40K 7th Ed Tourney 12/20/14 @ EGC

So do I understand correctly we could have 2 detachments maximum.
"1 of which must be a CAD" but we could have 2 CAD OR 1 CAD and 1 Allied Detachment from same codex detachment?

Excellent... will be there!

Much improved rules.

Two Questions:
1) Are the FW Imperial Knights allowed to be taken as LoW units? They aren't on your list.
2) Are Gabriel Seth and Commander Dante allowed to be taken as LoW units? They were moved to the LoW slot in the new BA codex and aren't on your list.

While on the topic of Gabriel Seth....he's a 155 point LoW model that is simply an infantry unit with a 3+ save. He's very squishy....it totally doesn't make sense that a unit like this should give up a VP if someone kills him. It's clear that GW is redefining what it means to be a LoW....the LoW slot is more of a fluff thing and not a "super powerful OP model" thing. For example, they are moving all named chapter masters to the LoW slot, but not necessarily changing their rules. Keeping the 6E Escalation rules (Impending Doom and Through Attrition Victory) in the 7E game pretty much makes units like this unusable. Also, Imperial Knights aren't LoW, so they don't give up VPs....but FW Imperial knights do...it just feels odd and wonky using these 6E rules. I know the rules are set for this tourney, and that's fine, but I hope you'll revisit this part of them in future events =).

If you read the FW Knight entries they are ONLY LoW when you do not take them as part of a knight detachment. So take two knights and your fine.
If you read the entry in the big rule book the LoW plainly references "Warhammer 40000: Escalation" for Lords of War. So they do seem to imply that your opponent really does get a victory point for killing Gabriel Seth.
Just my opinion but it seems clear they are still using Escalation.

I had wanted to only play one knight... but you are right, if he's not allowed as a LoW, I could take multiple knights to get him in my list as an ally =p.

The BRB doesn't say that LoW models follow rules in escalation, it says:

"You’ll find a selection of Lords of War units in some codexes and in Warhammer 40,000: Escalation.” There's nothing to say that these codex-specific LoW models follow rules from escalation.

Also, I thought the 7E FAQ for the Escalation book changed the section that introduces those two secondary objectives and said that they now only apply to games in which you're using missions out of the Escalation book itself. They don't apply to standard BRB maelstrom missions, for instance. In other words, it's not based on whether you're using models from the escalation book, but rather if you're using missions from that book....could be wrong, but that's what I recall. Using these rules in normal games amounts to a house-rule, which is fine I guess. I just think it adds a penalty to a lot of units that don't really need it.

It looks like you are correct. I just pulled up the Escalation FAQ and those traits are just for the Altar of War and Gauntlet missions.

You are correct that those rules are for only when playing Altar of War and Gauntlet missions, here is the catch to it though, the moment someone takes a LoW it becomes an Altar of War mission...On top of what ever else mission you play.  So we haven't added it always before because its part of the rules.  

Because I have not "Officially" seen the Blood Angels codex yet because street date is saturday  ... But if they are moved to LoW then they will be allowed and will follow all LoW rules..

Thanks. What about the FW knights, are they legal LoW units for the tourney? The only way you can field them is as a LoW model, unless you field double knights as an ally, as Will said.

At this point I wouldn't add to the list of straight up LoW. But acceptable for the non LoW Allies...

For reference, I believe the paragraphs with the escalation rules you're referring to were changed in the most recent FAQ. This paragraph in the original 6E Escalation:

“If one or more players choose to include a Lords of War unit in their army, the additional mission special rule and secondary objective described below automatically apply in any mission that you play.

Furthermore, if your opponent has a Lords of War unit as part of their army, your Warlord can choose to roll on the Escalation Warlord Traits table shown below instead of one of the Warlord Traits tables normally available to your Warlord."

Were re-written in the new 7E FAQ to be:

"This book also includes Altar of War:Escalation (pg 84) and Gauntlet Challenge missions (page 92). These missions may use the Escalation mission special rule 'Impending Doom' and the Escalation Secondary Objective 'Through Attrition, Victory, which are described below."

So, unless I missed something (which is always possible), it seems missions no longer automatically become Altar of War missions just because a LoW is being played as they did in 6E.

Let's just play 7th Edition IMO.  I don't like making up rules going back to an obsolete version of the game that nobody plays because it feels unnecessary and arbitrary.  There's nothing wrong with using the Lords of War rules out of the current 40k rules.  

If tournaments are looking to limit the impact of superheavies then a better way to do this is by limiting their point size to 33% of total points or something like that (and also sometimes have tournaments with no limits please!).  Swooping in and making them all completely crap-tastic by saddling them with defunct rules *when the vast majority of superheavies aren't that good in the first place* is a very poor way to go IMO.  

Sean, GW is releasing more and more LoW.  They're a common part of the game now so let's just play 7th edition, not 6th please.

I would like to point out that we are playing 7th ed rules for one, I don't know what the 6th edition reference was to because since the release of 7th we have played 7th. And I'd also like to remind everyone that I was and am still running tournies that allow LoW.  Good luck finding many that will at all restricted or not.  Not to say that there aren't any or that CAG is the only one doing it but it is not a well looked upon thing atm.

When I set about making the guidelines from tourney to tourney I try to keep them in line with current rules with as little tweaking as possible.  I try to mitigate through the missions viable ways to play/run a tourney which 7th ed is not friendly to at all.  I have done polls and I talk with people.  So I know that there is a pretty even split of people that want to play LoW and those who do not. So I try to not alienate many people so one tourney it will be unrestricted LoW, One will be no LoW, and in this case to at least test something a major tournament is doing I adopted their restrictive list for testing purposes.

Makari wrote:

I would like to point out that we are playing 7th ed rules for one, I don't know what the 6th edition reference was to because since the release of 7th we have played 7th. And I'd also like to remind everyone that I was and am still running tournies that allow LoW.  Good luck finding many that will at all restricted or not.  Not to say that there aren't any or that CAG is the only one doing it but it is not a well looked upon thing atm.

When I set about making the guidelines from tourney to tourney I try to keep them in line with current rules with as little tweaking as possible.  I try to mitigate through the missions viable ways to play/run a tourney which 7th ed is not friendly to at all.  I have done polls and I talk with people.  So I know that there is a pretty even split of people that want to play LoW and those who do not. So I try to not alienate many people so one tourney it will be unrestricted LoW, One will be no LoW, and in this case to at least test something a major tournament is doing I adopted their restrictive list for testing purposes.

The 6th Edition reference is because of LoW giving up VPs and steal init mods being a 6e rule that was discarded with the current edition.  Resurrecting those rules is something that's not very useful in 7e IMO.

Like I said, better ways to handle this are to cap LoW at X% of total points in events that use restricted LoW.  Like Redbeards said, saddling guys like Seth with giving up VPs and init penalties smacks them with a really egregious nerfing that's not called for at all.  Same with most other superheavies/LoW out there.  

I think a lot - dare I say most - people agree that there are a few LoW that are problematic.  The two Necron ones and the Revenant are way too powerful for their points and we have at least one prolific Necron Douche of War player in the area.   So tweaking rules seems attractive at times.  I think it bugs a lot of people that the other 95% of LoW in the game are having to pay the price by losing a whole lot of their playability.  And as GW is rolling out 1-2 new LoW with each codex the the number of popular units getting hit with the +1 Shillelagh of Uncalled-For Playability Nerfing is growing.

So my 2 pesos is for LoW to have none of the old Escalation book dead weight, ever.  In the restricted LoW months just throw a 30% LoW point cap out there (555 pts in 1850), or another size cap.  That way people can play their non-problematic LoW unmolested and the Revenant and the Cron ones can't be used (or rather the Cron ones can use used with lesser weapons).  

Disclaimer #1: I know we're testing the Nova Open rules this month and I'm not saying we should necessarily change it up at this point.  

Disclamer #2: You do a great job organizing this stuff Sean thanks for your hard work.  I'm not trying to seem critical here, just trying to think up the most workable options.  I know a certain number of people will gripe a bit no matter what decision is made.  

Well my view is maybe simple but none the less...

The big to do for me is CAG Bash 2015 which is a little over 5 months away.
It is a very strange time for us war gamers out here with all the rapid fire
rule releases hitting us, at a blinding break neck speed.

I feel Makari has got it right by trying different things and even other tournament
formats out there to find the best fit for us here in the tri-state area.
I would much rather do as many different ones out there now and help in the
process of finding out what does work for cag bash.

I mean...

I just think we need to try out as much as we can and then converse on it
afterwards, so for me its more about finding out what works for Cag Bash rather
than just winning or losing any one smaller test format...

Am I really in the minority here ?

I fully agree. And I like what Makari is doing.

My suggestion is to take it a step further by 1) removing the Escalation secondary objectives because as I read the rules, they aren't supposed to be used in missions outside of the Escalation book, and 2) Allowing some additional LoW models (like FW knights, for example).

In THIS CASE however I think Sean has posted his rules and EVERYONE can read them so they are 100% aware of the rules and can make their lists accordingly.

I also agree that testing out different tounry formats is good. It lets TOs and players get a feel for what works and what doesn't. Personally I'm not a fan of the BAO format because it favors certain aries over others, but its a game and we know the limitations going into it.
I really do feel for people who show up to play and don't have a LoW and go up against almost any of the ones in Escalation or Apocalypse books.
Personally, I like the extra victory points for LoW BUT I can see the huge difference between Logan and a Stompa and a Stompa and the Hierophant Biotitan.
Those Codex LoWs (Logan) are not really LoWs on the same scale. With these rules they give up 1 VP if they die but the Seize the Initiative roll benefit is the big hit in my opinion.
Personally if I were to modify these I would skip the Seize the Initiative benefit and give 1 VP for every 3 wounds/hull points AFTER the first 3. That makes Logan, Dante, Gazzy, etc all not worth any extra VPs.
I'd also make these rules apply to Knights since they are Super Heavies.

Yeah, I agree there are differences between LoW models. I think your house-rule proposal makes sense....more sense than the current proposal. I see your proposal as a compromise between what is currently being proposed and how I read the latest escalation rules (i.e. that these secondaries don't apply to any LoW models outside the escalation missions).

I guess I see LoW and super heavies as two totaly different things in 7E. There are now super heavies that aren't LoW and there are LoW that aren't super heavies. I don't think my statement was true in 6E when all LoW were super heavies and vice versa.

(Which maybe is why GW rewrote the escalation rules with the 7E FAQ...just speculating.)

Well you guys are making great points so don't think I am suggesting otherwise,
However I am looking at the new blood angel codex just picked it up earlier today.

Let me try and drift for a moment and reflect upon some thoughts after reading this
for the first time. (I'm sure there will be many more read through's in the future)

As I do so I will try and pull all of this together by going a little off topic for a bit.
I look at this, like you guys I have more than one 40k army. I am pretty sure the
day of maintaining current army lists (in each of at least my case 4 factions) in or at
tournament level. Is way too much of a time and money sink for most of us, or atleast
this is my case being a family man and working stiff.

Now with that we have also seen the quality of models and release of codex's increase as well.
So this is not a bashing session either. Just pointing out that within these choices one has to
make concerning which way to go when creating a tournament level army list.

One must also consider that the meta game has forever changed as well on a individual level.

All I am saying is it is really hard to approach the creation of tournament rule set in this hobby of ours
with all this above to consider, that will some how make everyone happy. Example my own personal plight...

The thing that pulls this together in my mind is,
Instead of trying to work things into rules, that I feel will be balanced for at least me. Or going out and buying everything I think I need to give me the edge in all 4 of my armies.

I am just going to take a deep breath and do my homework and make what I have work to its best. Regardless of format or rules...

Sure I may pick up a model or 2 along the way but pushing what I got to the limit should make me a better player.

Win or lose I'm thinking by doing this I'm getting the most out of our hobby.

I like the ideas listed thus far, in this thread. but I still want to try and do these different formats.

Then afterwards hook up with my battle bros. and compare notes.

If more of us just show up and roll the dice these next few months at the different game stores,
We should have this thing smoothed out pretty well by the time "CAG BASH 2015" hits.

Thanx, for reading guys sorry for the ramble.

Where's a "like" button when you need one?

what is your ruling for "what facing do hammer of wrath attacks hit against walkers" ?


There's a dakka thread on the question that kind of devolved into which rule is "more special", but, the conflict seems to be about

-- HOW says they resolve against the facing the model is touching

-- walkers say close combat attacks hit front armor.

so, at cag events, which rule takes precedence ?

I've always interpreted it as the HoW rule is addressing "vehicles" in general and that the walker rule is specific to walkers and supersedes general vehicle CC rules (because specific rules supersede the general rules).

Now, if HoW said "it always hits the armor facing from which the attack was delivered (including walkers)" or something like that, specifically calling out walkers, then the HoW rule would take precedence.

...just my 2 cents.

Back on the other topic, since the BA codex is officially out now, are Seth and Dante legal to use in the tourney lists?

Yes they are legal I will add to original Post. 

And this months missions are here: 
The changes are minimal but this will be the last of this format, as new missions are being drafted. If you are interested in helping shape the look of the missions join the CAG Rules Council!!! Message me for details.


Missions:  
            Primary Objectives: You may discard any Tactical Objective but may not replace it unless you have scored it already or if at the beginning of the game it was impossible to complete the objective. May score a max of 2 points a turn.  D3 objectives are replaced with automatic 2 points instead.
            Secondary Objectives: Slay the Warlord, Attrition, Line Breaker, First Blood, Impending Doom, Through Attrition, Victory.
            {Attrition: The player that destroys the most units gets 1 point under secondary objectives.}
            Bonus VP's:  If a rule gives you a VP you can never go above 15 VP for the game.
            Mission Special Rules: Night Fighting, Mysterious Objectives, Reserves
 
Round 1) Hammer And Anvil / Modified Maelstrom of War
            6 Primary objectives- At the start of your turn draw up to a maximum of 3 cards for your hand. 
Round 2) Dawn of War / Modified Maelstrom of War
            6 Primary objectives- If at the start of a player's turn he has fewer than 6 Active Tactical Objectives he must generate 1 new Tactical Objectives for each Objective marker he currently controls to a maximum of 6.  If a player does not control an objective marker at the start of his turn he cannot generate any new Tactical Objectives.
Round 3) Vanguard Strike / Modified Relic
            6 Primary objectives- Only one of the Objective Markers includes the essential munitions that your army so desperately needs, referred to as the Primary Drop. The following rules apply:                               
•    Each time a model (friend or foe) ends its Movement phase within 1" of an Objective Marker, roll a D6. On the roll of a 1-5, remove the Objective marker from play – this crate is filled with non-essential material. On the roll of a 6, that model has found the Primary Drop. As soon as the Primary Drop is found, all other Objective Markers are immediately removed from play.  If five Objective Markers have been searched unsuccessfully, the sixth Objective Marker automatically becomes the Primary Drop.
•    The Primary Drop follows all other rules for the Relic on page 147 of the 40k Rulebook. In regards to the Relic amendment change "at the end of movement" to "at the end of any of your action phases" i.e.  If your unit was legally allowed to act in someway at the end of the phase you may pick up the relic.
EX 1:  After close combat you win combat and consolidate onto the relic you may pick up.
EX 2: You are charged and kill the entire unit in over watch you could not pick it up because you did act but could not move to pick it up.

•    Only the model holding the Relic can score the relic.

Nice missions.

Are objective cards face up? (assume yes..)

Only scoring 2 per turn, I assume the player picks which two to score?

I like these modified missions. They are a good mix.

I've been thinking about how to set up for future tournaments.
I'm starting to lean toward just straight out of the book Maelstrom of War/Eternal War/ and maybe a Altar of War mission that is balanced and uses the Purge the Alien type victory points.
Almost everyone has played these and knows the rules. They will not forget to count new rules specific to each mission.

One thing I like about including both a Maelstrom and Eternal War mission is they favor very different armies. It helps to encourage all comers lists. (I think)
Maelstrom missions favor highly mobile units and a wide range of unique powers to maximize possible points.
Eternal War favors highly resistant units that will be around at the end of the game. They don't even have to be very mobile at all in at least half of the missions.

If the TO makes the missions really different it does keep some of the power lists down unless they are totally devoted to tabling opponents.