| |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
elphilo
Questing knight
Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 788
Location: Centreville
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:16 pm Post subject: WH40K RTT Sun, March 16 |
 |
|
Should still be 1850. Also from James' blog:
| Quote: | Stronghold Assault
- All of the Stronghold Assault supplement are legal with the following restrictions
- Stronghold Assault models which have D-weapons, or have any single armor facing equal to AV15, and/or networked void shields, (a single voidshield is ok!) are not allowed.
- To use void shields, the following rules will be followed
- To “penetrate or wound” models inside a void shield, after rolling to hit, roll each dice to
penetrate individually, until all dice in the current pool are gone, or the shield has collapsed.
- After the shield has collapsed, roll all remaining dice against the intended target unit as normal.
- The order in which dice are rolled to penetrate the shield, is determined by the firing player.
- For blast or template weapons, determine how many hits occur by counting the number of
models underneath the template.
- All models, whose size and dimensions are not listed in the Stronghold Assault rulebook, may be no
larger than 2 (1/2) inches tall, and 2 inches wide.
- Any model whose dimensions are only partially listed, example, 3 inches wide but not how long or tall, may be no wider or longer than the partially listed dimension, and may only be 2(1/2) inches tall.
- All battlefield debris and associated terrain, may be no larger than 1 inch long, wide, and tall.
-Models must be WYSIWYG when available
- All models may move onto, or off of, a skyshield landing pad if within two inches of the model, by
taking a dangerous terrain test. There is no 3 inch penalty for moving up or down as with a ruin.
Special exemption for the next RTT, anyone who has crafted their own voidshield model may bring it regardless of size dimensions to the next RTT for a trial run. If it works out, then we will adjust the dimension allowance accordingly. |
_________________
My Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
elphilo
Questing knight
Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 788
Location: Centreville
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Update on James' blog located here: http://birdux.blogspot.com/2014/03/rtt-huzzah-hobbies-march-16th-and.html
| Quote: | Hey all,
Just wanted to let everyone know our monthly RTT at Huzzah Hobbies in Ashburn, VA www.huzzahhobbies.com will be held March 16th. Registration starts at 10am, and games begin at 10:45. If you are going to be late please call the store at 703-466-0460 and let us know.
Entry fee is $15, and covers a pizza lunch and two drinks. The remaining cash is rolled entirely into prize support.
Prize support will be based on attendance
I have not yet decided if I am going to allow Codex: Imperial Knights, pending the release of the actual book. We don't yet know if its supposed to be an escalation only deal, etc.. I'm assuming GW is essentially disregarding their own rules system, and shoving it into normal 40k. So I'm going to have to make the decision on how to handle it as the T.O.
So hear out my thoughts on this.
I don't want to ban a GW codex. It's one thing to ban clear expansions / suppliments like Escalation, its quite another to disallow Imperial Knights. My issue is, they allow D-weapons / super heavies into normal 40k, which I find to be pretty much utter trash.
I think D-Weapons and the concept behind super heavies ruin the game. They turn what should be a strategy game into a race for the bottom, he who spends the most wins the most. While this is more or less true in 40k as a general rule (buying up the latest and greatest armies), two wrong's do not make a right. Subverting the current problem with newer and bigger problems does not solve the original problem. To make it worse, it's a slippery slope. If I allow one super heavy, why not allow others? In addition, as it appears codex imperial knights can only ally with Imperial armies, this is yet another game enhancer that benefits the currently powerful armies (as for some stupid reason tau and elder can ally w/ them too), while hurting the underpowered armies (ork, cron, chaos ect).
So I will post later this week after I read the damn thing, and hopefully after feedback from readers and other 40kers to decide if I'm going to allow this into our 40k games.
I have been toying with some ideas for changes to D-Weapons. Something that maintains a good power level of what the D once was so as to not be retarded bad, but doesn't make it the monster. Because as I said, slippery slope, we don't want to change the D-weapon, then have to change it again to compensate for some other crazy codex.
So my proposal for how the D should be changed rolls something like this:
All D-weapons become S10, Ap1, removes model from play on the role of a 6 to wound with no saves of any kind allowed, and ignores eternal warrior ect.
When taking a cover save against a D-weapon, subtract 1 from your best possible cover save. (This means at best you should only ever get a 3+ cover save vs. a D).
Against vehicles, may re-roll armor pen and armor penetration results.
I feel this lets D-weapons still feel powerful, but not break the game.
Now what to do about the super-heavies?
Well super heavy walkers move 12, which is more or less ok. But their real issue is their stomp attack. It's really powerful, deceptively so, if you've never played against a walker doing it. It's basically another D-weapon attack.
So my proposal would be, stomp becomes S7, Ap3, may not be placed over models which are not engaged in the current combat.
Could also change the S / AP value to be S4 Ap2, as another direction to go with that.
So, would appreciate any and all feedback on said topic. When thinking about these things, don't think only in the context of imperial knights either, think long term, and application to other D-weapon wielding units / super heavies. B/c this thing is slippery slope, if GW is willing to put out one, they're probably going to put out more.
Rules:
1850 pts
We allow all codex's, dataslates, and stronghold assault - EXCLUDING any AV15 buildings, D-Weapons, networked buildings..
Formations are allowed, but are treated as a separate special detachment whose limit is 0-1, so multiple formations are not allowed.
Escalation is not allowed.
Forgeworld 40k approved models are only allowed if we are contacted in advance of the event to ask about specific models. This allows us to review the rules of the model in question and determine if its reasonable or not. Please contact me or leave a reply to this post to ask.
We will be following NOVA Open FAQ's unless otherwise stated by the judge at the event.
Proxies are totally fine as long as they are roughly the same size as the model being proxies, and use the same base.
Painting is not required.
This event is run and tracked in torrent of fire. www.torrentoffire.com. |
I would voice your opinions if you care!
_________________
My Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elphilo
Questing knight
Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 788
Location: Centreville
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
UPDATE: http://birdux.blogspot.com/2014/03/huzzah-hobbies-rtt-sunday-march-16th.html
| Quote: | Hi all,
An update to the RTT rules this week. After giving it a lot of thought and talking to lots of other 40kers, I have decided to allow codex Imperial Knights at the RTT this sunday with no caveats or changes.
We will see how it goes, and report back to the internets at large; then make decisions on how to handle it in the future based on the event.
All of the other normal rules as per my previous post apply. |
Now I wonder how many Knights will be up there lol
_________________
My Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
treehugger
Questing knight
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 2166
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I hope they are not over powered
_________________
I lose cause I can |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KevinF
Joined: 05 Feb 2012
Posts: 851
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| treehugger wrote: | | I hope they are not over powered |
Well said Bill. Putting an army of super heavy walkers into normal 40k is pretty scary. The game balance in 40k is already very bad, hopefully this does not make it too much worse.
@Phil - I bet we will see at least one knight army and 2-3 people with one knight ally. Make sure your sergeants have meltabombs!
_________________
Warhammer 40K 7th edition games (W-D-L):
Astra Militarum 0-0-2
Chaos Marines 10-0-4
Eldar 4-0-1
Necrons 3-1-1
Tau Empire 0-0-1
Tyranids 1-1-0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elphilo
Questing knight
Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 788
Location: Centreville
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think a singular Knight is OP. I can't say about an army since I haven't played against it. But yeah, it's going to change the meta to a more vehicle heavy and tank buster meta.
_________________
My Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
treehugger
Questing knight
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 2166
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| elphilo wrote: | | I don't think a singular Knight is OP. I can't say about an army since I haven't played against it. But yeah, it's going to change the meta to a more vehicle heavy and tank buster meta. |
I can't figure out how to run one knight. The way I read the ally chart you need a paliden and a knight errand.
_________________
I lose cause I can
Last edited by treehugger on Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:28 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elphilo
Questing knight
Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 788
Location: Centreville
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh well then. Its going to be tougher than I thought.
Perhaps I should read rules before I comment 
_________________
My Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Davall
Nerd Rager!
Joined: 29 Nov 2010
Posts: 1925
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| elphilo wrote: | Oh well then. Its going to be tougher than I thought.
Perhaps I should read rules before I comment |
Why start now? 
_________________
Tone on the internet can be a bitch. Honest, I am not Nerd Raging. Well, maybe not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
treehugger
Questing knight
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 2166
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok I re read the imperial knights and you were correct you can take one.
_________________
I lose cause I can |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elphilo
Questing knight
Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 788
Location: Centreville
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
God damn it Bill. Thanks for making me question my sanity, again.
_________________
My Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KevinF
Joined: 05 Feb 2012
Posts: 851
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grats Joe for finally pulling out enough battle points for the win! And against 20 players. Well done.
How did you like the Crimson Slaughter rules?
_________________
Warhammer 40K 7th edition games (W-D-L):
Astra Militarum 0-0-2
Chaos Marines 10-0-4
Eldar 4-0-1
Necrons 3-1-1
Tau Empire 0-0-1
Tyranids 1-1-0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
