

      Delete
    7. I'm with ShotDownMind here. These things are built into the game and they aren't game breaking. When I use Necrons, I like rolling on the Command or Strategic traits, as all but 1 on those tables benefit me greatly. In that way, my army is built around a trait. When I roll those useless ones, is it a big issue? Well no, not really. People afraid of deathstars being buffed aren't looking at how the traits affect deathstars. Paladins and Nob Bikers already have FNP - that trait doesn't help. Neither does the +1 to cover, as the unit shouldn't be slowing itself down in cover. They add variety without breaking things and change the way the game plays. For that reason, there's no reason to ban them.

      Delete
    8. rpricew,
      can you email the name of the store and something on the tournament, would love to spotlight the store and its tournament.
      natfka@live.com

      Delete
    9. Wow again I totally agree with ShotDownMind... every bloody army rule in the entire game is designed to give one player an advantage of varying degree; yet we are accustomed to these. The warlord traits are no different, why freak out about these?

      Even the most "powerful" straw-man scenarios people can think up are still NOT that devastating, especially if you pay attention to your opponents roll. A scoring Celestine just means you give up one objective and let your opponent waste that whole unit holding it - OR I guess you can just give up or change the rules to make the game easier for you. The arguments are so asinine.

      Delete
    10. I don't think it's a good idea to let people choose warlord traits on the simple basis that it takes away some random element that was built in intentionally. To me if I went to a tournament that let me choose my warlord trait with my chaos (after the 6th) I'd ask if I was able to apply the same modification to the rules to my chaos offering roll (Some places I hear are allowing multiple rolls and choose from those instead of outright choosing.

      Delete
  8. Thank you for writing this! I couldn't agree more.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well said Natfka! I'm glad I am not the only one disgusted by this!

    J

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tournament players say they're the strongest players.

    So use the rules.

    FYI, since the cost of Ahriman's "Master of Deception" Warlord Trait is included in his profile, if I go to a tournament to play then I expect to be able to use all of my rules.

    ReplyDelete
  11. These are the same people who complain that GW does very little balancing and playtesting, yet they were already getting ready to throw new rules out of the window before 6th edition was even released.

    Double FoC? Use a 1999 point limit. Where's the problem?

    Fortifications? Every army can use them, so why ban them? As 6th progresses, more are going to be released as well as race specific ones. As soon as we see fortifications in a Codex, they're going to have to include them again.

    Mysterious terrain etc... more random stuff. Why the big rage on random stuff? It's a game where you roll dice. So extra random stuff ruins your mathammer; it's just another dice roll in a game of dice rolls that can either work in your favour or not... just like every other dice roll in the game.

    Terrain. If you don't want random terrain, get the event organiser to make up a bunch of tables with symmetrical terrain.

    Warlord Traits: More random stuff. Want a non-random game, go play chess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YES thank you!

      Though I love when my opponent is SO afraid of (despite very poor odds of something bad actually happening!) terrain and stays out in the open all game. I see it so often now - or they insist on playing with no 'mysterious' terrain. Have some f**n balls!

      Delete
    2. I agree with all this, except mysterious objectives/terrain. This is on the grounds that precisely BECAUSE they're random, they're really easy to forget, and hard to keep track of.

      In an edition which generally plays slower (different armour save rolls, more guys on foot rather than metal bawkses, and model placement actually mattering), I think it's far more important to actually get on and finish your game in the time period, rather than worry about little things that don't really effect the game, but occasionally ruin one players day.

      I would comment about 2000 points dual FoC business, but I don't actually find playing large games under tournament conditions that fun, as there is a high chance you only get to play a silly short number of turns, and that could ruin your weekend through no fault of your own. This coming from a man who played a 3 turn game at the recent 40k doubles (our 3rd turn took place after the 2 hour 15 limit has ended...)

      Delete
    3. The edition is not slower. Comparing 6th to 5th and using 5th to 6th comparisons (different saves and aps...) is lolness. Even with original LoS shenanigans, all it took was familiarity and player generated "manners" to bring the game "back" to its "normal" speed. If 2k games are taking you longer then 2.5 hours, then you are a n00b (or your opponent is) or you are doing something(s) very very wrong.

      3 months ago if you shot at a unit and someone just grabbed handfulls of dice and started rolling his Los/saves, it would need precise timing and familiarity of the players to happen at any sort of speed without tons of step by step explanation. Today its not true and almost any of us with any amount of actual games under our belt could play through a whole game or certainly any particular phase with great speed and almost no familiarity. Get real.

      Delete
    4. "2k games are taking you longer then 2.5 hours, then you are a n00b"

      Frontline's Reece disagrees with your findings. I dunno, he might have some experience with tournaments...

      So hard to keep track of who the 'noobs' are isn't it? Why don't *you* get real?

      Delete
  12. Totally agree!! - I've played every edition of 40k and I started playing tournaments during 2nd Ed... I've had mostly good times but I've always felt that these events bring out the worst of people and often the organizers, despite best intentions.

    This current mindset is really frustrating and I'm so happy you are calling it out. Fact is, before this edition was even released, places like BOLS were heavily engaged in this 'Not-for-tournament-play-freakout!' fear-mongering. People had made up their minds before even playing a single game let alone at least a handful.

    I asked the 'feast of blades' guys why they assumed 'they knew what was best for everyone' when the rules had just come out. They responded telling me they play-tested their missions over 100 games! ...but when I asked how many of those 100 games did they play with _actual_ rules before they made up their mind to exclude them, they had no answer. The answer was ZERO... Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. Almost 100% of this naysaying-nonsense is backed by 100% nonsense. "I played 5 games I am now an expert on topic X."

      Its crazyness. Play it out, dont throw it out!

      Delete
    2. I dont know who you are, but I have never had an email that asked "why do you assume to know the best for everyone..." EVER. I have had lots of emails about 6th edition and FoB with the decisions we made.

      The TO's from all the major events talk regularly and in this instance FoB and NOVA had literally days to make decisions that will cost people thousands who plan to attend our events.

      We try to make decisions that will allow people to have fun with their models and I feel we have done that.

      To insinuate that we don't reply to emails or that we are in any way "pathetic," is horrid.

      We did play 100+ games and we (at first) decided to go with the game copletly 100% out of the codex but we then recieved lietrally dozens of emails from people who were very angry about that decision, so we did the best thing for OUR attendees who communicated with us and went to 2000 points single, FOC.

      We don't even presume to know what is best for THE WHOLE HOBBY. We run the best event we know how and we dedicate dozens of peoples lives to the effort. Your anonymous post is cowardly and in poor taste.

      I am happy to answer any and all questions and to do any kind of Q and A with anyone. our email is Feastofblades@gmail.com

      Chandler
      Feast of Blades TO

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  13. You comment of "one store downtown doing this" must refer to the one I attend. Of all the things you mention are bad, the only ones we have done from that list so far is to limit the skyshield and fortress of redemption, mainly because of space. As the TO for the next event, I am thinking of allowing people to pick two warlord traits categories, roll a die, and pick one from the two categories. Mainly because I've seen how many times people get a worthless trait vs a rock solid trait.

    I don't really get your slam on our store as it is, in my opinion, the best gaming store in the area, and we haven't done much to limit much of anything, unlike other stores and events. Heck, out last league was 2k double FOC!

    A lot of the things posted above like terrain are about time. You typically only have 2 hours to complete a game and anything that adds to the time of setup only takes away from playing.

    I really feel that you have a unreasonably tainted viewpoint about "the one store downtown doing this" as this has not been my experience at all. I hear you plan on running your own tourny and I say go for it and see how you do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. unfortunately the "tainted" viewpoint is from experience there and then again in tournaments there over the last many years.

      Send me, or just post up and let me know about it, a set of rules that match 6th edition and are not destroyed by comp.

      I would love to be wrong, and in that case would love to advertise your tournament here.

      Delete
    2. Hrm...Don't know if we are referring to the same "store downtown". We don't use comp in our tournies. Never have at any of our events. The store "I'm" referring to is GG. Is that the one you are referring to?

      Delete
    3. Skyshield and Fortress "space" issues are more sillytalk. It just is. Allow players to move terrain, replace terrain, or place terrain as the rulebook defines. Any of those simple, zero-effort solutions work great, and quickly prove that those fortifications are not by any means "unmanageable."

      3 months ago Fortress was banned because it was "Obviously Broken." Now its too big. What craziness. Very few people have even played with or against one. Funny how that lines up.

      Delete
    4. The biggest concern IMO with a lot of these rule changes is the time factor. There is a lot more that whittles that game down. The first tourny we did for sixth had most of my games getting to turn three. All the extra rules and setup are making it hard right now to put in all across the board. Things will get more fluid in time, but certain elements like the Fortress can add a big time sink.

      Delete
  14. Accept diversity, I'd rather be able to pick and choose from lots of different events than have them all be the same.

    You sound like the Rick Santorum of 40k with all this talk of vomiting and follow the damn rules. Take it easy guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love a good Santorum joke but I think it's misplaced here. I also do like some diversity but I think we both know that is not at all what this is about.

      The "mysterious forest is going to ruin my WAAC list!!!" fear-fest started before the rules were even released and this is a direct result.

      Delete
    2. I feel that by picking and choosing rules they are actually reducing the diversity of lists. These same tourneys are the ones who often say no Forgeworld units are army lists even though they are official and from GW. On another note politics and GW rarely mix well and only end in shouting matches and internet rage.

      Delete
    3. I dont think its quite appropriate to equate me to Rick Santorum. I do though appreciate the complement.

      Delete
    4. Yes! Throwing out the Fortress, secondary objectives, mysterious terrain, The Relic, and The Scouring create a false metagame. The same people who want to toss these core parts of the game will go write an article about how broken Cron Flyers are in the current metagame. Hilarity.

      Delete
  15. I don't think it's disgusting or unforgivable to augment the rules if it makes the game better...Hell, GW has had six different iterations of this game that we all love. But...I fully agree with Natfka. IF YOU ARE HOSTING A WARHAMMER 40K TOURNAMENT, USE THE WARHAMMER 40K RULES.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no such thing as a "WARHAMMER 40K TOURNAMENT." 40k is not a fair game, it's not a sport and must be adjusted in order to fit tournament standards. Even Games Workshop adjusts the rules to meet tournament criteria.

      It's fair to say that tournament play is bland compared to pick-up games or campaigns or whatever but it's not fair to undermine all of the hard work TO's put into their events so we can get our money's worth.

      Delete
  16. I agree use the rules as written. We actually have actually started giving a pre game time limit. We give 15 minutes at the start so we can do random terrain placement, warlord traits and powers. Seems to work well because you never get stuck on the same table 2 turns in a row. Makes the round a bit longer but helps a lot with the enjoyment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with a lot of your points, specifically:

    -Just using fortifications
    -Just using warlord traits as is
    -1999+1 -> while i still enjoy single FOC 2000 point games, I'm of the same mind, if you want single FOC, just use a lower points value. There does seem to be some shock with events of "IT STILL HAS TO BE 2K"

    However, I think you've really missed the boat on the terrain. While at local shop tournies I generally agree, as they'll at most have 16-32 ish players and 3 games, so long/easy game times and plenty of between round padding, at a large GT with 256 players, player placed terrain is a huge headache, one which you almost have to be involved in and see first hand before it really sinks in.

    The issues with it:
    -The terrain gets damaged from getting picked up, moved around, taken in and out of bins, etc. for an entire weekend by 256 players who are rushing, grabbing, etc.
    -If you have to have a bin for every table, it's a PITA (128 bins just for the one GT, when other events are usually simultaneous). If you don't have a bin from every table, one set of players can bogart large/small pieces, leaving some tables with way too little terrain, and some too much
    -It slows down the game. And it does, there's no ifs ans or buts about it, it does. You have to get the terrain out, roll off and alternate placement, consider where to place it, etc. At the GT level some people take a bit longer to think as the games are more "important". Like it or not, this will eat up a few minutes at best, and upwards of 5-10 for some folks. GTs of that magnitude run on very tight timetables, if you have something that slows down the pairings by 10 minutes, you throw off the schedule of the entire event every round by an increasing amount. And with 128 tables, at least one or more is going to slowboat the process. If you play 4-5 games in a day, throwing off the schedule by ~45 minutes isn't out of the realm of possibility, which can really detract from the overall enjoyment.

    And lastly...maybe a little too much hate on GT's/Events doing things their own way in your post. While you may not like how they run it, realize no one is doing this for profit, and it's every tournament organizer/shops prerogative to do whatever they want and feel will enhance the game. One of the best things about the circuit has always been that everyone does things a bit differently, and as such, there's a great variety of events playing things just a bit differently so as a play, you have a new challenge/don't get bored. And if you don't like one particular event -> you just dont go!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well its not true that mysterious stuffs slow down the game (period the end - nice touch.) As we have gotten familiar with the new game, its all come full circle. Its easy to place terrain and play a game at 2k in under 2.5 hours. There have been FEW GTs since 6th dropped, and none have used player terrain placement, so how you have seen this firsthand amazes me. TOs watch tables and tournament property for many reasons already. If a player thinks the table is lacking terrain options he can raise it with a TO. (Just like if he thinks the TO placed terrain is crazy or modified.) TOs have a lot of work to do before, during and after, this doesnt add much. You have to see it happen with 256 people in person to believe it (see we can all do that.)

      Delete
    2. Player placed terrain has been something done at some events all the way back into 3rd edition, 6th edition didn't change that.

      Also - I didnt say mysterious stuff slows down the game, I don't think i talked about mysterious stuff at all actually..

      But since you replied in more of a trollish/snarkster way to a pretty normal, serious post...I'm guessing this is on deaf ears already.

      Let's hear it, what large events (name and size) have you run, or been involved in running, or ones that you've attended and played in the event.

      Delete
  18. Stop QQ Ing!
    If you dont like the tournament rules dont Take Part. GW did Not balance the Game Thats why we have to do it! Its supposed to be Fun for all Players Not just SPAMers!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Based on your extensive 6th ed tournament experience? Sorry you are full of it. You in your little spam netlist meta and me in mine are much less qualified to judge balance than gw especially not knowing their plans for the big picture (future codex / updates).

      Further, how can you claim rules are unbalanced when you don't even use them? That is the very definition of ignorance. If after a year of learning the new rules, the new "spams", the new meta, with new codex and updates, you still feel the same... Well at least then I will respect your opinion.

      Delete
    2. Exactly. Even 3 months into the NEW GAME with a couple FAQ updates and the first new codex on the horizon, NONE of us are qualified to specify how the New Game Should Look, Feel, Run, and Play. Does it matter if its how they intended? Does it really? The battlefield is the battlefield. Play it out!

      Delete
  19. Well said! I am tired of TO's amending rules for both Fantasy or 40k as they see fit. They have been doing this in Fantasy for a while now (cherry picking units to limit, i.e. Dark Elf Hydras, limiting unit sizes, ect..) and now are doing it to 40k. Use the rules as written by GW and let us bring all of our Forgeworld toys and army lists. Don't the rules? Find another game.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I like the new stuff except for the double FoC. The problem with double FoC isn't it's existence, it's that its set way too low. At 2000pts it doesn't promote "variety" at all it'll just promote expansions of cookie cutter armies to their logical conclusion. Even the reason given was so bad it smelt like Nurgle used it as a jockstrap "2000pts is limiting" that is pure bull. I have several armies at 2000pts and not once did I find it limiting (IG, CSM, Slaaneshi Daemons, SW, BA, SM, DE, Nids).

    Example Perfectly Legal/Boring/Painful Force
    Asdrubael Vect on Dais w. Court
    Lady Malys
    4 x Squad of 5 Wyches (Hydra Gauntlets and Haywire) in Venoms
    6 x Ravagers (3 w Dark Lances and 3 w Disintegrators)

    That'll be in the region of 2000pts

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree and I don't. Also in the region of 2000pts, in fact 2k on the nose I believe is;

      Primaris Psyker

      Psyker Battle squad (Over & 8x Sanctioned) w/Chimera

      Vets w/Chimera, 3x Flamer
      Vets w/Chimera, 3x Flamer

      Hellhound
      Hellhound
      Hellhound

      3x Scout Sentinels
      3x Scout Sentinels
      3x Scout Sentinels

      2x Hydra Flakk Tank
      2x Hydra Flakk Tank
      2x Hydra Flakk Tank
      2x Hydra Flakk Tank
      2x Hydra Flakk Tank
      2x Hydra Flakk Tank

      An army perfectly able of dealing with the Dark Eldar army above. As you say this is a by-product of the tournament mindset, min/max.

      If anything double FoC has opened up more possibilities and combos for people to explore. I honestly don't think the bar is set too low, I think issue is none of the "experts" on the net aren't willing to test experiment, they'd rather state the obvious and go all out with it.

      If you look at people who prove their track record by going out and actually winning tournaments, (such as Hinge on the CotEC forums), they're constantly evolving their game and trying new things. They won't tell you this unit sucks, they'll tell you what it does well, what it does bad and how to get the most out of it. Fortunately I play with a group of guys who are always looking to learn, try new things, and see if what they're told doesn't work actually does.

      I honestly believe IMO that there's nothing wrong with the double FOC, it's fun. The issue for me is the people shouting loudest, don't even want to try. I think it's great that Natfka is championing the new rules, hopefully people will start to embrace all parts of it and we'll see some really interesting armies in the future.

      Just my two, sorry if this seemed like it was aimed at anyone, it wasn't. Hope it made sense, rant over.

      Delete
    2. Thats a nasty list but don't you need 1 more hq and 2 more troops? Even so I imagine you can squeeze that easily by losing scout sentinels and Psyker squad.

      You got my point and put it forward better I think. The spirit of it is fine but the application of it will suck in tournaments. Hence why I think the bar is too low. Still it's easy to avoid for people running tournaments who don't like it by simply setting their limit to 1500-1850pts which still produces a nice size army with lots of flexibility. Then people who don't mind set it to what they want. Problem solved, variety established. :D

      Delete
    3. That is a horrible dark eldar force with glaring weaknesses.

      Just as easily (actually easier I think) as you say 2xFOC is boring and limits variety the rest of us can say otherwise.

      You are wrong, and your DE list stinks.

      Delete
    4. I like that unlike KitKat’s reasoned response your argument sums up as “I’m right you are wrong” so I’ll work on the principle you’re a troll who gets off on being an antagonistic douche and once I’ve addressed your limited points once I’ll then ignore you.

      Quoted from above
      “The problem with double FoC isn't its existence; it's that its set way too low. At 2000pts it doesn't promote "variety" at all it'll just promote expansions of cookie cutter armies to their logical conclusion.”

      Notice that I don’t have a problem with the concept only that I think (as in a personal opinion, these are allowed even if they don't fit with your world view) a higher limit (3000pts for instance) would be a more reasonable and that the effect it will have on tournaments is that the same old list will be used just with more of the same stuff. Have I at any point said that I don’t play unless that rule is removed? No I haven’t because I stick with the rules that are in the book even the ones I think are silly for the simple reason that if you do that you know exactly whats going on with no sudden cases of “house rule” confusion and it carries on simply. You may notice I even pointed a simple solution which can be summed up as: Don’t complain instead play the points value that makes you happy.

      The army list was whipped up in my head as an example. It’s an expansion of a concept that I’ve seen used repeatedly and it's one that if applied properly you’ll do a lot of damage rapidly and your opponent can face a struggle to come back.

      Now crawl back into your parent’s basement and let the adults talk.

      Delete
  21. I remember advocating for the same thing throughout 5th edition with tournys before NOVA came around and getting routinely shouted down. Funny how the opposite is occurring now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NOVA happened at the END of the 5th edition lifeline. After the game and most of the codex had ben played out for years in some cases. NOVA was a result of the stagnation in 5th tourneys. 6th edition is a NEW GAME and the NOVA format needs to be updated, not the other way around.

      Delete
  22. Yeah it's pretty bad in my area as well, to the point where we've been holding unofficial tournaments in my garage just so we can all the rules and some of the extra ones too, like Low Gravity and such. And some of my favorite games has been with 2k+ double FOC armies

    ReplyDelete
  23. As a nid player, I say people playing 1999+1 are just cheeky, hell, if you can play 1999+1 then I'm banning allies completely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. But nid players have balls anyway, i see it as adversity that allows us to show off superiority. Go ahead, buddy up. You're still just biomass waiting to be eaten.

      Delete
  24. I have 20 pieces of terrain under my table, at the least... and it is usually a very different table each time around.

    ReplyDelete
  25. On the grounds I've had a whine about what I disagree with, I should probably balance what I DO agree with.

    Double FOC. Yes, I said it makes the game boring. On the other hand, it also make Tyranids very, very good. Am I willing to trade variety of units for more playable armies? I dunno yet.

    Warlord traits. I don't really get why people want to change this. They're not unfair and generally have no impact at all. I'm yet to play a game and think "if they'd not gotten that, I would've won", and I doubt I ever will. There's some that seem more potent that they are (stealth in ruins for warlord), but then you realise that 90% of the time they're either still taking their armour save anyway or have gone to ground and are useless for a turn.

    Amount of terrain. Even in 5th, I wanted more terrain. It's more interesting to look at, it's more interesting to play and it's in the rules. I know it's expensive to build terrain, but having a good board to play on is just as important as your army list.

    Secondary objectives. They're fine as they are. The only slight point of contention is first blood (which inherently favours the army going first) but certainly slay the warlord and line breaker are perfectly reasonable. Bought a cheap HQ? Cool, you get extra stuff in your army but concede 1 VP. Bought a tough HQ? You get the reverse. Personally, I enjoy using them and again, can't think of a game I've lost because they're "unfair".

    Fortifications. They're not cheap and add stuff. Other than the issue I said earlier when used with pre-placed terrain, there's no excuse to not use these.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Secondary objectives are fine. First blood balances the many advantages of going second.

      I can't understand how you don't the issue with Warlord traits. When you make a tough character scoring or give a Deathstar unit FNP you change the game dramatically. A Paladin unit normally pays +75 points to get FNP. If the opponent gets something useless that could be a winning edge. The disparity is going to grow much wider as new codices come out whilst older ones are forced to roll from the book charts.

      Small imbalances make friendly games interesting but they've got no place in tournaments.

      So much of what you, ShowDownMind and others have posted simply fails to take the game to its extreme. In a 20, 40 or even 60 man tourny you may have a great time playing with all the rules. But as internationsl 250+ man events grow even more popular TO's have to take matter into their own hands to ensure the most people are having fun. A Fortress of Redemption with a Barrage-spam IG army hiding behind it may not be broken, but it'd definitely not fun. Playing against a scoring Celestine that gets back up on the last turn is not fun (if you got nothing). Playing against 6 Psyflemen and 12 henchmen units is not fun.

      I believe Natfka and the rest of you are grossly underestimating just how much big events have to lose. These guys are writing cheques for tens of thousands of dollars and if they include something that keeps even 20% of their attendance away, guess who foots the bill?

      Delete
  26. I can't speak for other tournaments, but I can say with regards to Feast of Blades that virtually every change was done from the input of the players. There was an overwhelming avalanche of emails and phone calls in support of leaving out certain rules, so we did. Double FoC being the primary one, hence the 1999 +1 thing. Will it stay this way?..who knows. We are running the 40K Open with all rules and FW allowed so we'll at least have some type of baseline for comparison later.

    As far as Terrain goes, it's incredibly easy to say you need 12 pieces of terrain per board. Experience would say that this is virtually impossible to achieve for as many tables as most of the big tournaments are running. We've had a lot of volunteers spend many weekends working on our terrain..and it's the best stuff you're going to see in a major tournament. To ask people to spend even more time building this stuff is going way beyond the probable. You run a tournament that has 100 tables and build 1200 pieces of QUALITY terrain for it and then I'll listen to you. Not meaning to be snarky, but I find this part to be a ludicrous statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Feast of Blades was one of the first big tournaments after the release of the new rules. Player whining or not - there was certainly not enough subjective data to determine which rules to pick and choose.

      And people only freaked out because places like BOLS advertised the new rules as the 'end of competitive play' and other ridiculous ideas - when in reality the new ruleset is quite good for competitive play - _FAR BETTER_ than any previous version.

      Delete
    2. Player input, lol!

      Many GTs have tons of great terrain. NOVA, SoCal Slaughter Folks, and Zero Comp being the foremost, I am sure there are plenty others.

      Delete
    3. Nova didn't have 12 pieces of terrain per table and the other 2 aren't even in the same sentence when it comes to big tournaments. I looked at your blog and then realized what store you come out of..explains everything to me having been in there a few times.

      Delete
    4. While Nova may not have had 12 5 of the pieces on each table were quite large so I am not sure I would throw them under the bus. I am fairly sure that they had 7 pieces with the area of coverage thats a lot, are we advocating for something like 30% table coverage, I know the Rules give guidance to only number not coverage but they even say if its big make it count for more so at only 1.5 per 12x12 piece then nova had something like 9.5 to 10.5 pieces and thats pretty good IMO

      Delete
  27. I think it's been brought up many times before, simply run your own tournament.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's why I don't go to tournaments. They encourage the worst kind of neckbearded rules abuse anyway, and generally smell fucking terrible.

    ReplyDelete
  29. As a TO myself I'd just like to throw out a few thoughts on this post (I only run local tournaments)

    1999+1 aka. Double FOC: This is the most problematic of the things you listed. Yes it does a open a divergence of lists...only in the fact that they're extraordinarily abusive. I have tried tournaments with this and the results were pretty disastrous. I saw a Daemon army with 45 flamers (he won), I saw Space Wolves with 6 Long Fang Squads that still had solid troops choices, Imperial Guard armies with 15 fliers, the list goes on. So I banned it. Frankly the only army that can take advantage of the Double FOC without breaking it are Tyranids. Even then they can't do it very well because their HQs are so expensive. It simply causes too many problems, hence I use the 1999+1 system. Simply my input on that

    Warlord Traits: Why? Why would any TO consider changing this? They simply have so little effect on a game that I can't see banning them to be sensible (I used to not enjoy them, but they grew on me). Sure there will always be that occasional game that a player gets that one trait that is immensely beneficial (scoring Swarmlord anyone?) but it doesn't break the game, it makes it far more interesting and varied. This really makes me upset to see

    Terrain: We are fortunate enough to have enough to terrain for our events unless we get an unforeseen amount of players, then our terrain is stretched a little thin. Usually we have around 10 pieces per board and every board is set up in a similar fashion to save time (we play at a local hobby store's back room and we have a time limit on the space so we havn't tried alternating terrain). I don't know what other TOs are doing about terrain but it really shouldn't be that difficult

    Secondary Objectives: If you feel the need to take them out, you have a serious problem. These are immensely needed in objective games its ridiculous. I could rant here about why these are such a good addition to the game but simply put they really help fix draws and they allow a player who may have had their troops destroyed to still win a game or hang in there. Really, keep them

    Fortifications: I'm still iffy on these, but I havn't had any REAL problems with them thus far so they stay. I can see the Fortress of Redemption being banned but I personally have had no problems with it and would encourage other TOs to allow it in games because it simply is such a points sink for a player (not in a bad way) that the enemy army can make do.

    Anyways those are my thoughts on this. Great post

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You saw all 45 chaos flamers and all fliers. You should have let them fight with each other instead of changing the rules. This way chaos flamer army would loose and next time he would take more balanced army.

      Delete
    2. Abusive to what? Did you ban leafblower, critical mass, or battlewagon madness in 5th edition? This post is really the epitome of TO crazyness.

      Delete
    3. 45 flamers or 6 long fangs is abusive but scoring swarmlord is not? I dont think abusive could possibly apply, but I think the comparison here tells volumes. AGENDA. Old Guard AGENDA. these folks want to push around leafblower and have 4+ cover for everyone. They dont want to play in the land of 6th, just whatever dreamed up land of 5.5 (5th fixed) they can arrange.

      Delete
  30. Double FOC allows for the potential of more varied lists, but it allows also for even more foolish min/max, and at a tournament/competitive event you just allow for real abuse to take place. The 6 Annihilation Barges for example.

    Warlord Traits, some are simply flat out better then others, its too random to build for, and better implementations are possible. We like the roll 1 die, and select the one you want out of the 3 charts solution in our group.

    Random Terrain and Terrain placement.

    Sorry but yes this does take too long if your trying to stay within 2 hour time frames. I dont see how either impacts the balance of the game in a positive way and over a tournament it isnt balanced between games.

    There is a difference between a competitive tournament, and a 40k raw tournament. Most players at a tournament are looking for the first option, hence 1999+1, pre placed terrain and less random charts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abusive is a fake term. It doesnt apply. Tough, mean, powerfull lists are ALL Abusive from someones point of view. What ridiculous terminology to base changing core principles of the new game on.

      Delete
    2. "Sorry" but it doesnt take "too long." I doubt very much (certainly not "enough") real world empirical experience is behind this "period the end" type statement.

      Delete
  31. Thats why I invite friends to play in my house and avoid Tournaments in my area because they are changing 6th edition rules to fit their army because what is the worst they play in their own tournament. With rules from 6th edition it would be harder for them to win.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think your missing the quick the dirty of the tournaments here. Games often don't have time to finish and as such certain aspects of the game need to be changed to accommodate this, same goes with leveling the playing field for players.

    There is also a big difference between 8 people playing at a LGS and 256 playing at Adepticon.

    And lastly GW has said that they didn't design 40k for tournaments, so by there very admission the game must be changed to be used in that format. Until they pull there heads out of matt wards ass and learn to design simple rules that can expand into complex ones all players will suffer from it.

    But trying to draw a line between players that like tournaments settings and players that don't is just at best childish and at worst a form of prejudiced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GW folks at US and UK games day did not say "40k is not designed for tournament play."

      This is a myth propagated by the expert-hats who need to fix this broken game.

      There hasent been a ton of nameless faceless GTs since 6th edition to point at and say, "this is how it is, I has a lot of experience, terrain takes time and FOC is abusive." So none of this is hard facts or way of life. NO GT has run with terrain placement, NONE with 2xFOC, None unmodified. So it hasent been proven by any means that these items are game breaking or abusive, its purely expert-hats talking loudly.

      Delete
    2. Sure, its been said, but so have lots of things. Its not proff in anyway that the game istelf is broken and needs fixing for tournament play. Thats just loud talking.

      Delete
  33. Maybe this is why GW increases their prices.... to stop spamming o.0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah that makes total sense, a company raising prices to limit sales...I mean double FOC so you can buy more of those large kits at $80 (6 Forgefiends) why would a publicly traded company want that?

      Delete
  34. My opinion: if games workshop wants to improve White Dwarf by having meaningfull content. They should 1st get more involved in the tournement scene by sponsoring and offering prizes, a stipulation of said sponsorship would of coarse be, PLAY 6TH EDITION, not some hybrid. 2. Covering these tournements in their magazine.

    A lot of these tournements have been going on for years. Why have they not continued to stock-pile terrain?

    Personally, I believe they give in to the crybabies, thinking no-one will show. What the TOs fail to see is the tournement players crave that environment like crack to a crackhead.

    Bellumvinco

    ReplyDelete
  35. Do you have a problem with event organizers changing 6th edition rules to fit into Narrative games and events? E.G. instead of random terrain effects for each forest/river, having one set type for entire tables? It allows for themed tables is all I'm saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really enjoy playing it that way. Makes waaay more sense and is more thematic.

      "This forest here eats you but a few feet away is a forest made out of metal that no one knew about!" Just stupid.

      Delete
    2. So, it is stupid that you came from serveral planetary sectors away. Dropped onto a planet you have never heard of...and don't instantly kniw everything about the place. Those little pieces of terrain rep a huge thing. There are still things we don't know about our own planet, but that is stupid. Lol.

      As far as the Theme table. I am honestly torn. I really like the idea on one hand, but worry that like playing my army, I may be better or worse at placing terrain than my opponent. If I am better, I lose a skill advantage I may or may not have over them. I put a lot of thought into all the phases. I believe I win 90% of my games during deployment. Placing terrain is a part of my deployment. Hmm..themed tables can be fun. Honestly, there are two ways in the BRB to place terrain. Either is 6th edition.

      Bellumvinco

      Delete
  36. I'm surprised no one brought up the placement of objectives AFTER sides have been determined. No TO in their right mind would allow this unless the objectives were an even number.

    Anybody wanna tell me how that's totally fair and I should try it and then I'll see how fair it is and how GW totally know what they're doing?

    ReplyDelete
  37. I have no problem building a army that is capable of playing defense or offense. I like the change.

    If they start out with 2 objectives to my 1. I can deploy and play that. If they have 1 to my 2, I can play that. Fair is for children.

    Bellumvinco

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Fair is for children"

      And tournaments -that's the whole point. Winning because you outplayed your opponent not because you had a huge advantage to begin with.

      Delete
  38. The one issue I have with player placed terrain is the timing of it, it's done after determining which player has which deployment zone, which is just asking for players to try as hard as they can to skew the game in their favour with their terrain placement.

    Sure both players can do it, but I still think that's silly, I'd rather neither player knew his side when placing the terrain.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I agree 100% with what you've said. I quit going to tournaments at my local hobby shop because of this exact problem, and from what I hear attendance overall has dropped. I play Warhammer 40K, not Cherrypickhammer. I play by the rules in the rulebook and theres NOTHING worse than knowing the rules and using ALL the rules in my practise/pick-up games only to be told a bunch of them won't be used. There are enough mix-ups with the rules without people cherry picking the ones they like.

    I understand that some TO's think they can make it easier, but all they're doing is scr&wing the people that play by the rules.

    ReplyDelete
  40. So, where exactly are the rules for tournaments in 6th. I don't see a section discussing pairings, scoring or anything like that. It's impossible to run a tournament using only the 6th ed rulebook.

    Check out "The Spirit of the Game" on page 8. The rules exist as a framework, functional out of the box but infinitely mutable to the satisfaction of the players.

    Would you boycott the ETC, Astronomicon, or any of the other variant formats that exist? Or is just a specific hate-on for a handful of events you oh so bravely failed to mention?

    6th is a solid system and it really opens up the tournament scene to run multiple formats. You've got your "standard/limited" of 1999+1 or less optimized for streamlined play. You can have double FOC insanity for folks who really love extreme lists. Team tournaments, narrative events, FW events and so on. 6th is all about options, so why restrict yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm sure the writer of the article would agree it is amateur, only professionals get paid for such a thing. Very silly of you to attack the person in that way.

    I think the real issue is the tournements aren't even trying. It is like giving up on a army build before doing any playtesting at all. I can see going in a different direction after having run a tournement staying true to 6th and seeing that it just didn't work, but that isn't happening. Same O'l cherry picking of this and that. I like this not that. All in the name of fair and balanced.

    Fear of change and a egotistical need to put their own spin to things is real driving force behind this conversation.

    Can't we all just play the same game, using the same set of rules? No, we can't.

    Bellumvinco

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not fear of change - I love how people throw that out - its about being practical and running an event people will enjoy... And unless you don't charge an entry fee then running an event is by all means practical. Is this philosophy going to hurt big events like Adepticon or Nova... I highly doubt it. Will upcoming events kowtow to these threats - I doubt it.

      Delete
    2. ... Then running an event is professional.

      Delete
    3. I'm a US 40K player for the last five years. I've listened to several podcasts from the 11th Company recently with interviews with tournament organizers and the challenges they face with the introduction of 6th edition. Anyone who believes that these are lazy farts who want to bastardize 40K because they couldn't be bothered to play it "by the book" is completely wrong.

      These are dedicated hobbyists (the vast majority -- always exceptions) who are making hard decisions on how to implement 6th edition given the logistical limits that mid-to-large level tournaments face and a fan base that needs to be made happy (they want them to come back, right?).

      OMG someone wants to play 40K slightly different from the book, boo hoo. Geez, grow the f*** up.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  43. the only chance the local shop makes from the rulebook in tournies is terrain. feels good man.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The problem with the double force org is that it is an entirely new meta, and, man, I don't want to learn a new meta.

    ReplyDelete
  45. What surprises me most about the original post and most the comments is the level of aggression and lack of flexibility by everyone. it is a game, not the 3rd world war and everyone might want to chill a bit. I think the whole thread sounds like trolling of people who want to try a variant approach.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Just don't go to tournaments. Problem solved. They're vile, smelly monstrosities anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ha ha, yeah, the smell of most tournaments would make even grandfather nurgle want to get out his air freshener.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Warlord traits, CERTAINLY have a huge impact on many games. Move through cover and stealth runes? Ohh, so now you have a 3+ cover save in ruins? Yeah, that isn't extremely advantageous what-so-ever right?

    Have the Tournaments just have 16 pieces of terrain. lets just have all the Tournaments either triple, or in some cased quadruple their investment in terrain... most of which aren't making money to begin with. Makes sense to me.

    Lastly, you mention the 1999+1 and 'get over it' 'play smaller games'. Really? what kind of argument is that. Why does this only go to your way of thinking? You're extremely critical of the way tournaments are ran, but seem to think only your way is the correct way?

    It seems the complainers of tournaments have a few options. First would be to complain to the TO, not some internet forum where they think people actually care or give a single shit. Second, don't go to tournaments you don't agree with (this should be a no brainer honestly), and third - host your own tournament with the rules you want. See how many people show up and enjoy themselves when you have 16 pieces of terrain, followed by 2 fortresses of redemption. I know I would have a blast at that format..............

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh that unit has a 3+ cover save in a ruin... you might as well give up then.

      I mean it's not like 'other rules' could have allowed that same affect or even the (above average) chance that they already have 3+ armour... just give up dude.

      There are no 'ignores cover' weapons and re-adjusting your strategy AFTER you've built your list is unheard of... just give up.

      I mean they might at best camp ONE objective... so you lost the game right? ...just give up dude.

      Delete
  49. Wow, your logic is amazing. When you're fighting horde/nids etc a 3+ cover save is quite amazing in the game changer.

    Assuming you go to tournaments with all your 'no cover' weapons (I know, I bring a TON of flamers in my lists...)

    Judging by your comment, you lack tournaments 'under your belt' and probably agree entirely with the concept provided in this article. Except.. lets think about having 15 pieces of terrain on the field. Oh, camp '1 objective' (which assuming that is the mission being played), do you forget that players can PLACE the objectives in the new book? Oh, yeah, about that.

    Also, having ruins on your opponents side, can often grant you cover as they will be shooting through them at you. Sorry to say but giving cheap models a marine save is going to screw a lot of games over, simply because you rolled on a specific warlord table.

    If you're going to present such poor argument, at least submit with your name so I can make fun of you properly.

    I really like the comment about chance that they have a 3+ cover save... so cute. You're obviously a skilled and educated 40k player.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh hah ...alright tournament-pro. How many tournaments have you been to where there has been an abundance of 'ruin' terrain per table? I've been to many, over many years, and I've never seen more than one or two pieces of 'ruin' terrain per table.

      How does 'placing' objectives in anyway help your rant? ...right, it doesn't, you still cannot place two objectives within a foot of each other. What is your point? - like I said, at best, camp one objective.

      Further even at your magical tournaments where all the terrain is ruins - and I played nids for years mind you, why the f* are my hoards sitting in a ruin? I do love 4+ saves, and 3+ is much goddamned better, but I NEVER climb up multi-tier terrain pieces because it's tough to assault out of and I rarely 'sit around' with any of my units - because it usually means I lose, unless however I am camping an objective.

      As much as you sling insults you have no argument and you sound like a player that simply cannot adapt.

      The real philosophical change here with these warlord traits and mysterious terrain etc is this: In the 5th edition you could win games at the computer building your list.

      Now you have to think, adapt and pay attention - at the game table (after your list is built god forbid!). If I ignore that my opponents warlord is scoring, then it's on me.

      BTW this blog does not support Disqus - I am Zingbaby.

      Delete
    2. You are also forgetting that there is a RANDOM 1-in-6 chance of me rolling the warlord trait that you are so afraid of and unable to defend.

      Frankly if it HELPS me win 1 in 6 games, that is the point, AWESOME! ...if somehow, every other aspect of the game is magically inconclusive and the warlord trait is the ONLY reason I win 1 in 6 games - well then my opponent just sucks.

      Like I said, if I ignore your scoring warlord (1 in 6 chance you have this) - then it's on ME. I can't expect my list-build to automatically win the game for me.

      Delete
    3. I wish I could 'like' your comment Zing!

      Delete
  50. 6th edition CAN'T play as intended without an average of 12 pieces of terrain on the board. There is way too much shooting going on.

    Our monthly tournaments use Warlord Traits, strategic terrain placement, and fortifications. The tournaments run VERY well with that setup.

    This month, we're breaking another boundary. We're doing real 2000 instead of 1999+1. I'll let you know how that goes.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I agree warlord traits don't always help but sometimes do and can create a little unbalance but what about chaos starting next week? Do they roll and then pick from all 4 tables? Doesn't matter much to me as I'll probably be using A-man for a while but still is a point to bring up if you want to change the way warlord traits are rolled.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The rules are clunky, slow, and often idiotic. Of course people are changing them. And since GW has absolved itself of ALL tournament responsibility it is up to Tournament Organizers to run whatever games they see fit. :) I'm not sure why there is a problem with this? If you don't like the rules for a particular event, don't go. It is the same golden rule any two player use to decide when they meet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. U need to get a few more games in. They are pretty smooth once you get a few games in, and games take no longer than they did before.

      Delete
    2. I've gotten plenty in. Almost every location holding tournaments in my area has gone to 1500-1850 events. On rare occasion, you see the 1999+1 format. Even after you have the rules down (and we do) the games take an average of 30-60 minutes longer than the same point level before. This makes running singe day events (taking place in points of sale) extremely difficult. Timing was tight prior to this change.

      Delete
    3. well then I dont know what to tell you. I play the game at a 2000-2500 pt level, and the games still get done within the same time frame. I find it amazing that this is the case, since the number of models has jumped up considerably as more infantry are hitting the tables.

      The only slow down I have experienced comes from rules checks or players not quite familiar with the rules yet.

      Delete
    4. I don't know what to tell you either. I suppose those in my area will just have to bow before the mastery and magic of you and yours. :) I'm not sure why you would find it amazing if (as you point out) that this edition encourages more models on the board. This means (aside from the clunky rules) more time spent moving models, more time spent checking LOS, more time spent rolling dice, more models to be killed, more cover saves to be made, and so on etc. The fact that you can put a massive number of more models on the table and still do everything in the same time shows your awesome power. :D

      Delete
  53. Since I am running a 50 person event within hours of you (at least I think you live near Portland but perhaps I am mistaken) I figure I may as well put my two cents in.

    1) Points wise I agree. I played in a true 2k event couple weekends ago (DMB Brawl in Pullman WA) and double FOC wasn't too bad. Granted many of us were not ready this early in 6ed to really take advantage of it but I played against a couple of armies that took advantage of it and it wasn't the end of the world.

    For our event we went with 1850. I think its too early to go with dual FOC, only the collectors or folks with lots of time and money will leverage it. I think going 2ith 2k-2500 would be fun though in a year as a replacement of ard boyz (done better then that debacle though).

    2)Traits. They should be allowed. Banning them just isn't going to work. We are going with the same tweak Frontline Gaming is doing as we feel it still captures the general idea while also giving players a chance to get a trait they can actually use (getting scoring in purge, counter attack or Acute Senses as a SW, etc). Had GW released a set of traits for every codex out of the gate like they are doing with CSM then I doubt we'd do a thing. That way there's a chart designed to fully work with their specific rules.

    If having a single roll and then picking between the three is enough to get our event banned from your site then so be it. Seems pretty petty though.

    3) Terrain. We are using mysterious terrain. We are also using the themed terrain rules which are straight from the 6ed rules. Despite what you say alternating terrain is not the only way to do it. We have themed boards with set terrain and a whole host of terrain that would be utterly abuseable and unusable with alternating terrain without tweaks (as an example we have platforms designed to have ruins placed on top of them, the alternate placement rules do not account for this at all).

    If using set terrain would get us banned from your site then you are going beyond demanding 6ed being used but are instead demanding it be ran they way you see fit, which is unreasonable imo.

    4) Secondary objectives. We are using secondary objectives out of the book. We are also adding a few additional options and rotating them in and out of various games. We are doing this for various reasons, primarily to make the games more interesting but admittedly also to minimize the impact First Blood has in some missions where there's few VPs in play. First Blood will still be used though in several missions.

    If there is one tweak we have done that would get us banished from your site then this one makes the most sense. Still think its unreasonable but I respect your opinion. It should be noted though we aren't doing this one because we feel we can do a better job then the devs. Or due to player pressure. We just want to have missions with a bit varied feel from the book and this is an easy way to do it without going to far away from the eternal war missions.

    5) Fortifications. We are all for allowing all fortifications and have added a tweak where by players can remove a terrain piece in order to place their fortification (since if using alteranting terrain the fort is suppose to count anyways). If that still doesn't work then we the TOs will shift terrain to make it work. We feel its important to not outright ban things that are allowed by the main rules.

    Again we had to tweak the rules a bit here due to there being no real way to place fortifications after placing themed terrain. If this is enough to keep our event off your page then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adding rest here (hit character limit)

      All in all we have gone to great lengths to keep the core rules of 6ed in place and I feel like other TOs have done the same. To require events to be done straight out of the rulebook when the book itself states those eternal war missions are only a guide and framework is pretty narrow minded. I do get your frustration and point though, I just feel like you've drawn your line in the sand a bit too far. To each his own though.

      Delete
    2. I don't mean to presume I know exactly where Natfka is coming from... but I think I get it.

      First I would agree that he has drawn a line in the sand and even perhaps it was a knee-jerk reaction - to a bigger, and let's face, largely ignorant knee-jerk coming from folks that believed 6th edition was Exterminatus for 'competitive play'.

      Before a single game had been played - people were talking about banning warlord traits, banning mysterious terrain/objectives, and banning the double-FOC lists. I personally found this ridiculous and childish. How can you so hate something you have NEVER tried? - that is literally the definition of Ignorance.

      Of course as it turns out those highly 'controversial' rules are not such a big deal anyway - once you've played a few games.

      Then we see tournaments, basically OUT OF GATE, catering to this 'Sky is falling - The End of competitive play!' mantra and pick and choose certain rules.

      I totally understand modifications for the SAKE of making the event smoother... but simply to cave to the 'sky is falling' beardneckers is insane.

      Delete
    3. As to your event, I don't personally see any of your modifications as so offensive, and you are correct that the rulebook is a framework but I certainly don't believe your changes are 'improvements'.

      IMO the most IMPORTANT aspect of 6th edition, and also the reason the net-listers are so panicked and afraid of it... you are FORCED to think and adapt AT THE TABLE, not just at the computer building your list.

      In the 5th edition your LIST could, and often did, win the game for you. Warlord traits, mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives are all minor influences on the game but they force you to PLAY and ADAPT and THINK - at the table! People Hate that apparently.

      For that reason I am totally behind Natfka's idea of how the game should be played.

      -Zingbaby

      Delete
    4. "If using set terrain would get us banned from your site then you are going beyond demanding 6ed being used but are instead demanding it be ran they way you see fit, which is unreasonable imo."

      Um, because I ban so many people? No one has ever been banned from this site, despite a couple nutjob/drama queen's that claim it.

      Second. I am not drawing any line in the sand. its quite the opposite and its many TO's that are drawing the line. I just simply want to use the rules.... you know.... like any other game......out of the rulebook.

      Delete
    5. Banning was a strong word, that obviously hit a nerve I had no intention of hitting.

      You are however apparently refusing to mention any event that is using set terrain, even though that is out of the rulebook. However you want to word it -- it is your right but in my opinion going beyond wanting TOs to follow the rulebook.

      Delete
    6. I don't think I understand your why you are talking about pushing things too far, or drawing lines in the sand. Like you said we are talking about a very small point in a tournament, and that is whether themed terrain or terrain placement should be in a tournament. We agree on practically everything else.

      I have never claimed that following themed terrain is not following the rulebook. I do however believe that this is a cop out in many (but not all) tournaments in order to put less terrain on the tabletop.

      Placed terrain takes away the whole "terrain fucked" tournament game.(sorry but that is the term I hear a lot). Yes, you can still get hit by terrain, but you have an equal chance to effect how it is placed.

      TO's just cannot place terrain that will be balanced to all army types. In many tournaments over the years, there is always a table or two at a tourney, that your thinking.... Im screwed if I get on that table.

      Delete
    7. Sorry I took your general post and tone and reply to say 6ed = player placed terrain. It also seemed you were against supporting events that didnt fit the criteria laid out above. My bad, perhaps early morning surlyness.

      If we are in a agreement in just about everything else I'll end on just two points then move to email if its needed.

      1) I am not yet convinced players will place terrain in a fair manner in tourny play. I could be wrong but I have played it that way in 4ed events and it was gamed. Are TOs any better? I suppose like anything folks have their preferences, short comings and what not -- but a TO is an impartial agent looking to create a fun atmosphere for his attendees (or atleast he should be or his events will quickly become ill attended). Thus I don't really see the need to demand player placed terrain. Maybe this is an issue where you play and if that is the case then my sincere condolences.

      2) Here's pics of where the event will take place. This was the typical terrain for 5ed. I hope we can cater to the more denser 6ed and believe we will. Notice there's some themed boards and stacked terrain, neither of which work well when player placed terrain is used.
      http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/402585_10150672323444575_1760871375_n.jpg

      Thanks for your time and sorry if I came off adversarial.

      Delete
  54. I do not see what the problem is. It's a tournament that is making decisions to make a better, quicker, more efficient system so that it works for that specific circumstance and the entrants can have a good experience. It is not a referendum on 6th.

    Support the hobby as a whole please. You are interjecting more negativity into the hobby by not supporting the tournament scene. The needs of tournament players are different than that of the casual player. Allow TOs to streamline the rules if they see fit. Don't participate if you do not like it.

    ReplyDelete
  55. no offense, but i'm getting really tired of seeing all the "use my version of tournament rules" posts. I love the site, but it seems like there's a billion of these and they all say the same thing, over and over again.

    run your own, use any rules you want, but live and let live. if people don't like the tournament rules, they can skip them. no harm no foul.

    ReplyDelete
  56. It's great and all that 6th ed included a system for placing terrain, the problem is it can potentially be incredibly divisive in its application (oh, gee, I'll just go ahead and block that off), which leads to tables that look and play like s**t.

    I fear for the next generation of 40k players, the ones who only played apoc in 5th and now no longer have to because of 6th and the whole double force org and fortifications/allies thang. These are the little bastards you see at GW of flgs who never paint their s**t and have never played a single one on one game of 40k in their lives.

    Back in 5th it was simple "hey dude, you feel like playing planetstrike?" "nahhh, not really". I could say that without accusations from an opponent of being somehow invalid or small minded or only using part of the rules.

    Even the tournaments that are claiming to be running 6th ed un-altered are still standardizing missions per round and altering how fortifications deploy.

    You can claim everything will work out fine and gentlemanly and everyone will just get along and have an overly positive time, and that may be true in small friendly tournaments where everyone knows each other and have played eachother before. Try it with a massive multi-day competitive tournament and see how that goes.. I hope the fire department has a good response time.




    ReplyDelete
  57. As a Tyranid player I really despise the 1999+1 rule.

    ReplyDelete

 
Top
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...