NagoyaHammer 2020 - May 9th - Planning the 40K Day.

[job]

@ Primarch: Yeah, a lot of the 2018 Chapter Approved added that to missions. I really recommend it as it keeps players focused on the mission rather than tabling your opponent. (Or at least if you facing an army that will do such, you can focus on the mission and angle for a hopeful win.)

[Primarch]

A few tag team games were played at the monthly games event last weekend. How did they go? What did people think about the points limits, army building rules etc?

[Jye Nicolson]

Went pretty well!

- Time wise I think it's OK, something I didn't expect as a 40k newbie was that the turn structure allowed a lot of parallelisation which cut down the movement and shooting phases nicely. I think with set up tables, fixed missions and handouts you could do three rounds no problems.

- Army building rules are good though we didn't test 1300 vs 2x650 so not sure if there's any implications there. Armies not cross-buffing each other or otherwise affecting each other in any way other than being on the same side is good, simplifies things drastically and should stay that way. The caveat there though is the army therefore needs to look after its own synergy; which I failed at building my own list. I had bad luck, but I also had my primary means of mitigating bad luck running away from the snipers who I desperately needed to break the enemy's synergy.

- 650 still feels pretty tight, I think it creates an advantage for factions with either very cheap troops (Job went with this) or able to load up on special weapons for their troops (Grant took advantage of this). I reckon you could bump it up to 750 without a lot of trouble. Of course that's a *relative* advantage and if the faction that suffers from having expensive troops is Space Marines I can imagine nobody will be able to muster much sympathy I do think there's a fair bit of pressure to build a very tight list with overlapping synergies that leans hard into its schtick rather than a more "rounded" force, the extent to which this is a problem depends on how likely it is people are to show up with unpracticed lists using whatever they had lying around.

The good news is most of the internet discussion about 2000pt lists doesn't translate very well to 650 so tough to netlist ^_^

[job]

I can’t write much as my iPhone is acting up, but overall I’d be just echoing Jye.

Time should be fine. We actually spent an hour just talking over mission, set up and other chatter. As Jye said, if we got the missions in advance, we could reduce a lot of time sorting through that stuff. Of course, if you want to add a twist, maybe hint there will be a rule revealed each round. Just an idea.

Naturally team games take a little longer than 1 on 1 as players coordinate and strategize a bit, although if we can keep an eye the clock when it our turn I’m sure we keep things moving.

Personally I really like the 650/1300 point lists. It makes you think a bit differently as you can’t bring your usual 1000 point list. I would like to see it stay at the same level.

[me_in_japan]

Just my two cents (I have a lot of those lying around, y'know...) on the various points here.

Team games are fine in principle, and probably fine in practice. I haven't played 40k in ages, and I'm not likely to get many games in, if any, between now and naghammer. I honestly don't know how many people are in the same boat, but I think my unfamiliarity with the rules will be the deciding factor in how fast I play, rather than any team based issues that may or may not arise.

re. points, meh, I've banged on about this ad nauseum elsewhere, several years in a row, so I'll keep it brief. Eldar (and marines, I guess, and maybe others) suck at low points. It's super hard to build a legal list, never mind a synergised one, at that points level. Basically, what Jye said - lower points hands a large advantage to certain armies, and a large disadvantage to others. If y'all are fine with that, then I guess I'll play along.

re. Job's suggestion of unknown custom rules to be revealed at the event. As someone who plays pretty much one game of 40k a year (I'd happily play more, but there is a serious premium on my gaming time these days), I really, really would prefer to keep things vanilla. If folks who play more want to do different stuff in their own time, of course by all means have at it, but for an event aimed at many different players, keeping things straightforward is more likely to please more people. Personally speaking, I'm certainly not in a position where I can try to factor in differing scenarios or rules when I'm army building. As mentioned above, I'm struggling to army build at all, so it'll likely be a sub-standard force. To have that further gimped by some rule imposed on the day could lead to a certain level of fun suckage...

[/mytwocents]

[Grantholomeu]

I can't speak for you dirty space elves, but having made 2 lists at 650 pts for Death Guard (not space marines, but kinda space marines), it's tight but do-able. It's interesting to run a small strike force rather than just throwing down everything the faction has to offer. If a faction can play at that low point level, I'd say we should do it. However if Eldar or anyone else literally cannot make a list that small we might need to make some exceptions.

P.S.
Should we designate someone to be the 1300pt player if we have an odd number? It would make things a lot easier for everyone else so they wouldn't have to make two lists, but I could also see it being a little advantageous if you know you'll be playing that point value. As we have things now, are you guys trying to have one 1300pt player if we have an odd number, or change the 1300pt player every round?

P.P.S.
For the sake of having it written in the rules somewhere, should we declare no titanics/lords of war?

[OZMS2Tallgeese]

Managed to get time off this year to come on Saturday.

Played 1x 2vs2 and that went pretty interestingly. I think having the points at 650 was pretty good. But the command points advantage to give you the extra abilities and army wide rules/traits are really the key points to this I think. Had one Battalion (Alpha Legion) and Patrol (Thousand Sons) in this game. Think all 4 of us had warlord traits too.

Have also played with a 1300 point list against Auxryn. Though that was also 1vs 1. Again really depends on your army rules and stratagems that you use mainly. I can see having 1 side with X number of command points (usuable on all the units) and the other side (with 2 people not sharing however many command points they have) being a bit of a problem, depending on the list compositions and stratagems. But this does kind of get balanced against 2 warlord traits and 2 set of army wide special rules.

P.S.S.
For the sake of having it written in the rules somewhere, should we declare no titanics/lords of war?

I like this idea a lot!

[Primarch]

Any further feedback from this month's game before we lock things down?

Having read what was said further up the page, I think it's worth saying the following, (with the usual caveat of 'I don't play 40K') :

Warhammer 40K is not now, nor has it ever really been, a balanced game where all armies perform equally as well at all points levels. Some armies do better at 500 points and others will be unstoppable at 2000 points plus. That's the price you pay for having a very diverse range of armies and unit types. Whether your army does well in the NagoyaHammer event is not something that can reasonably be coded in to the event rules. My goal isn't to penalize anyone, (not even Eldar players, despite claims to the contrary), but simply to ensure that as many people get to play full games while having as much fun as possible.
All of the rules are open for everyone to see and plan for. I hope to get some missions selected and posted soon, so that everyone can prepare. How you use this information is up to you. It is certainly possible that you could build the most overpowered list ever imagined and wipe the board in all three games. It's also possible that you do no planning and get wiped out on turn one of every game. I would imagine most people will fall at some point between these two extremes.
Please bear in mind that you don't have to bring a Battalion, all of the army formations are valid. This might be a chance to try that special formation you've always thought about but never used before, or maybe an opportunity to break out your less commonly used minis.


Anyway, I want to start getting stuff finalized, so this is going to be your last chance for input before everything becomes official.

[Jye Nicolson]

I think we're basically in a good place already. Yesterday's game really underlined the importance of missions - I *think* the low points values and rules setups vastly advantage balling up a shooting castle in a puddle of buffs, and Job and I proved that by butchering everything but we still only barely won. Grant and Ballonacorn played smart and played the objectives and were winning for 95% of the game despite having only handful of models left by turn 3.

So I think if the missions are good we'll be fine, even if I do end up cooking up an Iron Hands Repulsor Executioner + Master of the Forge + Screen nonsense detachment, I'll lose because I'm not as skilled a player as the rest of the club (apologies in advance to my partner).

Not sure if we have already but I'd clarify Slay the Warlord - we played it and I think most people would assume it's 1pt per Warlord you kill (so 2 on offer). I think that's the way to go but would be good to write it down because inevitably some game will hinge on whether you can get that second point.

Edit: CA 2019 missions seem pretty good.

[job]

Please disregard below as you like, but if I can throw my hat intothe ring (yet again).

* Keep the points at 650. The reason is the size of the games are already pretty challenging for new players to keep up and finish in the allotted time. (Hats off to Balloonacorn for getting his first game done in the team format.) Additionally, 650 seems just right between very small (500) and a little big (750).
* Yesterday, despite running Primaris marines, Jye had the highest model count of the 4 armies and possibly the most firepower, so I don’t think the idea that 650 is disadvantageous to “elite” armies holds much water.
* Battalions are nice for the command points but if you don’t have a particular set of Stratgems in mind to use, then they aren’t a necessity. Aura abilities and psychic powers are at least two other ways and possibly more effective ways to buff units.
* If you decide to go the way of the Battalion, it probably pays to not think of the Troops and HQ sections as a tax and instead a integral part of your list. CSM have a rather weak Troops section - evidenced by how Chapter Approved slashed the points for both choices last month, but I’d like to think we are differently advantaged. It isn’t like your next opponent has a better time of it than your own. (Edit on 2nd thought: “Unless you are playing fancy pants, GW’s prodigal child space marines. “Let me select from my 10 some variations of tactical marines, 40 odd variations of codexes, a good two dozen dreadnaughts and scores of special ammunition.” Sorry, I have to stick the boot into my loyalist compadres.)

Anyway, my two bits of disregard-able thoughts.