Polling the Next Warhams Tournament

[keithb]

I thought every nid player wanted some mix of 18 hive guard and zoanthropes?

Oh, btw, for the love of god, do not do any "mysterious" terrain or objectives.

Yeah, that sounds awesome, why would I already own 18?  Since I've never been able to take more than 9 before?

Sure, I'll go drop 180 dollars assuming that we will stick at 2000 points and I will always get to play it.

They do the same rules with Fantasy when you hit 3000 points, no one ever plays it.

I think keeping things with a single FOC is a good idea for the first event.

[MM3791]

I want at least one tournament with all the nonsense. Allies, flyers, two FOCs, fortifications, everything. If the feast of blades scratches that itch, then fine.

I will 2nd this, these new additions are what make 6th, 6th. Without flyers, allies, forts, 2 FOC charts well then we might as well all go back to playing 5th lol. However for the first 6th ed tournement I wouldn't mind something like 1500-1850 pts just to help make things easier to manage.

I played Eldar in 4th ed, and Dark Eldar in 5th. Now in 6th I can play both at once instead of having one army sit around collecting dust. Now when I buy different models/codex I definately get more bang for my buck. I am really excited to play my " Pirates of the Webway" list.

Btw Chase, can you make sure you have some Wraithguard and Rangers in stock? My (Dark) Eldar Pirates will need reinforcements ;P

[blantyr]

Warhams?

OK.  I don't normally tease about bad spellings...

But is there a new Pork army that everyone can ally with?

Everyone does know that pork with cheese isn't quite kosher?

[Chase]

Concerns of mine:


Length of each game.

Not confusing people people who don't fully understand everything yet.

Still allowing people to experiment with the new rules / stuff.

Everyone having a good time.



We have the Feast of Blades qualifier on August 4th.  That is a 2000 point event.  I haven't heard anything about what they plan to do, but I'd imagine it will not have any restrictions.

[Grand Master Steve]

I love double battles but thats just me. I also share Chase's concern

[Librarian]

a few things you might consider.

fortifications according to the rules are supposed to be placed first before any other terrain. to ensure that it fits and to give your opponent a chance to place other terrain in a way as to allow them to more easily deal with it. in a tournament the tables tend to be built by the store and are unlikely to leave huge holes for a fortress of redeption to fit.

and mysterious terrain and objectives well fun in a general game haveing them change battle by battle at a tournament might be a bit of a concern to tournament balance. I would suggest useing them but having BG choose or roll for each piece of terrain and or objective before the tournament starts and attach a post it note or some other thing to the bottom of a easily moveable terrain piece (like one of those loose trees or rocks) telling the players who move into that area what exactly the effect is.

[PhoenixFire]

I dont see too many people investing in and lugging around terrain with them, other than the aegis line is small and cheap, the landing pad would give a huge advantage to reserve armies. But i doubt many people will show up with a fortress of redemption

Hell maybe BG should rent out their bastion, landing pad, fortress and certain other terrain if people really want them, first come first served!

[Sir_Prometheus]

Um, I happen to have 2 bastions.  And they're not any bigger than my Storm raven, frankly.

If you don't allow people to bring fortifications, you have to disallow flyers, that's all their is to it. 

[PhoenixFire]

I think fortification should be allowed, but like librarian said it will certainly affect the normal way tournaments go at plainville.

Up untill now the terrian is pre set by the BG staff and isnt moved throught the day, but with the new rules how is that going to work?

And BG usually uses a large amount of GW terrian that is now in ths books for a set point value, so what should they do with all that stuff?

Not use it?
Rent it out to players to use?
Put it out on certain tables and let players try to contest it? Interesting but depending on on placement it will likely give whatever player gets to it first a huge advantage.

But unfortuently with the balance issues right now, (like the non existant flakk missile upgrades) the only 2 options to deal with flyers are either flyers of your own (which some codexes having no such options) or fortifications with skyfire weapons.

[Sir_Prometheus]

It's pretty simple.  I don't recall too many boards that didn't have room to plunk down a Bastion.  (actually, the bastion might have the smallest foot print)

I would argue that things are reversed, players just have to fit their terrain where there's space.  But, space should be left!

For the things that are on the board, you can either count them how we always have (ruins or impassable, mostly) or use the "dilapidated" rule.  I favor the later, actually.  It's interesting, and frankly a low (-2) av building is not a place you want to be.  (units inside can take a LOT of damage). 

[Benjamin]

First and most importantly, Warhams *is* a thing.



Time is really my biggest concern. There will be a greater amount of time going over and explaining rules, even in basic games. 2.5 hours will be needed per game I think in our first event. That said, there were still players at the end of 5e who struggled with basic concepts and played slow. (I'm looking at you, Benjamin. Wait a second, that's me I'm talking about. Oh nice, you're typing out loud too.) So we move forward and hope everyone can catch up.

The terrain/fortification issue is problematic. Letting tournament players place their own terrain could be in certain situations... a challenging proposition.

Page 8 from the BRB is my go-to from now until, well, forever.

Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game... Your job isn't just to follow the rules, it's to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of this appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.

Many people here are asking for a bigger game under 2000 and that's quite reasonable. We have lots of options, and I'm sure BG will eventually cover them all.

Someone mentioned Doubles tournaments... oof. That's a headache already.

What does everyone think of the Warlord upgrades so far?

[Chase]

The Invitational requires us to run another Doubles event.  I am sort of looking forward to figuring this out.  That should be fun.

As far as fortifications go, I plan to allow them all save maybe the Fortress of Redemption (due to it's size alone).  I have no intention of allowing players to place their own terrain in a tournament held at the store, despite what the rulebook says.

We're about to get a test run on all this with the Feast of Blades event.  Fortunately, I get to pull an "Ard Boyz" type attitude and blame everything that people don't like on them.  Matt and I will build tables and keep score, Sam will ref it, and Matt will do everything else.

I may tell Derek I'd like to go to NOVA just to get some first hand experience with how they do things.

[Grand Master Steve]

Ben that brought a smile to my face. I see how they say you are the "me" of plainsville. I know chase is already burning my pictures and hanging up yours its ok.

any way I really enjoy doubles mainly cause I think the new allies matrix will be cool to determine what armies can pair with who and make people come up with creative narritives on why certain armies are working together.

I dont know thats just my 2 cents im probably as usual wrong or ignored.

[Benjamin]

There's a couple different ways to tackle doubles.

1) Two players with two armies. Each army could use Allies, meaning there could be a total of 4 different codices on one side of the table, or eight codices between the two sides. This is... interesting.

2) Two players, one unified force, disregarding Allies Detachment FOC for the version we've used before. We could still apply the Levels of Alliance. If you and your partner are Desperate Allies (Queasy Acquaintances), your team will have to keep, at a minimum, One Eye Open.

3) Two players, each playing from only within their own codex. No Allies rules at all. This would function nearly identical to the 5th Edition version BG has been running.

Downsides. 1 could potentially be a logistical nightmare and army lists would have to be turned in sooner than usual. 2 comp-like restrictions. 3 Boring!

[Sir_Prometheus]

I don't see the problem with #1 actually.  What further complications does that add?