Possible basic tourney setup

1500 pts. 4x6 tables
Allies and Fort allowed. Forts are placed first, alternating. Must be deployed in your deployment area, and no closer than 6" from a board edge. After both sides have deployed forts, deploy as normal.
Same time limits as I currently use (15min setup+2 hrs each round)
Tables preset with terrain. Some may be marked as mysterious terrain. etc.
Missions would be per table (Table one is "the Relic", two "the scouring", etc). If the mission has a random number of primary objectives, its max.
Deployment is per round (round one is Dawn of war, two is the longs ways, etc)

Painting and Sportsmanship are like always.

Battlepoints.
Determine who won by VP. Now determine the difference in VP between the winner and loser.

Diff Winner Loser
Tie 10 10
1 11 9
2 12 8
3 13 ......

max is 20, min is 0.

Some missions will need tweaking. The Relic for instance has a max 6 VP up for grabs, while others (most) have as many as 15. Purge the Alien will vary quite a bit. The Emporers Will has a max of 9. These will probably need adjusted scoring.

Alternative is to use the Nova Open Primary/Secondary/Tert method, tweaked a bit.

Sounds good. But for your scoring system, the fair and balanced way would be for all rounds to play the same scenario. Keeps balance and you won't end up with anyone perceiving that they got "screwed" by scenarios.

I strongly feel that allies and forts should be excluded from tournaments.

Allies allow for very beardy combinations that i don't think would be fun in a competative set up...
In fact if allies are allowed i probably won't attend the tournament...

My thoughts are, keep it simple. One force org, no forts, no special terrain, and no allies. It will allow people to enjoy a game, and feel like they are not getting cheesed.

Both are fairly easy to allow/disallow. I can see benefits to running tourneys each way, and likely will run some that allow them and some that do not.

Tourney Style one: no allies, forts, or FW. Nova Style missions, possibly with tiered scoring rather than tie-breakers. No mysterious terrrain/obj.
Tourney Style two: allies/forts/FW allowed, book missions (as above), mysterious terrain/obj in play.

Still unsure about warlord abilities (as to allowing them). If allowed, I'd likely simply have players choose one for the whole tourney, rather than roll, for ease of play.

Getting the book missions balanced is the hard part, IMO.

Fortifications woild be hard for a regular tourney.. Just because taking something like a bastion might create some awful chokepoints on a table with existing terrain.. Not to mention what a fortress would do if you could even olace it.

However.. I do think there's room both types of tourneys. I want to see a bring your craziest list though.. On some weord level id like to see what people will bring with no restrictions save for a standard 2000 point list.

I can agree on both points. Part of setting up the tables would be ensuring there wouldn't be those chokepoints.

The new system is kinda weird in that it can either be a very casual, beer n pretzels style of play.... or a ballsout, WAAC, Deathstar to the hilt game.

I think this is partially what's causing "sky-is-falling" syndrome:)

I strongly feel that codices should be excluded from tournaments.

Every codex in the game allows for very beardy combinations that i don't think would be fun in a competative set up...
In fact if Games Workshop Warhammer 40k codices are allowed i probably won't attend the tournament...

My thoughts are, keep it simple. Zero force orgs, no forts, no special terrain, no units, no models and no allies. It will allow people to enjoy a game, and feel like they are not getting cheesed.

GodHead wrote:I strongly feel that codices should be excluded from tournaments.

Every codex in the game allows for very beardy combinations that i don't think would be fun in a competative <sic> set up...
In fact if Games Workshop Warhammer 40k codices are allowed i probably won't attend the tournament...

My thoughts are, keep it simple. Zero force orgs, no forts, no special terrain, no units, no models and no allies. It will allow people to enjoy a game, and feel like they are not getting cheesed.

Uh huh. Can't help but think you are mocking me....

For a guy with 29 posts GH, respect seems like its at all time low.

that being said. i have to agree with the spirit of the post.

I cant see disallowing fortifications. For some armies, that's the only AA guns they have access to. its simple enough to have a judge come over and slide a piece of terrain over 8 inches if its too close to your bastion or fortress.

Perhaps wait to include allies until we have at least one tourney under our belts, just to let people have time to adjust to the new rules. I could go either way on this one. I think that points are points, and that as long as everyone follows the rules, it will all work out in the end. people will penalize the beardy folks on with bad composition or sportsmanship values anyway.

fortunately or unfortunately the new force organizational chart is what it is, and we are just going to have to live with it. within a year, its just going to be old hat to see a necron battleforce with a vangaurd of Ork Boyz sitting in the middle of it. as the codecies are updated, i imagine some of the crazy business will go away. I sure hope i won't have to face Lash of submission and directional wound allocation.

To my knowledge, aren't imperial guard the only ones who can take AA weapons right now? All other codexs need to take the the fortification that has them...

It's meant in good humour and jest.

The game is worse off by not including allies and fortifications.

My position on tournaments is that it is frankly ridiculous to start banning things when there hasn't been a single major event anywhere that's tried the 6th edition game out of the rulebook.

Wouldn't the best thing to do be to go ahead with the rules straight from the book, and see what works and what doesn't? I think Roland has the right of it. There's too much "bad fun" going around on the other 40k forums lately. It's all a little silly with people crying about allies wrecking the game, 2 force org's wrecking the game, fortifications wrecking the game. People don't want to adjust AT ALL to the new edition. It's quite off-putting.

Yes, there are logistical issues raised with plopping down a Fortress at a tournament. I think the smart thing to do is to deal with those logistical issues. A simple one that I can think of is to have the tournament organizer leave sufficient space to deploy a Fortress on each table, in each deployment zone.

/As an aside, I don't know what my post count has to do with anything. I used to be a member with more posts, but my account disappeared some time ago. I don't think the number beside my post has any reflection on the content contained within it. But if you want to research my posts on other major forums:
GodHead on 40konline
GodHead on AdvancedTauTactica
GodHead/Gumbercules/RickyDMMontoya/SolarHammer/EDMM/couple others on Warseer and the Warhammer forum (keep getting banned for the type of wit I displayed earlier in this thread for some reason)

Well, if you want to get technical, anyone who can run fliers or flying monstrous creatures has AA, bringing the list to include Space Marines (plus various chapters) , Orkz, Chaos (Daemons and otherwise), Necrons, and I think Nids have a few FMCs.

Guns with both Skyfire and Interceptor are the rare lot currently. I have also yet to see any guns with the Salvo rule to them yet.

Planes wrote:Well, if you want to get technical, anyone who can run fliers or flying monstrous creatures has AA, bringing the list to include Space Marines (plus various chapters) , Orkz, Chaos (Daemons and otherwise), Necrons, and I think Nids have a few FMCs.

Guns with both Skyfire and Interceptor are the rare lot currently. I have also yet to see any guns with the Salvo rule to them yet.

Well we haven't seen any 6th edition codices yet. Look to the new Chaos book to throw some of that in.

However, I suspect that weapons with Skyfire and Interceptor will be very rare.

Firstly, Interceptor, on its own, is very powerful. I don't see GW giving it away willy nilly. Perhaps 0-1 weapon in each codex might have the ability.

Secondly, the rule "Skyfire" has a built in weakness. The weakness is that weapons built to shoot planes aren't good at shooting not-planes. It would remove a lot of tough decisions if everything with Skyfire always had Interceptor. Look at all of the discussions on IG forums about Hydras. They aren't a no-brainer choice anymore, but I think most people are starting to come around to the idea that they are still quite useful.

I think it's good for the game as a whole to keep anti-aircraft weaponry over-specialized.

I'm sure there is a ton of internet Cred in those links GH.

We have a small community here. People on this board are going to meet in real life at some point, perhaps play some friendly, or tourney games. It would be nice if we kept mockery to those people who actually know one another... at least in the short term. Thats all I'm saying.

It's not mockery though, is what I'm saying.

There was no mean-spirited or negative intent whatsoever in my post.

I just thought it was a simple, clever, way of making my point.

That point being: I consider GW materials themselves to not lend themselves to a "fair," "balanced," or "competitive" game. You can chop away at rules all day leaving this or that or the other out, and you'll still end up with an unbalanced, muddled mess. There's nothing more fair with building an army from a single codex compared to building an army out of two codices. There's nothing more fair with building an army with fortifications than building an army without them.

Some army will always be better than the others, no mater what restrictions you impose, or what rules you impose. And if you're looking for something fair, or balanced or competitive, I suggest you are likely looking at the wrong game company.

Holy crap, someone else uses the proper plural for Codex.

I deleted your account after you hadnt logged on for a few years.. And because you tend to ruffle feathers even though ive still never seen you play a game of 40k.. Although i assume you probably have by now.

Im also well aware of your internet forums disputes/arguments/discussions.. Whatever you want to call them. So.. Just play nice.. No one knows you here save for a couple of us.. So just take it easy with people you dont know. Pretend your brand new to the 40k commumity.

Im much less lenient than i use to be with goofy attitudes..

GH: Most of the suggestions have more to do with helping stream-line running a tourney than balance. If I wanted a 100% balanced tourney, I'd be banning half the books.

Forts/Warlords/mysterious obj and terrain are all nice.... They just add time, which unfortunately, is the prime factor with any tourney I run. If I kept one of those, it'd be forts.

Limiting allies is again, keeping things simple from a TO standpoint. Checking army lists is time-consuming enough w/o having to go thru 2 books per player.

For the most part, we DO run fairly easily. Honestly not much game-breaking stuff in the tourneys we've had. Its more there seems to be one group that prefers more of the relaxed tourney, where its more about playing a bunch of games vs guys you don't play everyday. And another that prefers more of a barebones, competitive style of play.

from reading how and when you deploy fortifications and terrain, a tournament setting will limit forts to only the defense line. you're supposed to place the forts, 'then' terrain as appropriate to the percentage of terrain per table quarter that's allowed. a pre-setup board in a tournament setting wouldn't allow for this, ergo the only thing a player could bring that could still be setup as per rules is the defense line.

i read that on me and jimmy's game saturday.

as for allies and beardy lists, it falls down to one of beau's rules in every tournament; douchebaggery will get you kicked out of the tournament. so anyone who brings a shitty combination of allies wont even see the first round. so rest easy Matt, beardy lists @ beau-naments wont happen

dusktiger wrote:
as for allies and beardy lists, it falls down to one of beau's rules in every tournament; douchebaggery will get you kicked out of the tournament. so anyone who brings a shitty combination of allies wont even see the first round. so rest easy Matt, beardy lists @ beau-naments wont happen

Are you kidding? I sincerely hope this is a joke.. Who's to say what's 'beardy'? 6th has been out for a month now.

I cant see beau kicking someone out of a tourney because of there list. I could see scores going because of a judged comp or opponent spostsmanship .. But getting kicked out is prettt extreme. That should be saved for the big jerks who argue, cheat or throw stuff around..

And then comes the beardy issue as ryan said.. Whos going to judge it and how?

Lists: no, any list is welcome. None of us are... whats the word? Stelek-y? enough to worry about this.

Be a dick DURING the tournament... yeah, although noones been that bad yet, and we're usually confining out supa-arguments to the forum:)

gluvzer wrote:

dusktiger wrote:
as for allies and beardy lists, it falls down to one of beau's rules in every tournament; douchebaggery will get you kicked out of the tournament. so anyone who brings a shitty combination of allies wont even see the first round. so rest easy Matt, beardy lists @ beau-naments wont happen

Are you kidding? I sincerely hope this is a joke.. Who's to say what's 'beardy'? 6th has been out for a month now.

no, i always say super serious things on the internets with a smiley face on the end of the sentence, cause that's how i roll

and in case you read this before you have your coffee, yes, that was sarcasm. come on man; i even threw in a silly made up word like beau-naments. how could you take it seriously after hearing that?

I thought you were being serious as well. .. I saw the smiley as not a sarcastic confirmation.. but as a happy support for kicking out the goofy lists. If me and ryan read it that way im sure alot of others did to.

Anyone want to make millions of dollars? Invent a sarcasm font. Cuz that'd be really useful.