The Runes of Fate: Prophecies for NH2017

[me_in_japan]

@prim - I'd come play in a tourney, sure. as long as I know what kinda game to expect in advance I'm happy to play any style.

@ash - all good ideas. Re. Painting event, no I'm not running it, but I will be attending.

[The Underdweller]

I would not be very excited to play in a competitive 40K tournament, but I would probably come.

[job]

For 40k, I'd not be very excited with a tournie. The game seems wholly unsuited for tournaments with the rules bloat and throwing game balance out the window. However, as a table top gamer I'm not adverse to the idea of some light competition. Winning a game or achieving an objective is enough.

Of course others may feel differently.

As an event, I'd probably most want simple format for rules and maybe a few unique missions for tables or something along that line.

[kojibear]

A truly no holds barred, go for the nuts, poke em' in the eye, bite 'is ear off, tournament is not my favourite, but as Underdweller said, I'd still attend.

Whether I would have a great time, and not just an OK time, I guess would come down to the spirit of the event and of the people who attend. From what little I know of the tournaments held in other places of the world, they can be quite cutthroat with not the slightest attempt at a narrative. For me personally, just me mind you, I find that a little sad given the wonderful and interesting 40k world that has been created and written about. Is it possible to please both the competitive and narrative desires I wonder?

[Primarch]

Right, no tournamenting then. I shall put my thinking cap on and see what I can come up with.

[OZMS2Tallgeese]

For what its worth, I'd like to come along to Nagoya Hammer 2017 and roll dice with you all regardless the game. I also don't mind watching other people play too. You sound like a great bunch of guys and I all I am really looking for is a chance to meet (and defeat, hehehe) you guys. As far as I am aware I am not a power gamer so no need worry come win or lose I'll still have fun. Also the idea of a two event is very exciting for me, more chance to meet people. (^.*)b

[ashmie]

Huzzah! Do it, it's a great couple of days of gaming and tavern dwelling.

[Primarch]

With just a hint of threadomancy, I'd like to pose a question to everyone.

In terms of playing 40K, how do you all feel about detachments, formations and all those things? Maelstrom missions, yay or nay? Lords of War, awesome or awful? Battleforged or Unbound?

I had a look through the GW website today. I counted 40 books for the current game, that's core rules, expansions, codecies, codex expansions and the like. That doesn't include the dataslates or any of the FW books. (20 or so IA/HH I believe).

At what point do you draw the line and at what point do you just say F*#% it, bring what you like? Having had criticism about being too restrictive in previous years and not having played much 40K except for NH events for the last couple of years, I'm wondering how people feel about the option of using all the rules we have been presented with. On the one hand there is the claim that some books need their formations to be playable, on the other there is the option for some armies to get massive amounts of free upgrades or to launch first turn assaults with rerolls on everything and no overwatch.

Thoughts, comments and long, ranty arguments below please.

[job]

I'm a fan of the Maelstorm missions. Having originally been a skeptic of its merits I've completely come around. The missions are great for moving the objective of the game away from crushing your opponent to thinking about moving and adjusting to a changing situation, which tends to focus on maneuvering and table control.

Also I'm a fan of smaller 40k games. As much as I like to field all my goodies, one way to curb the power-mongering and rules bloat is to keep the points down. It also makes it possible to actually buy and field new armies before next April.

Finally, as for dataslates and other options, I think it would be best to leave them there. Firstly, we've never had them at NagoyaHammer. Secondly, the dataslates are fairly part and parcel of the new game. Removing doesn't fix any balance as there is no semblance of balance between the current codexes. Finally many of the dataslates are very fluffy and not overpowered. Hopefully keeping the points down and just player agreement to avoid cheese will curb the excesses.

Oh and as for unbound, I'm opposed. I'm still of the mind some kind of Force organization chart should be followed.

My 2 cents.

[me_in_japan]

just a few quick thoughts, and these are very much just my own opinion based on my own approach to and understanding of the game.

Maelstrom missions: no idea. Never used em, and don't actually know what they are. (I mention this because it gives some measure of how important I consider them. Again, personal opinion, obvs)

Dataslates: these seem to vary hugely; from reasonable rules for single units, to massively beneficial army-wide formations, and as such one blanket rule to cover them seems heavy handed. I think the best approach is to leave them in. As Joe said, they're also pretty integral to how the game is played these days. I've never used one, but they could be critical to others' armies. Plus, the really big ones (detachments) are hard to fit into smaller points games.

Formations: These seem pretty critical to 40k these days. Some are overpowered get-massive-bonus-for-spamming-spammy-monstrosities, but when one considers armies like Harlequins that simply cannot be played without their faction specific formations, it seems clear that cutting them out completely is (again) heavy handed. Again, I agree with Joe that the worst offenders will be curbed by the lower points available at most Naghammer games.

Detachments, have the same issue as Formations. E.g. The one in the eldar codex is massive, involving pretty much every Eldar unit available, phoenix lords, avatar, all dat shizzle. Massively unusable. The Harlequin one, otoh, is absolutely necessary to play Harlequins at all (due to their not having any HQ units, they can't use a Combined Arms detachment.)

Unbound: Personally, I don't like it. It seems unnecessary. This is somewhere a TO can make their mark. Custom missions, alliances, and wierd-ass Force Orgs (based on mission fluff) can be a fun way to vary games. Care needs to be taken that any restrictions/extras included don't massively swing things for one faction over another. E.g. an extreme, silly example. "no elites or fast attack may be used"...
"but what about my harlequin army?"

Anyway, overall I think that the TO's job is to make sure that the missions are fun and fluffy, rather than try to police how the players play. Let folks know in advance how they're expected to approach the game (e.g. in any publicity mention that while it's a competition, the aim is to meet folks and have fun, not kerbstomp people's dudesmen), and see how it goes from there.

/my 2yen