Tornament play / Escalation and new formations.

[charliemachina]

Hi all

From the

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3510172a_WHW_Throne_of_skulls_Warhammer_40,000_Ev ent_Pack_2014_(wc12).pdf

Selecting your army

“As it is written in the Codex, so shall it be.” Chapter Master Marneus Calgar of the Ultramarines

To attend a Throne of Skulls event, you’ll need to bring a 1500 point army, selected using the
“Choosing Your Army” guide on page 108 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

and from

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3010062a_Throne_of_Skulls_Rules2013.pdf

Warhammer 40,000: 1500 points chosen from any official and current Warhammer 40.000 Codex

and from

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3520006a_Warriors_code_V1.2.pdf

If the event you are attending is using the
Warhammer 40,000 system, the following
publications (either digital or printed) are
available for you to choose your armies from:
Codex: Blood Angels
Codex: Chaos Daemons
Codex: Chaos Space Marines
Codex: Dark Angels
Codex: Dark Eldar
Codex: Eldar
Codex: Grey Knights
Codex: Imperial Guard
Codex: Necrons
Codex: Orks
Codex: Sisters of Battle
Codex: Space Marines
Codex: Space Wolves
Codex: Tau Empire
Codex: Tyranids
Any Codex Expansion, for example Iyandan, the
Farsight Enclaves, Black Legion etc.
Death from the Skies – please note this
compendium from pages 53 to 72 will be in use
at all our Warhammer 40,000 events. Entries
will be replaced as time goes by, as Codexes
are released which include the units presented
within Death from the Skies. We expect
everyone to use the most recently released
version of each unit entry. If you have any
questions regarding this, please just contact us.


it seems that although Escalation and Formations are there for people to use in regular play GAMES WORKSHOP has no intention of allowing you to bring Superheavies and other shenanigans to Their Throne of Skulls events this March!

i'd take this as a clear message that Escalation, formations etc are there for fun and not for competative play.............................................. ..Seems we can all relax.

Cheers

Charlie

[Denzark]

I wouldn't take it either as confirmation nor denial. These new rules for ToS come into play from January tournaments, but have been on display on the website from around October and were actually pinned up in the gaming hall at Nottingham for the November event.

I say this makes no difference as they wouldn't have wanted to namecheck the 2 supplements back then, due to the GW air of secrecy.

If you look at Death from the skies, this went to replace the WD entries for fliers - to mean that when you go somewhere you have an official book to hand, not a bit of paper/magazine entry. GW accepts the WD content at ToS. So I think it reasonable to consider that they will certainly want to replace the paper fortification stats found in boxes, with a solid book ie Stronghold being acceptable at ToS.

I am not so sure about Escalation - and good luck to anyone who has room for a super heavy in 1500pts.

All I think this confirms is that if it isn't in the main, core rules, then it is a matter for the players and/or the TO.

[Katharon]

Not to mention most of the material has just come out, so they are not likely to want to include it in their coming events until the material has had time to filter throughout the gamer base and people are more familiar with it.

[charliemachina]

I know it's not a definate answer but GW are very quick to tell you if you can include a new supplement at these tornaments.

They are about friendly competative play.

I can see some of the fortifications being introduced but not the super heavy's.......!

DENZARK :

All I think this confirms is that if it isn't in the main, core rules, then it is a matter for the players and/or the TO.

I agree with the above.

The point is GW doesn't seem to be in any rush to make superheavies legal and the are quick to tell you you can't use an older edition codex released a week before an event!

I think these latest additions are for fun and fluff and not for competative play.

[Subexarch]

Well you can't have multiple detachments till 2000 pts anyway (formations released so far are all detachments unto themselves ) so I wouldn't expect to see them at 1750 pts anyway.

[Seerkarandras]

GW has some tournament thing they are rolling out. A local store in Lansing is hosting an event and rumor has ti GW is throwing their hat into the tournament scene again and running a circuit.

Really all theses new data slates, supplements and such are going to be yes in some tournies and no in others. ultimately we the tournament going public are really going to decide what is in tournaments by what we attend.

[Muninwing]

now consider this:

(from 3++)

http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/12/feast-of-blades-will-be-enacting-restrictions-and-bans/#more-8692

We are interested in running a tournament who's results fall more to player tabletop skill than listbuilding skill. We are interested in running an event where many builds are possible, not just a few power-and-counter builds. To that end, Feast of Blades will be enacting limits and bans.

The exact nature of these restrictions are already well into discussion and development, and will be available in their discrete form VERY soon. We know what the problem builds and combos are, now we are giving them the axe. Below, I will preview some of our changes:

———————————————————————————————————-

1.) The Grimoire of True Names from Codex: Daemons is banned
As of right now, this is the only true banning. We feel there is too much potential for abuse, and disagree with the effect it has on the army and the game.

2.) A few units will receive 0-1 status
For those of you who weren't around when 0-1 was a thing in codecies, means that a maximum of 1 of that unit may be taken per army. These are all units whose mass inclusion limits the potential lists in the game, and will thus be restricted. (As none of them are a problem on their own.) Rest assured that this will be a very short list, we are not interested in creating very restricted armies.

3.) Supplemental Codecies will no longer be able to ally to their base codex
There will be no more self-allying, no more cherry picking the best parts of a supplement while paying none of the costs, and no more force-org bloat from doing so.

4.) Dataslates will take an ally slot
Taking units from many, many different books and ignoring the force organization chart is too much. This change will make dataslates an interesting addition to the game, without allowing for truly bizzare armies.

5.) The number of psychic mastery levels in an army will be limited
This change will eliminate a great many power combos from the game, and will stop a player from making a lot of lucky rolls on the psychic power tables to effectively win the game before it begins.

6.) Strength D is out, Lords of Battle are in
We feel the the Lords of Battle are not overpowered on their own, the fact that they give the opponent some advantages (bonus to seize, and especially victory points) balances out their fearsome firepower and powerful endurance. Strength D, however, is too powerful. This is well-known by every apoc player (and I am one of them), and has been the case for the past two editions. (Yes, it was even overpowered back in 5th, and it was much worse then.) There is some debate still going on, but it looks like S:D will become S:10, ordinance, ignores cover. That still makes it very powerful, but more in line with the price paid for the superheavy as well as it's other weapon options. In addition, superheavies will have to start on the table.

7.) Super-forts are gone, or at least downsized
No AV15, it will be AV14 instead. Every individual fortification from Stronghold Assault is allowed, but the “network” choices are simply too big and unwieldy to allow for tournament play. (As a consolation, they're pretty terrible, so I think it's OK.)

8.) Dedicated transport flyers will be limited
Flyers are not the be-all end-all of this edition, but all-flyer and mostly-flyer armies change the meta in uncomfortable ways and are notoriously unfun to play against.

***

so... the first immediate reaction to Escalation is... escalation. it escalates the WTF of the players, and forces a governing body presiding voer a certain amount of clout to act where the company refuses to. i'll ignore the political comparisons for the moment and point out that this coud be a great thing if done correctly.

how many major tournaments are there every year? how many are run by different people? what will happen once these people -- in the digital age of instant communication -- start using each other as examples and thus create a "standard tournament rules" base from which others can adapt as necessary?

ETC has been doing modded army lists for years. why not make the leap for more interesting tournament play?

[Katharon]

1) Sounds like people b*tching about the item being too powerful. The rules for it are very clear in how you use it. I don't get the idea of "abuse" since you can only take one of them and it can only affect one unit at a time...people need to start taking these things on the chin and suck it up. Think around it. Develop new tactics. Etc.

2) People complaining about 2-3 Hellturkeys seems to be the source of this one, as well as people taking lots of Riptides or Wraithknights. You pay the points to field those units, limiting your army list in others. Again, these lists can be defeated by good tactics and preparation.

3) Again, sounds like people are wussing out.

4) Dataslates specifically state in their rules what FoC slot they do or do not take up. If it's a formation, then the rules for it state that it does not take up an Allied Detachment slot. Again, people are paying the points to take those units, so their primary list is going suffer. Stop b*tching and move on.

5) No. The rules dictate the mastery levels. It's written in the codex. If you expect to fight a bunch of psykers, then build your army to deal with them. Suck. it. up.

6) There is a difference between Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer 40,000 Escalation. It's an expansion supplement, just like Cities of Death or Spearhead. Treat it as such. D-weapons are part of the territory of Escalation. Don't like it? THEN DON'T PLAY ESCALATED GAMES OF 40K!

7) Considering the amount of things that can take out vehicles and buildings, this shouldn't be an issue. If the codex or supplement says AV15, then its AV15. No downgrading just because people whine and say "b-b-but it's haaard!"

8) Again, if you expect to face a certain army, then you can easily have an army to face that. It's called making an all-comers list. People that devote a lot of points to fliers are taking points away from their other, more vital sections of their FoC. Punish them for it on the tabletop, not through b*tching on the outside.

--------


All of this to me just shows that people are more comfortable with complaining than with critical thinking. They are looking at Escalation as if every game from now must be Escalated to include Lords of War (THEY DON'T, IT'S A FREAKING OPTIONAL EXPANSION). These bans and limits are ultimately the wrong approach to these things. It's people that are limiting the game to suit their needs and wants, not to suit the majority players. It's descrimatory and childish.

[Wolfshade]

As always TO have the option to run their Tournies how they see fit.

My question is have they played with enough dataslates/escalation/other combos to ensure that there is sufficent play testings to justify the moves. We all see cries of this new codex is overpowered! when a new one drops (or even the weeks before).

The cycle is like this:
New Codex/Rules drop
Cries about ABC is over powered, the sky is falling
Someone publishes an efficent netlist that is "good"
Everyone buys and runs said netlist
Someone counters the netlist
People realsie why the counter works and how to play against the new codex
Balance is restored (well aside from those using truely ancient codex)

So yes escalation seems a little op, but have enough games been played to counter this? Originally, the only counter to a flyer was another flyer, now we are seeing ways to deal with them without resorting to your own flyers.

[Katharon]

As always TO have the option to run their Tournies how they see fit.

My question is have they played with enough dataslates/escalation/other combos to ensure that there is sufficent play testings to justify the moves. We all see cries of this new codex is overpowered! when a new one drops (or even the weeks before).

The cycle is like this:
New Codex/Rules drop
Cries about ABC is over powered, the sky is falling
Someone publishes an efficent netlist that is "good"
Everyone buys and runs said netlist
Someone counters the netlist
People realsie why the counter works and how to play against the new codex
Balance is restored (well aside from those using truely ancient codex)

So yes escalation seems a little op, but have enough games been played to counter this? Originally, the only counter to a flyer was another flyer, now we are seeing ways to deal with them without resorting to your own flyers.

Agreed on all points. Especially your first. While some TO's will undoubtedly put in bans and limits, as seems to be the case here, I would hope that others are more open and less reactionary.

[Mr Mystery]

I wouldn't call any non-GW TO a 'governing body' either.

If that's how they refer to themselves, I have better names to suggest.

[Browntj007]

1) Sounds like people b*tching about the item being too powerful. The rules for it are very clear in how you use it. I don't get the idea of "abuse" since you can only take one of them and it can only affect one unit at a time...people need to start taking these things on the chin and suck it up. Think around it. Develop new tactics. Etc.

2) People complaining about 2-3 Hellturkeys seems to be the source of this one, as well as people taking lots of Riptides or Wraithknights. You pay the points to field those units, limiting your army list in others. Again, these lists can be defeated by good tactics and preparation.

3) Again, sounds like people are wussing out.

4) Dataslates specifically state in their rules what FoC slot they do or do not take up. If it's a formation, then the rules for it state that it does not take up an Allied Detachment slot. Again, people are paying the points to take those units, so their primary list is going suffer. Stop b*tching and move on.

5) No. The rules dictate the mastery levels. It's written in the codex. If you expect to fight a bunch of psykers, then build your army to deal with them. Suck. it. up.

6) There is a difference between Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer 40,000 Escalation. It's an expansion supplement, just like Cities of Death or Spearhead. Treat it as such. D-weapons are part of the territory of Escalation. Don't like it? THEN DON'T PLAY ESCALATED GAMES OF 40K!

7) Considering the amount of things that can take out vehicles and buildings, this shouldn't be an issue. If the codex or supplement says AV15, then its AV15. No downgrading just because people whine and say "b-b-but it's haaard!"

8) Again, if you expect to face a certain army, then you can easily have an army to face that. It's called making an all-comers list. People that devote a lot of points to fliers are taking points away from their other, more vital sections of their FoC. Punish them for it on the tabletop, not through b*tching on the outside.

--------


All of this to me just shows that people are more comfortable with complaining than with critical thinking. They are looking at Escalation as if every game from now must be Escalated to include Lords of War (THEY DON'T, IT'S A FREAKING OPTIONAL EXPANSION). These bans and limits are ultimately the wrong approach to these things. It's people that are limiting the game to suit their needs and wants, not to suit the majority players. It's descrimatory and childish.

1. Ordinarily I'd agree with you. The real problem is not so much these types of individual items, but when they're combined with another item some designer thought would be neat, and thus you have as a whole some unplayable blatantly overpowered piece. In general, though, from reading your post you seem pretty sure of yourself, so I'm going to ask you for your solution then to some of these issues. Suck it up is not acceptable. Give your tactical solution. "Find one" is not acceptable either. Perhaps after you've gone through the process you will change your mind. You'll certainly be one or two steps ahead of almost everyone else if you can find solutions that these tournament set players are seeing as issues.

2. There seems to be a growing view that GW is playtesting less and less. In the past, yes- we went through the "this codex is OP", followed by cooler heads. You have to admit there is no evidence of any rational playtesting with the "FOC breaking take any combo of units you desire" effects seen today, given the machine gun firing off of codices, datasheets, supplements free-for-all approach.

3. FOB is concerned with fair tournament play - an area GW has blatantly abandoned. Someone has to do something - at least they stood up -right or wrong. No doubt expect overreactions -unless of you come up with the answers to the issues FOB pointed out of course and post them.

[AdamHarry]

--------


All of this to me just shows that people are more comfortable with complaining than with critical thinking. They are looking at Escalation as if every game from now must be Escalated to include Lords of War (THEY DON'T, IT'S A FREAKING OPTIONAL EXPANSION). These bans and limits are ultimately the wrong approach to these things. It's people that are limiting the game to suit their needs and wants, not to suit the majority players. It's descrimatory and childish.

Uh that's the problem though. These expansions aren't "optional" in the sense that they are 40k approved. They are a new part of the Force Org Chart, like fortifications.

Basically, you can agree to a game of 40k and people can bring a Lord of War now. There isn't a points restriction, and there are some disadvantages to bringing a Lord of War, but superheavies are a part of "mainstream 40k" now.

[rpricew]

Uh that's the problem though. These expansions aren't "optional" in the sense that they are 40k approved. They are a new part of the Force Org Chart, like fortifications.

Basically, you can agree to a game of 40k and people can bring a Lord of War now. There isn't a points restriction, and there are some disadvantages to bringing a Lord of War, but superheavies are a part of "mainstream 40k" now.

With all due respect, this entire game is optional. It's the "#1 Rule" If you don't want to play against a Revenant Titan, then you don't have to!

Will not playing against certain combo's limit your ability to play as many games? Sure it will, but that's all part of the game. I have a very good friend that runs a fine tuned Space Marine/Tau killing machine. He absolutely whips most of us every single game. And you know, I don't have to play him. Sometimes it's fun to try different combo's to take it down, and sometimes it's just not worth all the unpacking to just have to pack it back up unfulfilled.

My point is simple, regardless of what GW says... the whole game is an option. If you and your opponent decided to throw the rules out the window and play with D20s and index card, you could. (not trying to sound snarky, but most normal people are just laid back and cool about the whole thing)

The real problem is that people don't like to lose. Even the fluffy players who write cinematic stories behind their games don't like to lose. And when there is competition involved, somebody has to lose. And when they lose in spectacular fashion, because their opponent has a scissors to their paper, or just out plays them...people don't like it. I know I sure don't.

[GAZ-NZ]

I agree with BrownTJ007
someone needs to look at these issues in a concise and constructive manner. Trashing people who spend there time organising touraments trying to keep things fun and and balanced as much as possible is not helpful in anyway. In a game now made based on corporate greed i can see they have a hard job ahead.
Ive meet many who no longer play touraments and the list of people quitting the game i talk to gets bigger every day.
Tournaments keep the game interesting with people trying new builds pushing what was a reasonable system to its bondaries. Unfortunately GW has pulled those away with no testing so you can do what you want with a buy buy policy. Whats next i wonder 3 primarchs for 600 points for any army?
6 Carniflexs? ohhh my space marines can use them lol
get real

Playing a 2plus plus rerollable army was frankly a waste of time and why bother playing?
Its about having fun and playing people with competitive builds that can be beaten. But within reason.
For those who have no issue with 2++ rerollable armies
go play some. Tell me if you actually had fun.
Go play an army with a revanant titan with 2++re rollable saves?
Enjoy that game did you?
Its about fun playing 40k
Whats fun in never having a realistic chance at winning?
No one i know plays like that, its cheesy and no one will play you.

I also totally encourage a new player rule set made by the community for all tournaments.
A worldwide standard needs to be set.
GWs lost the plot.

[AdamHarry]

With all due respect, this entire game is optional. It's the "#1 Rule" If you don't want to play against a Revenant Titan, then you don't have to!

Will not playing against certain combo's limit your ability to play as many games? Sure it will, but that's all part of the game. I have a very good friend that runs a fine tuned Space Marine/Tau killing machine. He absolutely whips most of us every single game. And you know, I don't have to play him. Sometimes it's fun to try different combo's to take it down, and sometimes it's just not worth all the unpacking to just have to pack it back up unfulfilled.

My point is simple, regardless of what GW says... the whole game is an option. If you and your opponent decided to throw the rules out the window and play with D20s and index card, you could. (not trying to sound snarky, but most normal people are just laid back and cool about the whole thing)

The real problem is that people don't like to lose. Even the fluffy players who write cinematic stories behind their games don't like to lose. And when there is competition involved, somebody has to lose. And when they lose in spectacular fashion, because their opponent has a scissors to their paper, or just out plays them...people don't like it. I know I sure don't.

I get your point - but I'm trying to point out the obvious flaw with that argument of "it's all optional" at least from a TO's perspective.

The Escalation expansion and stronghold are part of the game now, from a TO's perspective, they have to do something upfront about that. Either be upfront and let all the wacky combos ensue (GW's 'ard boys events / Adepticon's Gladiator - which actually also had a few restrictions) or they start limiting the game for the sake of "fair play" - trying to rebalance the game for a tourney.

That's what I thought this thread was about, Escalation in regards to Tourneys. You can do what ever you want in a friendly game with your friends.

[deinol]

I get your point - but I'm trying to point out the obvious flaw with that argument of "it's all optional" at least from a TO's perspective.

The Escalation expansion and stronghold are part of the game now, from a TO's perspective, they have to do something upfront about that. Either be upfront and let all the wacky combos ensue (GW's 'ard boys events / Adepticon's Gladiator - which actually also had a few restrictions) or they start limiting the game for the sake of "fair play" - trying to rebalance the game for a tourney.

That's what I thought this thread was about, Escalation in regards to Tourneys. You can do what ever you want in a friendly game with your friends.

Except Stronghold Assault clearly isn't intended for tournaments. "Roll off to see who picks the mission table" doesn't work with pre-built lists. So they are designed for you to pick the mission, and then build a force. Because the attacker and defender have different org charts.

So yes, in the end its up to specific Tournament Organizers if they want to include certain aspects in their tourney. It'll be interesting to see how many allow a super heavy slot. The ones that do? Fine. They will be up front about it and people will come prepared.

[Lord Mayhem]

Agreed on all points. Especially your first. While some TO's will undoubtedly put in bans and limits, as seems to be the case here, I would hope that others are more open and less reactionary.

While balance will likely be restored, a tournament is not the place to do the experimentation. I would agree with banning it from the tournaments at first, while the balance and counters are worked out in regular play, then allow them into tournaments once everyone is more familiar with them in regular play and there is a greater base of information about how they interact with non-apocalypse scale games.

[Katharon]

1. Ordinarily I'd agree with you. The real problem is not so much these types of individual items, but when they're combined with another item some designer thought would be neat, and thus you have as a whole some unplayable blatantly overpowered piece. In general, though, from reading your post you seem pretty sure of yourself, so I'm going to ask you for your solution then to some of these issues. Suck it up is not acceptable. Give your tactical solution. "Find one" is not acceptable either. Perhaps after you've gone through the process you will change your mind. You'll certainly be one or two steps ahead of almost everyone else if you can find solutions that these tournament set players are seeing as issues.

One word: overkill. I am, in case you didn't know by my avatar, an IG player. I prefer a mix of mass infantry backed by various Leman Russ variants. I've played against screamer star twice and beat it twice. The first time I mowed it down by having a Punisher Tank with Knight Commander Pask in it unleash a deluge of fire, followed up by a forty-man blob squad who received FRFSRF from a nearby platoon officer. The sheer number of saves he had to take forced him to lose the unit, which I subsequently finished off in CC. The second time I did something similar, this time with two blob squads of infantry, one unleashing a deluge of fire and the second charging into CC. I overpowered the unit through number of shots and burried it beneath corpses.

Maybe the Dice Gods just love me, but I've not had many problems with it.



2. There seems to be a growing view that GW is playtesting less and less. In the past, yes- we went through the "this codex is OP", followed by cooler heads. You have to admit there is no evidence of any rational playtesting with the "FOC breaking take any combo of units you desire" effects seen today, given the machine gun firing off of codices, datasheets, supplements free-for-all approach.

We really don't know anything. To make any suppositions will continue to just be hearsay and conjecture. In an age of mass communication we have the unfortunate position of being costumers to a company that has avidly avoided and destroyed methods of instant communication between the company and its costumers. We really don't know whether or not that they have play tested these things. They could have had all of this material written half a year ago and been waiting until the Christmas season to release it, all the while testing it for major balance issues, etc. And like I said, repeatedly, in my previous post: if people take these formations and allies, etc, they are paying the points to do so. They aren't taking them without that, which means that they giving something else up in their primary army that you should be able to handle one way or another.



3. FOB is concerned with fair tournament play - an area GW has blatantly abandoned. Someone has to do something - at least they stood up -right or wrong. No doubt expect overreactions -unless of you come up with the answers to the issues FOB pointed out of course and post them.

I wouldn't put it past GW to have created a lot of rules knowing it would screw with the heads of independent TOs. And I did, at the bottom of my post, give a solution: Escalation is an option. You do not have replace a regular game of Warhammer 40,000 with a game of Escalated Warhammer 40,000.

[Katharon]

Uh that's the problem though. These expansions aren't "optional" in the sense that they are 40k approved. They are a new part of the Force Org Chart, like fortifications.

Basically, you can agree to a game of 40k and people can bring a Lord of War now. There isn't a points restriction, and there are some disadvantages to bringing a Lord of War, but superheavies are a part of "mainstream 40k" now.


It says in the first pages of the Escalation book that it is a possible or optional addition to a regular game of Warhammer 40k, just like Planetstrike and Spearhead were an optional addition to a regular game of Warhammer 40k, or Apoc is an optional way of playing Warhammer 40k.

If you *want* (key word there) to play what I am calling "Escalated Warhammer 40k," then you can. But you don't have to. If I am playing a regular game in a non-tournament setting and the opponent says "Hey, I am taking a LoW," and I don't want to play that then I will just say so and ask him to change his/her army list. If they don't, then I just find a different player to have a game with.

It's all optional. Which is why we must treat Escalation as the expansion it is and not as anything else.

[Katharon]

While balance will likely be restored, a tournament is not the place to do the experimentation. I would agree with banning it from the tournaments at first, while the balance and counters are worked out in regular play, then allow them into tournaments once everyone is more familiar with them in regular play and there is a greater base of information about how they interact with non-apocalypse scale games.

Time solves everything. However, I would be warry of letting netlists or "meta data" somehow be a solution to this. I've never supported or liked the idea of netlists or people relying on meta data for a list. Use your own frakking brain! lol

But yeah, I understand what you mean.

[silashand]

That's what I thought this thread was about, Escalation in regards to Tourneys. You can do what ever you want in a friendly game with your friends.

In the same vein there is absolutely nothing that tells TOs they *must* use anything in their events if they don't want to. Heck, if they want to ban red colored dice that's up to them. The only people they have to answer to are their players and if a majority don't want to see something particular on the tabletop (superheavies maybe) or think some specific combo is so broken that it's not fun and should be fixed (2++ rerollable saves or whatever) then they can fix it in the manner they think is best. If you don't like it then you don't have to attend. What GW says is okay and what isn't has nothing to do with anything as long as the restrictions are published in advance and clearly stated before anyone commits any money to the event. As long as that is done then TOs have a right to hold whatever kind of event they like and no amount of some players b*tching that they don't like it means squat.

JMO...

[oni]

Recheck your source...

v1.3 of the Warriors Code is up. Escalation and Stronghold Assault are legal.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=2200016a

[Mr Mystery]

When run at WW at least.

As said above, it's down to the individual TO to decide what is fair game.

Though all the stressing about Tourneys just seems to me to be another reason to keep clear. I for one just want to enjoy my hobby :)

[Popsical]

I would take either a cerberus or typhon to a tournie using escelation for my astral claws seige vanguard. But as weirdly FW is still not in i cant.
GW are pretty much allowing everything including FW titans but not FW units and lists.
No sense or logic as usual. Stressing about it tho is just worthless.

[Pssyche]

I would take either a cerberus or typhon to a tournie using escelation for my astral claws seige vanguard. But as weirdly FW is still not in i cant.
GW are pretty much allowing everything including FW titans but not FW units and lists.
No sense or logic as usual. Stressing about it tho is just worthless.

Strange you should say that.

Forge World have had a downloadable pdf up for a few days now, detailing which Forge World models can be fielded as a Lord of War on their website.

Here's the link...
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/L/lordsofwar.pdf


Enjoy!

[deinol]

Strange you should say that.

Forge World have had a downloadable pdf up for a few days now, detailing which Forge World models can be fielded as a Lord of War on their website.

Here's the link...
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/L/lordsofwar.pdf


Enjoy!

That still doesn't let you use ForgeWorld in most tournaments.

[charliemachina]

I agree with BrownTJ007

Playing a 2plus plus rerollable army was frankly a waste of time and why bother playing?
Its about having fun and playing people with competitive builds that can be beaten. But within reason.
For those who have no issue with 2++ rerollable armies
go play some. Tell me if you actually had fun.
Go play an army with a revanant titan with 2++re rollable saves?
Enjoy that game did you?
Its about fun playing 40k
Whats fun in never having a realistic chance at winning?
No one i know plays like that, its cheesy and no one will play you.




For three years now i've gone to Throne of Skulls.

I've taken my standard marine mech list.

I've taken a Thousand Sons vaguely theme list.

I've taken a heavily themed list including Valkyries, Arbites, a Fortress of Redemption and a background story!

I've always had a GREAT time.

I do not feel I have ever taken a list designed to mercilessly stomp face.

I've done pretty well always won more games than I have lost, which is good because as much as fun is my first objective I didn't turn up to get my heroic boys slaughtered I came to win victory in their name!

I played a 1500pt Escalation game the other day against my friend. His Transandant C'Tan moved 18, killed two drop pods and two Drednoughts in turn 1 and then began it's shooting phase.

I don't like 3 Wrath Knights but I can play to the mission and learn to beat it and have great fun trying.

I don't like Tau removing cover saves but I can play to the mission and learn to beat it and have great fun trying.

I think a Baneblade or Stompa is scary but I can play to the mission and learn to beat it and have great fun trying.

After the battle against the C'tan both me and my friend felt sad because I could not have won and we did not have fun....neither of us.

I want to go to Throne of Skulls, meet cool people, drink booze, see awesome armies, play great games and fight for the glory of whatever banner my little men march under on that day.

I don't want to look at an army and know i've lost.

Destroyer Weapons on one side and not on the other mean one side has already lost unless they have tailored their list just for super heavies which I don't want to have to do.

This is what worries me about Escalation.

Superheavies Welcome

Leave the D's at home!