Shortly after last year's battle, there were some calls that were controversial. It was deemed prudent to let things cool off. I made some proposals to Chase that were generally well received in the aftermath of last year's battle. I don't want them slipping through cracks. Thus, I'll post them up here.
There are controversial stratagems that one side or the other might like banned. I'm not going to open up these stratagem by stratagem debates, but I would like to reduce the amount of troublesome stratagems in play. Thus, instead of allowing a given stratagem to be used once per side per table, I'd propose to play it book and go with once per side. If we have seven tables, this would be the difference between 14 flank marches from stratagem choices and 2 flank marches.
Big titans often come with minimum range restrictions on shoulder and head mounted weapons. Due to ranges being measured in 3 dimensions instead of 2 in the new 40K base rules, these range minimums effectively went away in last year's battle. However, the new 40K base rules also define line of sight as being taken from the pivot point of the weapon, not from the nozzle. Also, weapons cannot be elevated or depressed more than 45 degrees off horizontal. If the new codex is used properly and fully, something similar to the minimum range circle will occur in all titans. None of them will be able to target units hanging around near their toes. Again, I'd like to see it played by book. Titan and d-template advantage meant a lot last year, and I don't want the big walkers to be unduly unbalancing.
The Disruptor Beacon is one of four "Front Line Assets" -- the others being Null Field Generator, Supreme Headquarters and Shield Generator -- that are represented by a marker placed in the owner's deployment area. There is a maximum size of four inches for these markers. Last year there was a special rule that prevented one from placing Disruptor Beacons immediately near cover. This was done in part because there was no minimum size for the markers, thus one could in principle put a tiny marker somewhere implausible. As we now have a good deal of time to make markers, I'd propose that we have a minimum size for markers rather than a rule to prevent placement near cover. I'd suggest the monstrous creature base size as a good minimum marker size.
Many have noted an escalation in use of big models. Some have voiced opinions that such escalation should be stopped. Last year we had a good healthy number of people with no super heavy or gargantuan models, a good healthy number of people with one or two bane blades or their point equivalents, and we had four people who spent every single point on big models.
I can see how each style of play can be fun. Having twice in a row been deployed opposite heavy walkers I wasn't prepared to fight, I'll suggest being surprised by a mismatch isn't always fun. We might want to discourage mismatches. I'd like to see tables available for all three styles of play. If there are fluff reasons as well as game balance reasons for different table rules, so much the better. I fit in the middle category, with one 'counts as' Eldar Scorpion. I'd like to play with like minded opponents. I don't begrudge the all heavy players their opportunity to deploy the big models, but might they pick on people their own size?
That's about it for the moment. I do sympathize with Chase's desire to minimize custom rules and units.
