The Great Hashing out of Tournament Standards...

[pretre]

Article from Reece and MVB,

 

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/gt-level-organized-play-army.html

 

 

The NOVA Open (NOVA) and the Bay Area Open (BAO) spent the past several weeks in close communication over the challenges and nuances of how to structure Organized Play army list constructionin the setting of a newly-released 7^th Edition (7^th) of Warhammer 40,000 (40K). This article was jointly written by Mike Brandt and Reece Robbins – heads of the NOVA and BAO respectively.

The basis for our shared discussion and conclusions began with the understanding that Unbound/Battle Forged list construction per the 40K Rulebook (BRB) is designed in a fashion that works best when players are able to discuss rough guidelines for what type of game they’d like to play prior to list construction (i.e., limitless detachments, unbound, lords of war, Forge World, etc.). In an Organized Play environment, event administrators must determine this for all players prior to registration.

 

The NOVA and BAO Grand Tournament (GT) formats are widely copied or emulated across the local tournament (RTT) and GT scene in the United States and abroad. By working together toward similar army list construction rules, we are able to provide a wide array of players who enjoy Organized Play with the ability to invest in lists with confidence they can be used at more than one or two events.

Several issues comprised the focus of our discussion.

 

First Issue – Detachment Construction Using Multiple Codices

 

BAO and NOVA both concluded that per the Rules as Written (RAW), a Detachment in 7th (either Combined Arms Detachment (CAD) or Allied)is built from a Faction, not a Codex. This is a substantial change from long-standing 40K tradition (BRB 118).

 

A CAD is built of units that are the same Faction (BRB 122)

 

A Codex and a Codex Supplement are considered the same Faction (BRB 118)

 

Therefore, a CAD may be built using units from both a Codex and a Codex Supplement.

Logical? Yes. RAW? Yes. Convoluted and confusing? Yes. When you create a “Blended CAD” (BCAD)using units from a Codex and Supplements (sometimes multiple Supplements) it creates bizarre rules situations, difficult modeling clarity issues for opponents, and – quite simply – confusion. This can result in unpleasant games and unwittingly illegal lists at the Organized Play level.

 

Second Issue –Impact of Faction vs Codex Differentiation on Allied Detachments

 

An Allied Detachment must be comprised of units in the same Faction. This must be a different Faction than the Primary Detachment (BRB 122).

 

A Codex and its Supplement are considered the same faction (BRB 118).

 

Therefore, you cannot ally a parent Codex with its Supplement.

 

Third Issue – Single CAD Restrictions and Consequences

 

Many tournaments (including Games Workshop’s own Throne of Skulls) are restricting army construction to a maximum of one CAD. Given the rules clarified above,players would consequently be unable to self-ally.Important changes were made by Games Workshop to the way Battle Brothers (BB) function within the new edition, however. By restricting the number of different Factions that are BB with each other to more fluff-related guidelines and simultaneously making all Factions BB with themselves, they send a clear message that they intend for every Faction be able to access additional BB-level HQ/Elite/Fast/Heavy/Troop choices beyond just a single CAD. By restricting army construction to a single CAD, however, in conjunction with the non-same-Faction base rule within Allied Detachments, Organizers create a potential problem not intended by the designers, and substantially different from the same restriction in 6^th Edition. This merits an additional rule tweak.

 

Fourth Issue – Unclear Factions

 

Some Codices do not clearly belong to a Faction.

 

·         Example: Codex: MilitarumTempestus and Codex: Legion of the Damned.  These are presented as Imperial Factions, but the BRB Faction Listing (BRB 118) does not include either of them.

 

Solutions

We contacted the Games Workshop Headquarters Event Organizer for additional input on how the parent company was dealing with some of these contradictions, especially how to construct a Detachment (limited to a single Codex, or Blended via Supplement / Legion / Tempestus inclusion?). The very nice and helpful gentlemen told us he interpreted this as such: consider Supplements, MilitarumTempestus, and Legion of the Damned as their own distinct, independent Factions.

 

While this directly contradicts the BRB, it makes sense and it alleviates Detachment confusion.

 

NOVA and BAO/LVO choose to follow the same conclusion as the above Organizer (though we do not consider GW Organized Events binding precedent, it doesn’t hurt to understand their choices). Further, we decided to correct the unintended consequence of single CAD by allowing all Allied Detachments to be selected from the same Faction as the Primary Detachment.

 

This achieves the Games Workshop intent for all Factions to be able to access additional detachments with BB-level characteristics while simultaneously addressing the broadly polled concern of the player community (at least presently) with allowing more than a single CAD. We therefore come to a compromise that gives all factions the same options for a CAD and Ally while avoiding the confusion of blended detachments.

 

NOVA and BAO/LVO Formats – Joint Army Construction Guidelines and Individual Event Variances

1. Armies will not exceed 1850 Points across all Detachments.
2. Armies may be constructed from a maximum of 2 Detachments (as defined in the 40K BRB), no more than one of which may be a CAD.
3. Allied Detachments may be selected from the same Faction as the Primary Detachment.
   1. Formations are permitted as one of the 2 detachments, but not Apocalypse or Fortification Formations.
4. 4) Detachments may be produced from a maximum of one Codex / Codex Supplement.
   1. Example - You may not selectively include units within one CAD from both Codex: Tau and Codex Supplement: Farsight Enclaves, despite them being within the same Faction per the Detachment creation rules in the 40KBRB.
   2. Exception - Units available to various Factions by means other than the primary or supplemental Codex are permitted (e.g., Dataslate Characters, Forgeworld 40K approved units where allowed).
5. 0-1 Fortification chosen from the following list. All of the rules may be found in the Stronghold Assault supplement. Please note - the following is just the shared list; additional Fortifications are allowed within the event-specific variances listed below.
   1. Aegis Defense Line
   2. Imperial Bastion
   3. Skyshield Landing Platform
   4. Firestorm Redoubt
   5. Vengeance Weapons Battery
6. 6) Conjured Units are considered to be under your control, but not part of any Detachment. As a result, benefits from your Warlord such as Conqueror of Cities and benefits granted by being a part of a given detachment do not apply to Conjured Units. Furthermore, as a RAW clarification,Conjured Models interact with other models as per the Allies Matrix, regardless of the Faction that summoned them.

 

Event-Specific Variances:

 

While the overarching intent of our shared construction rules is uniformity and investment security for our attendees, each event will still retain the independent flexibility and flavor that is so appealing in an Independent Tournament environment. To that end, the following variances apply between NOVA and BAO/LVO formats:

 

BAO

 - Forgeworld 40K Approved units are allowed following faction guidelines

 - Failed 2+ saves, when re-rolled, may never succeed on better than a 4+

 - The following additional Fortifications are permitted:

 - Promethium Relay Pipes; Fortress of Redemption; Void Shield Generator

- Lords of War are permitted, but only from the following restricted list (will include link):

1. 1. All of the Baneblade chassis vehicles except for the Hellhammer (and Traitor's Bane variant) and Stormsword, which are not allowed for the BAO 2014.
   2. Crassus Armored Assault Transport
   3. Gorgon Heavy Transporter
   4. Minotaur Artillery Tank
   5. All Macharius chassis vehicles.
   6. All Malcador chassis vehicles except the Malcador Infernus which is not allowed for the BAO 2014
   7. Valdor Tank Hunter
   8. Marauder Bomber (may not take Hellstorm bombs)
   9. Maurader Destroyer
   10. Fellblade
   11. Cereberus Heavy Tank Destroyer
   12. Thunderhawk Transporter
   13. Greater Brass Scorpion of Khorne
   14. Obelisk
   15. Stompa
   16. Gargantuan Squiggoth
   17. Kustom Battle Fortress
   18. Kill Krusha Tank
   19. Kill Blasta
   20. Cobra
   21. Scorpion
   22. Lynx with Pulsar (but not with Sonic Lance)
   23. Tiger Shark (Escalation version)
   24. Orca Dropship
   25. Barbed Hierodule
2.  - The following additional Fortifications are permitted:
3.  - Promethium Relay Pipes; Fortress of Redemption; Void Shield Generator

 

NOVA

1.  - Lords of War are not permitted at this time

[intrizic]

Good by me, I've met both Mike and Reece.  I follow both of them on the interwebs.  They both come at 40k from a transparent, community oriented place that I deeply respect.  I appreciate that these formats have come out before the various tournaments and I have confidence that much testing and thought went into putting these guide lines together.

[fluger]

I hate how convoluted this is, but I agree with this as a good standard for tournaments.  

[pretre]

It's actually not bad until you add the BAO stuff. :)

[Lord Hanaur]

I will be utilizing this for our Elvensword Ambassadorial Tournament

 

This makes a lot of sense.  As usual, there will be a couple tournament specific things that have to be addressed but the basics here look good.

[Steel Angel]

Interesting and all, but really want to see what OFCC is doing.

[fluger]

I'm sure OFCC will basically be, "Anything goes, it just needs to be reviewed and accepted."

[pretre]

I'm sure OFCC will basically be, "Anything goes, it just needs to be reviewed and accepted."

For the Team Event, sure.

 

What about the Open?

[andozane]

I'm still mulling a lot over the OPEN and how to construct it.  Thanks for posting this as it has a lot of good food for thought.

[pretre]

I'm still mulling a lot over the OPEN and how to construct it.  Thanks for posting this as it has a lot of good food for thought.

Cool.

 

If you need anything for the Open, let me know. I certainly think there are worse events to base it off of than Nova though. :)

[Lord Hanaur]

I think this would be a good basic guideline forthe Open.  The Team event is what it is this year but the Open could see some pretty good attendance if thise were implemented.

[Guest]

So, basically, multiple cads scares people, but it isn't about having too many books/extra rules, or they'd put a cap on it. As is, a single army can have the main "codex" which could consist of two books needed for reference (Codex and codex supplement), then another book for the fortification, another one for the lord of war, and maybe another few for non-LoW FW units. Then I can add a second, non-cad detachment...

 

Dunno, seems like, if looking to simplify the game, encouraging multiple cads from the same codex would be better than encouraging allied detachments. Maybe some sort of limit on LoWs and fortifications that only permit duplicates of the same selection if multiple CADs are included.

 

I do very much enjoy their LoW selections. I note that they deemed the revenant and c'tan too much for their point level, which I very much agree with.

[Aventine]

So, basically, multiple cads scares people, but it isn't about having too many books/extra rules, or they'd put a cap on it. As is, a single army can have the main "codex" which could consist of two books needed for reference (Codex and codex supplement), then another book for the fortification, another one for the lord of war, and maybe another few for non-LoW FW units. Then I can add a second, non-cad detachment...

 

Dunno, seems like, if looking to simplify the game, encouraging multiple cads from the same codex would be better than encouraging allied detachments. Maybe some sort of limit on LoWs and fortifications that only permit duplicates of the same selection if multiple CADs are included.

 

I do very much enjoy their LoW selections. I note that they deemed the revenant and c'tan too much for their point level, which I very much agree with.

 

I don't think you finished reading; the CAD only comes from one book.

 

"4) Detachments may be produced from a maximum of one Codex / Codex Supplement."

 

Plus you can Ally with your own Faction, which is basically like having another CAD, though it doesn't allow another Fort/LOW.

I know you are really big on including multiple Lords of War in normal 40K games for some reason, but I am pretty sure you are the only one.

[Guest]

I don't think you finished reading; the CAD only comes from one book.

 

"4) Detachments may be produced from a maximum of one Codex / Codex Supplement."

 

Plus you can Ally with your own Faction, which is basically like having another CAD, though it doesn't allow another Fort/LOW.

I know you are really big on including multiple Lords of War in normal 40K games for some reason, but I am pretty sure you are the only one.

1. Example - You may not selectively include units within one CAD from both Codex: Tau and Codex Supplement: Farsight Enclaves, despite them being within the same Faction per the Detachment creation rules in the 40KBRB.
2. Exception - Units available to various Factions by means other than the primary or supplemental Codex are permitted (e.g., Dataslate Characters, Forgeworld 40K approved units where allowed).

 

I did finish reading. More than once, too.

 

As I read it, the first point is directed at the vague CAD in the BRB, which potentially allows fielding multiple supplements and non-supplement units in a single detachment. It's saying that you can field a TAU farsight enclaves army OR a Codex TAU army, but including both would have to be in different detachments. So, I could field a TAU farsight army, which uses the codex TAU book for reference, point costs and other such info, but I'm not allowed to field codex TAU as it's own army AND a Farsight Enclaves army within the SAME Detachment, despite them both being of the TAU faction.

 

The second point says that I can bring other units, like FW units (if approved), which come from additional books, despite being considered part of the single codex.

 

As I read it, there isn't really a hard cap on number of books, just number of detachments. You can include two detachments, only one of which may be a CAD. A single CAD can still include the main army (1-2 books), additional units from FW (0-12 books..), a fortification (1 book) and a LoW (usually 1 book). The second detachment (likely 1 more book) could be an allied one, a knight detachment, an inquisitional detachment, a formation, or a few others, just not a second CAD. We also have conjuration of daemons now, potentially adding 1 more book to just about any army.

 

The point of these restrictions, as mentioned, seems directed at limiting of LoWs and Fortifications.

 

As for fielding multiple LoWs, you've me wrong. I enjoy the thematic idea of facing them. I enjoy the variety. I am very much opposed to those that want to limit the potential of my 40k experience/enjoyment. I don't actually field multiple LoWs. I've considered it, certainly, but it doesn't benefit my army enough to field multiples, especially at 2k or less in points. They also limit my model count, which limits the number of fun/silly units I can include.

 

I very much understand the value of limiting units, books, or conversions for the sake of clarity in a tournament or for the sake of balance. This particular aspect of their tournament rules don't seem to be directed at clarity or balance, though I can certainly see the argument that LoW heavy armies are less likely to win, therefore, less balanced.

 

It is feasible that their direction is not at LoWs at all, rather directed at either fortification or other FOC slot spam, which I can certainly see more potential issues on that front than with the LoWs. If anything, multiple LoWs make for lower model counts, and by extension, more clarity and quicker games, both of which would be positive additions to a tournament experience.

 

EDIT: In hindsight, I think your confusing the term "codex" with the term "book." In your response to me, it seems like this may be the issue.