Things that fly, (though ask your opponent).

There are numerous things that we think are fair game. However, the difficulty with that phrase is that it means many things to many different people...but we do think that the rulebook's text, poorly written in Nottinghamese as it is, should be the guide to what the game is, supported by the official FAQ's and erratae.

So here are a few things that we have argued out among our group, and being the sort of judges that interpret the law rather than make it, we've worked a few things out:

• Star engine rams and TS'es are nowhere disallowed. 'Moving Normally' is an adverb clause that refers to the 1" rule and other prohibitions. Notice how it differs from "[its] Normal Move," which is a phrase that does not appear. Is it amazing? not really. The ram, while it's S10, is also S10 on the foe...and therefore only 1/3 (or less, if one doesn't get the pen) likely to produce destruction of a contester, and only 2/9 likely to result in scoring (if it has a DAVU). Not to mention that skimmers can simply dodge ram attacks. I don't see this as game-breaking, especially in light of the Deff Rolla's ability to do the same danger-free and d6 times to boot.
  
• Ku'gath makes nurglings in the enemy turn. Just as numerous psykers can use powers in the enemy turn, his verbage says any turn. Again, one stand of Nurglings from a 300-point, S&P, Force/Bone-swordable, aging 4th ed character is not breaking the game...and so we go by the text.

  EDIT: After looking at Njal Stormcaller's 'until end of turn,' ability, and its errata, (which if you go second has some results that do nothing due to duration expiration), I'm no longer sure about this. Back in the 'no' column because the rules are very uncertain on this point.
  

• Outflankers on a lined table edge that can't enter: go back to reserve. In this case, it's something missing. But we're not about to break the game/kill units. As judges. we take the minumum neccessary action to uphold the law, until the legislator deals with the problem according to the public interest (or their own GW fiat), and amends the law.

A rant on poorly thought tourney rules.

Well, we've been going over what the goals for the event would be in a positive sense.

Some few things have conspired over the past week to set a feeling of revulsion in our guts, things that we promise to not do.

1. We will not create a scoring system where each HQ cumulatively adds points as it is killed...for once, Adepticon has it right, making there be only one designated army general. Some armies depend/are themed more heavily around their characters, (Daemons and Wolves), and what we will not do is force players to go out of character for their army simply to avoid throwing away games; nor will an asinine rule like this cause the scoring of the entire tournament to dive southward in its numerical validity.
2. We will not invent missions that some armies or styles simply cannot win. Example: the (in)famous 'messenger' mission, which in its 'updated' form forces players to march their (very) squishy troops across the board, sans transport. (Tau anyone?) If you'd like to bring a squishy army, we'd like to put as few obstacles in the way of your success as possible--enabling folks to try out new ideas and resurrecting old ones is a goal for us.
   

   For us, the judge of your army's success is in its comparison to the foe--this game is not one in which the themes of Man v. Nature, or Army v. Bureaucracy feature heavily.
   

3. We will not set up tables that will decide games on the roll off for edge choice. Further, when you walk up to a table with a DS army, or a tank 'coy' we don't want to lose or win the game for you with the terrain. (see below entry).
4. We will not make dozens of fiat rulings against the RAW (or its omissions) without imperative and "doom" worthy circumstances. The Adepticon FAQ has gotten too long, for too few reasons, folks...Upcoming, something(s) that we will let fly, and let your opponent decide the fairness of on his scoresheet for himself.
5. We will not charge you an arm and a leg to play 3 good games of 40k at a convention that's about fun. We've gotten a great sponsorship for terrain and prize support (the folks at Shenanigans Cards & Games, our FLGS), and we're going to pass that help on to you.
   

Our terrain goals: fun and balance.

One of the great assets that the FOW tournament scene is a terrain ethic that forces armies to fight over many different battlefields, some suited to them, others not, while enabling all types of armies to compete so long as they are well-made and complete.

One example lies in the use of constricted LOS, buildings, and cover that can be 'hopped' by infantry. In 40k, much has been made of the dominance of mech and the preponderance of vehicles in 5th edition. It is our belief that some of the feeling of imbalance stems from insufficient use of terrain to both protect infantry and hinder vehicles (on some tables, and to some extent).

Likewise, the use of vehicles should be rewarded where appropriate--lakes and rivers crossable by amphibious and skimmers but few others; roads that hasten the travel of wheeled vehicles, and so on, all belong on some fraction of tables to allow vehicles' unique types to be used on the battlefield.

Therefore, expect to see the following at the Shenanigan 40k:

• 25% as the median terrain fraction, with a standard distribution up and down from there. Deviation of 10%, meaning about 1 table will have only 5% terrain, while another will have 45% (but remain playable. trust us.)
• The use of buildings. Foot armies are out of favor at least in portion because they lack the small arms-proof cover of a transported list. About 1/3 of tables will have 2-3 AV9-11 buildings available. We will present a notecard with each building at the table with its characteristics...and they really ought to be played according to the rules rather than as ruins (protection+danger of catastrophe+vulnerability to flamers)
  
• The use of roads. Roads provide mobility to hasten games (good at a tournament), but only if the objectives are placed nearby. Another 1/3 tables will feature a road, probably with linear cover along some portion of its length.
• The use of flat area terrain (ala marshes, uneven grass). This sort of terrain is simple, requires little argument, and hinges battlefields. About 2/3 of area terrain will be of this sort.
  
• Sensible ruins. Too often ruins are built impractically for the players to reach into/around them, or they are preponderant to the point that a bike list is deprived of any means of attacking troops/objectives on upper levels. (objectives must be placed on table at this point.) While the trouble bikers experience in ruins should remain (it is one of their limitations that should be felt), It should not present a total obstacle to victory.
  

The S(c)ore-ing system

Much has been made of the 'comp/sports overload' and the erosion of generalship as a central component of tournaments, most notably by TastyTaste of Bloodofkittens.com., and many others.

Personally, I believe that people should have an incentive in a hobby-based competition to pursue unconventional ideas and model interesting armies. Of course, those same armies should be competitive on the field, but risk needs some form of reward.

Presently, we're trying to parse out a system that would place 85% of the weight towards the overall prize on generalship, with the remaining 15% spread between Sports, Modeling/Innovation/'Spirit', and paint.

This is an example/draft system:
Generalship: 85 points/round, 60 points primary (60/40/20); Secondary 15 (15/10/5); tertiary (10/5/0); 8 points of Sports, 2 of paint, player choice, 2 for originality/conversions, and 3 points (9 overall) for the standard paint/model judged rubric.

Rest assured we will NOT use the existing Golden Bolter or Adepticon system, that whatever decision is made it will be published well in advance of the tournament, and that there will be prizes for Overall, General, Painting, and Modelling/Innovation, and sports. Tentatively, if anyone would win two categories, we'd go to 2nd Overall, 3rd overall, and so on. We will also work to get 1-2 'lottery' prizes in to make it worthwhile to stick around.

The First Seed

Another of the edges that the FOW scene has developed on us is the 'no mirror-match' seeding system, at least in initial rounds. While the universe of 40k is much more tolerant of infighting, it nevertheless can make for a more interesting and worthwhile game when you get to fight someone with a different codex.

Depending on the Codex populations, we may set out to provide the first round with a seed that sees no Intra-Codex battling. As we recognize that this means that the first round may sharply divide into a SM vs. Other team match, we will enter into this decision warily.

Comment solicited and appreciated on the subject.

Tentative Malan'Tai Ruling

After going over the main book, the Tyranid Codex text, and so on, We've conluded that the argument that the doom doesn't work on embarked men to not have a leg to stand on--the rulebook is clear, 'when a player needs to measure to an embarked unit, use the hull of the vehicle.'

We realize, however, that questions of balance and precedent are at play here, and that the issue is one of great contention within the community. Therefore, we'll be following the Adepticon line with the following addendum:

• Units embarked in a transport recieve a 3+ cover save against wounds from the doom of Malan'tai. This is based on the 'disagreement resolution' mechanic for cover, and on the fact that fortified cover provides a 3+.
  
• While one must suffer hits (which are not inflicted by the Doom's description) to voluntarily go to ground, we nevertheless rule that unembarked models may go to ground against the Doom's aura. This is a balance-preservation and community-sanity driven ruling, and while unsupported in the RAW, is nevertheless merited.
  

This ruling is tentative based on the current climate of contention and the lack of an official FAQ for the Tyranid Codex. As we accumulate any other rulings, we will compile them into our Tournament packet (PDF), forthcoming.

Welcome!

With a little less than six months from Gen Con, there's a whole lot of time between us and the tournament. But for anyone thinking of registering or setting aside time for this tourney, here's the rap:

• Gen Con is the Mecca of Gaming. We're here to feed all our geek passions, too. We'd like to move GenCon toward a more all-inclusive gaming fair, and providing an accessible, yet well-organized tournament to showcase 40k is our goal.
• The Flames of War guys are beating the pants off of 40k tournaments on terrain. We aim to provide evocative, playable tables that stand true to the 25% rubric. Our goal is to post photos of the layouts before the tournament date so that you can start thinking tactically.
  
• 1250 points is a format that allows rounds to end in two hours. Most Codicies can access all of their good stuff, and hordes function well, yet don't take so long to move that rounds bog down.
• We believe the trend towards KP in all scenarios disadvantages many codicies that favor high levels of squad articulation--and
  
• We're looking into having 1-2 of the rounds be Battle Missions or Planetstrike-inspired scenarios.
• 'Comp' is a fiction, 'Cheese' is not.
  
• Some of the Adepticon Rulings of late have been a little off-base. We'll publish any differences as we lead up to the event.