winterman

I am wondering if they are priced assuming the doors count? Recall GW was pushing for the to count in the old 7ed FAQ work in progress, perhaps based on their 8ed testing? I can see 100 points being a fair price for a thing that doesn't scatter but takes up significant space on the board.

Neither is making declarations of how things are now in 8ed without the full rules.

Lot we don't know. Can a knight kill more than a handfull of models a turn? Doesn't look like it to me but will depend on what the new stomp does. How do you win a mission in 8ed? If they borrow from AoS you will need model counts to hold objectives in some missions. If that happens I can't see pure knight armies being viable...just like now in all honesty. We also don't know how strategems will play into it...since you aren't tied to a specific one from game to game you may now have some options when faced with a particular matchup. But we do know that now you can weaken IKs and similar units instead of needing to take them down to 0 before you have any affect on them. And by the looks of it most heavy weapons have the same average shot count needed to take one down. Except now you can throw in your regular weapons into that mix if needed. So overall I think there's a lot more balancing factors in play than before just based on what we know...and likely more to be revealed.

Ok cool thanks. Was just curious. The Iron Jawz/destruction ones state you move as if its the movement phase, so those ones would you would have to retreat per normal.

For me I took a break from 40k in general a month ago because of the uncertainty in what the new edition will bring. Rather wait and see what army ideas are sparked by 8ed, then build something around a soon to be dead system. Also figured it would be a good primer for what was to come in 8ed. Looks like I was right :)

Mentioned in the new 40k thread, but figured this was a huge tangent so brought it here. Any specific examples? I play Iron Jawz but I took the rules in destruction and the battalion to clarify ability charge, not eliminate the restrictions from a withdrawl. Love to be wrong though.

Noticed in the Destruction part of TGA the guy is already moving away from Rukk because of the aforementioned warboss issue and savage orruk 'tax'. Frostlord on Stonehorn w/ Battle Brew Huskard on Thundertusk Huskard on Thundertusk 40x Savage Orruk Arrowboys (General w/ Bellowing Tyrant) 1x Grot Fanatic 1x Grot Fanatic 1x Grot Fanatic 20x Moonclan Grots w/ Spears & Shields 20x Moonclan Grots w/ Spears & Shields 20x Moonclan Grots w/ Spears & Shields I'm nooblar at AoS so won't comment and how to beat it, or which list is better. But interested cause this style of list is becoming more common it seems.

Gamer's Haven and Betty's Fighting Havenicans is proud to present... The Storm of Silence 2017 Two days of competitive ITC 40k at the Gamer's Haven in Spokane Valley WA May 20-21st. Cost is $45 dollars. Sign up and register by calling the Gamer's Haven at (509) 443-5992. ITC Major Event (if we get 58 attendees, which we did in 2016) Points 1850 ITC army list guidlines (look for the 2017 updates after LVO) Painted army required in order to be eligible for awards 5 rounds (3 games day 1, 2 games day 2) Room for 60 Missions TBD Awards: Overall/Renessaince Person - Equal weight Battle Score/Appearance Score Best General - First place per Best Coast Pairings software or 2nd place if 1st wins Overall. Strength of Schedule for tie breaker Best Sportsmanship - Favorite Opponent Votes - Best coast ranking tie breaker Best Appearance - Highest Appearance Score - Favorite Army Votes as tie breaker Favorite Army - Player voted - Appearance Score as tie breaker *Players can only win one of the above awards, priority order as listed above* Best in Faction - Placement on best coast pairings software. Packet to be published soon Event page on FB : https://www.facebook.com/events/680607115460349/

This can happen in the middle of the pack though at any event with swiss format - you get a mix of folks who think they are contenders and bring the nasty list but either aren't as good as they thought, were unlucky or had the inevitable paper to their rock. Its usually the top and low end that tend to have their best games toward the end. Everyone else in the middle is a mix.

Many formats that are worth mentioning ETC missions is what the Europeans play, even for singles events. Like ITC it combines eternal war objective missions and maelstrom but uses more book style maelstrom (with some house rules like 18 cards, d3 VPs become flat 2, discard unobtainable cards and no more than 3 cards scored a turn) and kill points are scored every game on a differential (max 6 VPs). Unlike ITC, VPs are totaled rather than siloed into different objectives. Determining winners is a differential battle point system capped at 20 points, so if you outscore your opponent by 3 VPS you score 13 battle points and he scores 7. If you out score him by 10 VPs or more you get 20 and he gets 0. While its strengths are best used in team events or battle point events it can still function in a W/L/D system. The current packet with rules can be found here (note the mission rules are scattered throughout the packet): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzus0DMobfGYZzJjQjM5dE9WZ28/view Adepticon has its own flavor of missions. Often controversial of late, they were the pioneers of the primary, secondary, tiertiary style of mission which gave multiple paths to victory rather than one - all the way back in 4ed, This years primers are out: http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2017/201740KChampPrimer.pdf - Its looks like a combo of ETC and ITC ideas. Only just saw them so no opinion on them yet but they remind me of a format I made back in 5ed. Previous years are also available: http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=680 Astronomi-con is a long running Canadian tournament series which features a unique mission format. Each table has its own mission, themed to the terrain and/or including a number of other things like a third 'army' that both players have to deal with. It is not a format intended for competitive evaluation, but its still competitive and tests a generals ability to adapt. We shamelessly borrow this idea for our own event in the Fall - the Harvester of Souls. We look at it as a palate cleanser towards the end of the ITC year, something different than the typical event played the prior months. They used to post some variety of their missions on line but they have since stopped doing that. But if you are interested in the entire event format you can find it here: https://astronomiconportal.wordpress.com/ GW themselves had some interesting ideas around randomly generated assymetrical objectives (not maelstrom, these tended to be endgame missions) called Rules of Engadgement. The 4ed rules can be found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/downloadAttach/35905.page

I ran breachers at OFCC 2016. Lotta fun and surprised people when you got them in short range. Sensor spines are a good add on their fish, the short ranged guns can often require you to drive them straight into terrain. Losing Recon armor gets you one, not sure what to lose for the other. I also got a lot of benefit from disruption pods but more points to lose to get them in the list. Not sure I buy the value of going dual CAD and paying the kroot and ethereal tax. Crisis with obsec is nice, but with only the one unit not sure its worth the hoops you are jumping through. Consolidating under a single standard CAD grabs you some points to play around with.

Yeah totally understand, they have to stay solvent. I think the team thing has been a limiter to attendance. The club only, invite only, almost speak-easy style of event was probably another as well. The final thing for the current era and one I am loathe to bring up but it is reality - it is hard to get attendance without being ITC reported. I love ITC, but I can't even consider running an event without it being ITC reported - doesn't have to be ITC format but we know our attendance in Eastern Wa would get affected if we weren't reporting results to ITC. Not suggesting OFCC become ITC reported, but do give them some slack for trying to stay solvent in the current era where there are a lot of events and options vying for our time and money.

5ed, 6ed and 7ed all came out late June early July. I even attended the first 5ed OFCC and it was 4 weeks after it released. AoS was a June release IIRC. Although not confirmed its a pretty safe bet new edition is coming this year. I guess you can deal with it if and when it happens but it doesn't hurt to at least talk it through or make people aware of the potential. What does that even mean nowadays? There's some obvious deathstar filth and the like, but outside of that it gets murkier and debatable. And do we even care since round 1 the 'tournament' lists will presumably play each other and winning is only affecting matchups? I guess that is kind of what I am getting at. It seems like there's a pretty good plan to allow people to bring what they want - but then there's this nebulous 'some stuff will not be allowed' thing that everyone assumes is obvious but isn't.

Ok Traitors Hate detachments taking datasheets from Codex: Chaos Space Marines? Same idea. Assume you have that for your Night Lords? Isn't necessary though, point is lots of detachments can take in units that are not actually in the book they are in. And the only way you know they are available is via faction.

Couple questions: What will the cut off of an edition change be? I noticed a lot of people concerned about their current list plans being dashed with smaller points - an edition change is far far more potentially affecting. Any set idea on how long the rounds will be? Assuming 7ed, 2k seems like best served by 3 hour rounds. Any specific list restrictions? I know this always causes problems and knashing of teeth but I think a lot of issues get solved by being absolutely transparent about what isn't allowed and not open to interpretation. I am asking less because I think people want to WAAC (because it doesn't appear to matter at all how much you win) and more because many people play the same lists whether its a tournament or whatever because it is just what they own or enjoy. I personally have a hard time spending any time on an army I can't also take to tournaments, I just don't hobby to the same amount as others so perfer mult-purpose lists (or I borrow them which may just be the case). Are people playing in the event still tied to a club or sponsor? Had not seen whether this was addressed, but before new teams had to be vouched for and/or invited and teammembers were vouched for by their captains and clubs. Not opposed to this being less exclusive than the past, more curious since I didn't see this covered. Couple suggestions: Handicaps. If someone wants to bring a 'harder' list would allowance on condition of a handicap be an option? Whether its lower points, extra bonus rules for opponents or modified win conditions? I mean if record means nothing then this seems like a good way to be a bit more flexible with what people are looking to bring while still adhering to the spirit of the event. Example is last year we had a theme of two armies clashing, each with their iconic LOW. So I wasn't playing a stormsurge to win, was more theme. Had I been required to handicap I would have gladly done so (and I did to some degree in list building FYI), so just a thought. Reasons to track records other than matchups. Not sure here but something fun and in the spirit of the event without it being personal or club focused. Dunno if this would be some sort of campain-ish element or faction awards or something. Dunno, I know this is a sticking point for some but to me it almost feels like playing texas holdem without money on the line. Just like holdem I don't play 40k events to win, but it still detracts from the experience in some preverse way if there's nothing on the line. Just a thought, won't change my view or attendance of OFCC either way.