ahhhh damn. I may have missed it, but what about allies?
Has there always been a 32 Player cap?
No painting requirement however models need to be based according to rules. No painting on bases either however. EVERYTHING needs to be WYSIWYG
Are models required to be painted/based to any standards?
I honestly wouldn't mind if we required painted armies more often. Or at least like 75% painted (everyone understands that sometimes you bought and added a new unit). No one likes to play a grey army, it hurts the eyes.
Personally I would vote for a 100% painted policy.
Whenever I play, I try to have all my models primed. It at lease shows that I am planning on painting them, and I would be 100% towards a painting requirement as well. Maybe for the next 500 point one???
Im just curious as to why people can't use 40k approved FW units. Excluding titans and superheavys most FW stuff is pretty balanced (pts to power wise). The ”40k approved” stuff isn't overpowered or broken. The fill the gaps for some armies. Not to mention it could help balance the older codexes to the newer ones. Not to mention that players might be able to stand up to and possibly beat those super cheesy net-lists that the WAAC players love so much.
Just curious . Im not trolling.
Im just curious as to why people can't use 40k approved FW units.Because stores that encourage people to spend money elsewhere rarely stay open. :)
I think it's probably a lot more than most people would initially consider.
There's a Hoilday Inn Express like 4 min and 10 min away from the store, Steve.
There's a regular Holiday Inn like 9 min away too.
Everyone that plays in this event is also invited to join us for TableTop Game Day (https://www.facebook.com/events/314569378665738/) afterwards.
There's a Hoilday Inn Express like 4 min and 10 min away from the store, Steve.
There's a regualt Holiday in like 9 min away too.
Everyone that plays in this event is also invited to join us for TableTop Game Day (https://www.facebook.com/events/314569378665738/) afterwards.
mission: the scouring + purge the alien (Purge the Scouring Alien!)
deployment: hammer & anvil (maybe)
6 objectives, placed by players (per scouring)
primary: the scouring (we can provide players with paper to keep track of objective values, highly suggested)
secondary: purge the alien (kill points)
special rules: see missions
Tertiary will be slay the warlord, linebreaker and first blood at 1, 2, and 3 points a piece.
With emperor's will never tires; does this mean there will be 8 objectives on the table?Emperor's Will Never Tires, 5 objectives total. 1 in each deployment zone (primary), 3 in the middle (secondary).
Purge the scouring alien; will each player have 3,2,1 point value objective to place or will they placed than random per book?
With emperor's will never tires; does this mean there will be 8 objectives on the table?
Purge the scouring alien; will each player have 3,2,1 point value objective to place or will they placed than random per book?
I really would prefer that half or all of the objectives be static. Or not hammer and anvil. H&A is probably the worst deployment to let people place objectives on. I like H&A, generally, just not when people get to place.
IN Big guns and scouring, are killing Heavy or Fast, respectively, worth extra points? That would affect my list choices, a lot. That's why they make them worth a victory point in those missions, so you don't just load up on them.
Thanks for letting us know what you were thinking for missions, Chase.
mission: the scouring + purge the alien (Purge the Scouring Alien!)
deployment: hammer & anvil (maybe)
6 objectives, placed by players (per scouring)
primary: the scouring (we can provide players with paper to keep track of objective values, highly suggested)
secondary: purge the alien (kill points)
special rules: see missions
While even numbers is better than odd numbers places, it's still not great. You'll find things like the gunline army putting all their objectives on the back line, while the more assaulty army can't.
I really would prefer that half or all of the objectives be static. Or not hammer and anvil. H&A is probably the worst deployment to let people place objectives on. I like H&A, generally, just not when people get to place.
IN Big guns and scouring, are killing Heavy or Fast, respectively, worth extra points? That would affect my list choices, a lot. That's why they make them worth a victory point in those missions, so you don't just load up on them.
Tertiary will be slay the warlord, linebreaker and first blood at 1, 2, and 3 points a piece.
Rotating through which ones are worth the most points?
To be more specific, here's what I envisioned for the Scouring mission.
Six objectives scoring 4,3,3,2,2,1 like the book. Players roll off to determine who places the first objective (of their choosing). Players then alternate until each objective is placed. Players then roll for Deployment, etc. So worst case scenario, yes there are 10 points on one side, if you allow that to happen. Objective placement could be tweaked too (distance from each other, board edge, etc) to force at least some of them toward the middle of the board.
Sidebar: I just realized, if the values of the objectives are each increased by 1 point (objectives of values 5,4,4,3,3,2), that brings their sum to 21 points, which is exactly the number the primary objective would be worth for Adepticon scoring.
I feel if a player loads up on Heavy and/or Fast choices, they are likely to find their lists imbalanced for other missions. I personally never thought it was a good idea to make these different slots scoring units, but this whole tournament concept is "by the book" as much as possible.
Well, let me give you an example of what I was talking about. I'm working on variations of my standard Tau+GK list. Recent codex/meta changes have made me think I need to void cover saves more, so I was thinking more pathfinders with markerlights.
Now, I could use 1 group 8 pathfinders with a devil fish, and use that to transport firewarriors (for whom I would have bought a DF, anyway). Or I could use 2 groups of 4, using the two DFs for two groups of FWs.
Same cost, but one has two fast attack units (both the pathfinders and the DF, 3 with the drones) while the other has 4 (or 6). Having the FA yield bonus pts makes me think extra about taking 2 smaller pathfinder choices, which I actually think is a good thing.Quote from: ChaseI'm not super worried about this. It's a book mission and has book mission issues. The number of points each objective is worth will be determined randomly. 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1 is likely what we'll go wit
I'm a little worried you're not worried. Not to be dramatic about it, but you ran it like this at the doubles, I and I don't think it was a good scenario.
Ben's idea about having people place objectives first is good.
And for the record, I really LIKE hammer and Anvil deployment, I think you should definitely use it, and it's fine even with tables end to end. I just think it's the worst in combination with letting players place the objectives.
Personally i like Hammer and Anvil, it worked fine at the doubles in Abington and you had twice the people with really close tables.
Placing terrain is a recipe for disaster and is never done at tournament so i don't know why we would start now
random value of objectives was one of my favorite missions at templecon, you would need 6 objectives (or an even amount of objectives) to make it "fair" however
static objectives are fine for some missions, but i'd prefer not to have static objectives in all 3 games
We have 40 people registered. We're upping the cap to 40.
Who needs sleep?
We have 40 people registered. We're upping the cap to 40.
Who needs sleep?
That's a lot of people.
A bunch of new guys this time around too.
Should be a good one.
Wow 40 people is big! Can't wait, hopefully us fresh faces will make a fine showing of ourselves haha.
Also is there any type of healthy food around the store? Like not McDonald's or crap like that?
P.S- The boat shall by named GT and she will be grand!!There are GTs that don't even hit 40 players. We'll be the Titanic of GTs.
P.S- The boat shall by named GT and she will be grand!!There are GTs that don't even hit 40 players. We'll be the Titanic of GTs.
P.S- The boat shall by named GT and she will be grand!!There are GTs that don't even hit 40 players. We'll be the Titanic of GTs.
Ben, are you implying we are going to sink and Chase is Leonardo Dicaprio?
This will be my first Solo in Plainville. Dont know how I will do.
And I'd love to pull the tail Leo has / does. (Am I allowed to say that?)I don't know if you're allowed to say it, but I was thinking it.
P.S- The boat shall by named GT and she will be grand!!There are GTs that don't even hit 40 players. We'll be the Titanic of GTs.
Ben, are you implying we are going to sink and Chase is Leonardo Dicaprio?
I'd go down with the ship.
And I'd love to pull the tail Leo has / does. (Am I allowed to say that?)
the night before im having a hotel room. Plenty of Blow Naked Chicks and booze to go around. :-p
the night before im having a hotel room. Plenty of Blow Naked Chicks and booze to go around. :-p
You still haven't registered. :(
I could have sworn I did. Ok I sent you an e-mail to put me downOverheard at the hotel room:
I could have sworn I did. Ok I sent you an e-mail to put me downOverheard at the hotel room:
"Hey baby, ever been with a tournament alternate?"
So who's painting who's naked boobs on a sinking ship? I don't know any of you yet but I find myself being strangely drawn to this conversation...
@Chase - I'm not very good at it, but I'd be down to help in making terrain if people were to be together and build stuff. I'm always down to help build the community and another good GT for MA/NE sounds awesome.
Nice that's sounds awesome.
I have a question for you chase, when do you think you'll lock down the missions for sure? Is it gonna go till day of with the preliminaries you posted being the rough guideline? Or will they be solidified beforehand so we might be able to get practice games ahead of time with them. Obviously I don't expect anything or anyone to work around little ole me, but I work evenings M-F so weekends are my only time to get practice games, and I'm hoping to get a couple in for this.
You did, Jared. You're number 14!
Dark Angels units using the Deathwing Assault special rule are ignored for the purposes of calculating the number of units that may be held in Reserves. [pg. 44, C:DA]
• When Chaos Daemons are taken as an allied detachment, two Daemonic Heralds may still be taken as a single HQ selection. [pg. 80, C:CD]
The argument for it is that you're forced to designate units making a DW assault before regular Reserves are declared, and by the time you get around to organizing your Reserves, those guys are basically out of consideration. Overall I agree that it's still a choice, and IMO I think they should count, but I can see why folks would think that.QuoteDark Angels units using the Deathwing Assault special rule are ignored for the purposes of calculating the number of units that may be held in Reserves. [pg. 44, C:DA]
There's no reason to think that.
It's from the old codex. They specifically note that it hasn't been updated yet for the new codex.Quote• When Chaos Daemons are taken as an allied detachment, two Daemonic Heralds may still be taken as a single HQ selection. [pg. 80, C:CD]
Why? It's fine that they want to allow this, but it's completely made up out of thin air.
They should clearly designate and FAQ sections with answers strickly by RAW that is mainly a convinence document. And have a separate section for "Errata", where they flat out state how they want things to work, but have either shaky footing rules wise or no standing rules wise. Then more events would use at least the FAQ part of it.They already enable this by specifically offering the document up for other people to use or modify as they see fit. Extreme examples of "errata" like the flyer LOS ruling are rare. In practice there is often a lot of disagreement about which exact rulings in a given FAQ are are "RAW" and which are changes. The Deathwing Assault ruling is a classic example. There are folks who will argue fervently that RAW is clear that they don't count.
Sadly, lots of the new guys have dropped from the event. Bummer. :(
I'm still signed up and attending as far as I know! Hopefully everything is still good, I'm sure it will be a blast regardless of numbers.
I'm still signed up and attending as far as I know! Hopefully everything is still good, I'm sure it will be a blast regardless of numbers.
Yeah but higher numbers = more prize support for Bill.
I liked Hammer and Anvil. It was slightly awkward with the relatively tight space, but I appreciate that it really offers different tactical challenges, with the table being functionally 4' wide and 6' DEEP. It's the only deployment, for example, where a Helldrake, Night Scythe or Doom Scythe can't threaten the whole table the turn it arrives. I don't mind the suggestion of having each player's table half have the same total value of objectives, though.
Hated Hammer & Anvil today. The tournament was too big / space too small. Stuck in the corner table, couldn't reach the other side of the board, couldn't walk around and it was constantly awkward for us to keep asking the other to move and check LOS on our own models. It didn't spoil my day, but it made playability unnecessarily complicated/difficult.
tall people like/don't mind hammer and anvil and people who can't or have trouble reaching the other side of the table hate it
I thought the missions were damn near perfect. We should do it like this every time.