The Runes of Fate: Prophecies for NH2017

[jehan-reznor]

I am done with 40K love the setting, but the whole more bigger better stuff and wonkey rules has pushed me away, Bolt action i like the simplicity of the rules (and doing a Konflikt 47 event would be cool). And
I agree with others A facebook site for the Nagoyahammer event wouldn't hurt.

I am on a zillion groups on FB but my Game related stuff is all done on forums, mainly Dakkadakka and the specilist forum and a few others.

You could use FB just for Events Like the Jigg Kansai Group, also good if someone wants to sell stuff or find new game companies and such.

FB is great for news bytes, not for discussions IMHO

[The Underdweller]

Honestly I have not been keeping up with 40K stuff at all and have no idea about the Formations or Dataslates or Maelstrom Missions or other such things. I assume everyone is right when they say they don't unbalance the game more than it is already. The problem I find with "bring what you like" is I tend to either bring fluffy stuff and then find myself completely overpowered, or else I bring my best game and then feel like a cheesemonger for doing so. So I would not go with Unbound.

I liked the restrictive format we had last year. I am sure it was still not balanced, but it did get me to use some units I rarely field, and made each of the games have a different feel.

Anyway just my 2 cents, I will go along with general consensus.

[Primarch]

So that's two votes for 'the full 40K experience, one for scenario based restrictions on army building and one for 'not 40K please'.

Anyone else want to chip in?

[YellowStreak]

At this stage, NH is about the only time of year I play 40K (although Kill team has piqued my interest!). As such I don't keep up with all the stuff out there, so it doesn't make much difference to me if some stuff is included or excluded.
What's the concern? It is someone will turn up with over-the-top crazy fun-killing lists? Could that be fixed by list vetting in advance?

Personally I prefer using a FOC to ensure some restrictions and something somewhat fluff-based rather than just a straight tournament. No issue with scenario-based restrictions either, I think they worked OK last year.

[kojibear]

Personally I prefer using a FOC to ensure some restrictions and something somewhat fluff-based rather than just a straight tournament. No issue with scenario-based restrictions either, I think they worked OK last year.

YellowStreak and I see eye to eye here.

[Spevna]

Personally I'd rather play smaller games, something akin to 40K in 40 minutes.

I also understand that some people want to put big Killy-stomps-shooty things on the table too.

Would it be possible to run a day long campaign where we have some people playing smaller games, and some playing games with bigger armies/units?

The smaller games representing little pockets of the battle, the bigger stuff being where the behemoths meet.

It would all depend on the interest of course, but could make for a fun campaign.

[Lovejoy]

As everyone has noted, the system is far too bloated and confusing as it is. I used to find the way things played out in 5th, much simpler and more manageable. Consequently much more fun. I know this wouldn't fly with most as it seems regressive perhaps, but anything which recalls that edition would be a step in the right direction...

I think detachments have their place since they give poor armies more of a fighting chance, but they're are also open to exploitation. So personally I would prefer multiple FOC/detachments to be ignored, stick to the one.
Also dislike unbound since I feel there ought to be some agreed restriction we don't deviate from - recall a game where I and my partner had made a regular FOC style lists, had assumed our opponents brought the same, yet ended up having to take on unbound. Not their fault, but a difference in assumptions.. and it would have seemed churlish to ask the opponents to re-jig everything. Get rid.
Formations are also a bad idea, a pay-to-win driven initiative from the GW bean counters. That said, there are a couple in some of the supplemental codexes that some weaker armies might "need" (Ghazghull book maybe?). But in general, ban the lot I say. The shenanigans arising from the SM codex regarding transports are an obvious example to cite here regarding the downside. Cobblers.

I'm kind of looking forward to the next edition, since it might be free (ie, cost nothing) in the way that AoS was - free downloadable battlescrolls etc. what people disliked about the AoS game was more the destruction of beloved fluff and lack of ranked battling, perhaps, because 40k is more skirmish, AoS might be a reasonable fit for a new 40k. If they steer clear of destroying the essentials, I'd like it to be Sigmared - we could actually play it more.
Until then, simple is best. Just my fairly uninformed opinions.

There are exceptions to all this bah-humbugging talk, though, I would be happy to play scenario based games with a flexible approach to points as narrative is where I'm at as I get older.

---Had to edit this a fair bit for clarity, as I'm getting my terminology confused. Which speaks volumes in itself about where the game is.

[Primarch]

Yes, the Marine Free Rides for Everyone formation is stupidly good. For a minimum outlay of 1045 points, you get a LOAD of rerolls and potentially 550 points of free vehicles. In a 1500 point game it looks like a very effective choice. Sadly, it's probably not the most overpowered option in the book, though it's a close second.
Hopefully we'll see none of that kind of cheesemongering nonsense happening. It's not like anyone around here even has enough marines to fill the list....

Keep those comments coming guys. The more feedback I get before I organize stuff, the more chance I will take it into consideration beforehand.

[Primarch]

Ok, as the planning for the event is officially underway, I'm going to lock this thread. Thanks for the feedback, it has all been read and it has all been very useful. Thank you!