Tuesday, June 10, 2014

An Objective Perspective on 7th Edition (link)

TJ here to share a link to an article that I really enjoyed by Mike Brandt of the Nova Open. I know many folks in our audience are not necessarily tournament players, but I am almost exclusively one. Looking at 7th edition from the outside (I am deployed and see the edition as it is painted by the internet), it is hard to figure out where things are going. One blogger in particular has always been an objective source of material on matters that impact people that play in tourneys and that is Mike.

With that said, if you enjoy tourneys at any level, I think THIS ARTICLE is objective and well thought out with out jumping to conclusions or trying to "sell players" on opinions. So, if that is up your alley, check it out. If not, pass on by. As always comments are welcome.


  1. "I still am not really sure what a Hill does in 7th Edition." (from the article)
    I found this kind of disturbing.

  2. How so? They didn't give rules for hills as they have in the past, so it will end up being a TO decision (since all the GTs have plenty of hills). I think the main thing here is that he is illustrating that we have been given a sandbox ruleset, which some think means "Everything is up for grabs" and while it is, it also means that you are free to build your games as you and your opponent see fit, which is basically what TOs have the freedom to do now.

  3. If found the notion that limiting the force organization to two detachments (or any combination really) is every bit 7th edition to be a disingenuous cover up for TO's need to enforce their version of balance on the game. I commented on the article itself, but I'll reiterate here, he quotes an obscure passage about "the spirit of the game" to basically justify the notion that TO's have Carte Blanche to change any rule because that's the intent, yet he ignores the fact that under the Detachments section, IN BOLD, it specifically says you can take as many as you want in any combination as long as they follow the rules for said detachments.. While I agree with numerous other points he made, the justification for limiting detachments seemed like a cop out for "We want to prevent certain combos, and or the obligatory inquisitor with 3 servo skulls detachment" but we're going to pretend it's all in the "spirit of the game"

    1. Even the GW HQ TOs are only using a single CAD. While any # of reasons could cause someone even in a pick-up game to say "I'd like it if we only played with a single CAD" or "I'd like not to use Lords of War," any of those reasons are legitimately considered valid. It is just as genuine OR disingenuous to say "7th Edition is unlimited CAD or bust," though one might say GW is being disingenuous by claiming there is now Unbound and Battle-Forged, when in a totally unrestricted sense, many armies treat Unbound and Battle-Forged as effectively the same thing (namely, they take all the units they really want to take with no drawbacks, and even get obsec).

      You don't have to set a limit on # of detachments, but doing so is genuinely how 7th edition is meant to be played, just as not doing so. It's probably not quite catching up to the edition to propose that there is "one way" of structuring armies, because there patently is not (in practice first and foremost ... you almost literally can't go pick-up game with just a points level anymore; an entire discussion of boundaries and expectations is required).

    2. Yancy, saw your comment on Mike's blog. I got a kick out of it. I assume you realize that GW is not running the tournament right? nor supporting it in anyway? That's why Mike can do whatever he wants with the non-core rules like FOCs and allies and such. Citing GW FOC rules won't get you anywhere with him, especially when GW doesn't even stand by their own rules (yes, see the spirit of the game section again). Players are just lucky that Mike practically eats and breathes 40k to know what is good for the tournament and what is not.

  4. Well said Mike. I agree. 7th Edition 40k isn't about making every game a sandbox. It is about you and your opponent agreeing on the kind of game you want to play and then playing it. TOs just do this on a larger scale, which is necessary.