Hey everyone, Reecius here with the guidelines for the LVO 2020 40k Champs!
Submit all relevant rules questions and model approval requests, here.
Basic Guidelines
- This will be an ITC formatted event.
- We will be playing ITC Champion’s Missions numbered 1 through 6 for the LVO 2020 40k Championships in order from 1 through 6.
- This event will be run using the Best Coast Pairings app.
- We will use the ITC Code of Conduct.
- We will be using the ITC Chess Clock Rules. Starting day 2, January 25th, players with an undefeated record will be required to use a Chess Clock. All other players on any day of the event will use a Chess Clock for their game if either player wishes to use one. Frontline Gaming will provide Chess Clocks while supplies last. We recommend players bring their own if they wish to be assured access to one.
- All players will participate in rounds 1 through 6 of the event. At the end of the 6th round, the players ranked 1 through 4 will automatically seed into the finals which occur on Sunday, January 26th, 2020. Players ranked 5 through 12 will play in a qualification round on Saturday night, the 25th of January. The winners of which go on to play in the finals. In the instance there are more than 12 undefeated players, this could shift to accommodate allowing players without a loss to have a chance to make the finals.
- The finals will be a seeded (player 1 plays player 8, etc.), single elimination format.
- To qualify to play in the finals, not only must you meet the above criteria you must also have an army that satisfies our streaming requirements and you must use the dice we provide. Failure to comply will result in your removal from the finals and your spot being given to the next qualifying player in line (ie. player ranked number 9, then 10, etc.). See the LVO 2020 40k Champs player pack for further information.
List Expectations
- The cut-off for new rules material for the LVO 2020 40k Champs will be the 11th of January, 2020.
- You will be able to begin uploading your lists to BCP starting January 3rd, 2020.
- Lists for the 40k Champs are due by January 13th, 2020 before midnight, PST.
- You will upload your list in the ITC format for BCP, the guidelines can be found here.
- Players that have not uploaded their list correctly within that time frame will be issued a Yellow Card according to the ITC Code of Conduct.
- Players that have not uploaded their list correctly by January 16th before midnight PST will be issued a second Yellow Card.
- In the instance you acquire a ticket to the event after the above deadlines, you will have 1 day to get your list uploaded or will be issued a Yellow Card. If you do not get your list uploaded after 2 days, you will be issued a 2nd Yellow Card.
- Players that have not uploaded their list correctly by the end of the first round of play, January 24th, 2020 will be issued a Red Card and expelled from the event.
Army Appearance Expectations
- All models must be painted to Games Workshop’s Tabletop Quality at a minimum and based. The middle picture below is an example of this.
- Here is another example of the minimum paint and basing requirement: 3 distinct colors, a good faith effort to paint the model to a basic level, the base has been finished with a layer of flock and the rim painted.
- Clear acrylic bases or bases left or painted black are acceptable as well so long as you consistently do this across your entire army.
- In addition to the ITC standard modeling and painting guidelines, we are requiring that all models meant to represent a certain faction, for example, <Iron Hands> (or whatever faction) must be painted in a coherent fashion. This means that visually, your opponent must be able to identify which models are <Iron Hands> (or whatever faction).
- Sensible exceptions will be made to this rule, for example, if you painted your Space marines Librarian the traditional blue in your <Iron Hands> army, this is fine. Painting Eldar Aspect Warriors in traditional colors for example, is fine. What expressly is not allowed is to have multiple different and conflicting paint and basing schemes and to play them all as the same faction. When in doubt, send in pictures for approval.
- The picture below illustrates what is NOT acceptable. Despite all models being fully painted and based, playing something like the below as <Iron Hands> (or whatever faction) would NOT be allowed even if you only have 1 detachment of the said <Faction> in your army.
- You may have models painted in the same paint scheme count as different <Factions> so long as you clearly visually distinguish them. For example, if you have an army all painted in the same scheme using Cadian models (or whatever models) but distinguish them using something like Squad Marks (who will have a booth in the vendor area of the LVO) that IS acceptable. Something like colored rubber bands put on to models is NOT acceptable but wrapping them around the base IS. The below pictures illustrate acceptable methods for differentiating factions/units. If all of the red based Cadian models were the same regiment of Astra Militarum, and all of the blue based Cadian models were a different regiment of Astra Militarum that is acceptable so long as you are consistent throughout your army. Models with no base such as Vehicles would require a similar, easily distinguishable and consistent visual indicator of which <Faction> they were. When in doubt, submit pictures to the form linked at the top of the article for judge approval.
- Failure to comply with these rulings will result in a judge removing said models from the game, even in the middle of a game. The player in question will not be able to use these models until they at the minimum required standard.
Basing Requirement
- Basing Chart
- We also require all models be based according to our basing chart. In the instance a model has a secondary base size listed, either of the two sizes may be used at the player’s direction.
- For players needing to make their models’ bases larger there are a wide selection of basing rings that are available to increase the base size to the required size, particularly for the 25mm to 32mm increase.
- Failure to comply with these ruling will result in a judge removing said models from the game, even in the middle of a game. The player in question will not be able to use these models until they at the minimum required standard.
- Thanks to the ETC staff for letting us use their basing chart as a starting point. Also, thanks to the ITC TO’s for helping get this done. A large number of people worked on this to get it done quickly, there is a chance a unit may be missing or have an inaccurate base to what is current. If you notice one, let us know in the comments below but please check the GW website before commenting for confirmation on current base size for a kit.
LVO Terrain Guidelines
You can read the LVO/ITC General Terrain Guidelines here.
Ruins
We make several modifications to the normal Ruins rules for our events. We have a type of Ruin at our events that is not commonly seen and so requires some extra explanations. We refer to a Ruin with all four walls and a roof which form an enclosed space as an Enclosed Ruin. Enclosed Ruins use the normal Ruins rules per the BRB but with one house-rule we add to them for ease of play:
- Units with the Fly keyword may not end their movement inside of an Enclosed Ruin unless they would normally be able to pass through the walls of a Ruin if they did not have the fly keyword, such as Infantry.
Further, for this event we are playing a second house rule for ruins:
- If it fits, it site: Vehicles with the Fly keyword may only be placed on a level above the ground floor of a ruin if the entire base fits: meaning the entire base, with no part of it off the ruin, can be legally placed. In the case of models that do not measure distance to and from the base, but use the hull instead, the entire hull of the vehicle must fit.
There are some rule interactions that create bad play experiences with models trying to fly into an enclosed ruin without this clarification. For example: Per RAW, a Flyer (such as a crimson hunter) would be able to end its move inside of an Enclosed Ruin if it completely fit inside, seeming to fly “through” the walls of the ruin unharmed. This causes frustrating model placements and abuses of the wobbly model guidance, and is not the intent of how our terrain is meant to be used, and is the reason why this rule is in effect.
Here is an example of an Enclosed Ruin we typically use.
And, here are some examples of normal Ruins that would NOT use the Enclosed Ruin house-rule that are commonly seen at our events:
These are not Enclosed Ruins because the walls and roofs do not form an enclosed space. If in doubt, discuss it with your opponent prior to playing the game and, of course, you can always call a judge.
Some of our buildings have natural openings in them that are quite large. If a model can naturally fit in to a ruin with such an opening, they may enter regardless of unit type. Example: the Knight in the picture below can actually walk into the Ruin in question and can therefore enter into it as it is not moving “through” the walls.
Additionally, there has been some confusion in the past on what types of buildings can be entered into versus which ones cannot.
The above buildings would be treated as Enclosed Ruins and can be entered by units that can typically pass through the walls of a Ruin such as Infantry. If the terrain piece has doors built into it, it is intended to be able to be entered by units that could typically enter a ruin. They’ve been designed to have a removable top but when you have a volunteer corps building them, they sometimes get glued together on accident. In the case you can’t put models inside of them because the building has been glued shut, or simply don’t want to bother with opening it up, place the models on the roof and declare where their actual position is to your opponent.
Terrain pieces such as the one above lacks any doors and is not intended to be entered into. Treat them as impassible terrain.
Bottom Level Openings in Ruins that Block LoS
Our second (and final) modification to Ruins is one most of you are already familiar with, but one we wanted to add some clarification to. We treat the openings on the first floor of Ruins as being opaque, even if you can actually draw LoS through them. This is for windows or openings that are fully enclosed, not partially open on one side. Again, this is a deviation from the BRB but we choose to play them this way as much of the terrain we have has openings in them which (if played with true LoS) would not provide a sufficient amount of cover for a fun and fair 8th edition game of 40k.
This ruin is an example of what this rule applies to. The windows highlighted in red which would normally allow LoS through them, but at our events would be treated as opaque as they fulfill the criteria listed above:
- The openings are entirely on the bottom floor.
- The openings are enclosed on all sides (i.e. it is a whole window frame).
Assaulting into Ruins
Due to the nature and amount of multi-level ruins we have at the LVO, we chose to use a different method of assaulting into them than is presented in the recent FAQs. This is a conscious choice to deviate from the FAQ in order to facilitate smooth, more enjoyable games. We included a few pictures to help illustrate these concepts.
The Lychguard declare a charge against the Terminators, roll for it, and can make the charge with the distance rolled.
However, the models won’t stand on their own without falling.
Place the models as close to their true position as possible and then count those models that would have been able to make it within 1″ of enemy models (assuming part of their base could have fit on the upper level) as being in combat. Those models that would not make it up a level would not be able to attack in melee as they would not be within 1″ of an enemy model or a friendly model within 1″ of an enemy model.
Cargo Containers
We have a LOT of Cargo Containers at the LVO. Like, hundreds and hundreds of them, haha. So, it is important to be clear on how to correctly use them. We treat Cargo Containers as hills for all intents and purposes. It occasionally comes up how to complete Charge actions against models standing on them.
In the instance a model rolls high enough to make the charge, but their model won’t fit on the Cargo Container, simply place the models as close as possible just as you would with a normal hill.
These terrain features are common at our events and not intended (or designed) for models to be placed on them (typically models cannot stand on them). Treat them as impassible terrain.
Huge thanks to the literal hundreds of people that contributed to this! It wouldn’t be possible without everyone’s help and input.
Let us know if you have any questions in the comments section below and we look forward to hosting you at the biggest and best LVO yet!
And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!
I absolutely love the basing chart. 40k needs this really really badly, just like AoS has one. This is one of the two or three things that 40k is missing desperately.
With how auras work in this edition, and deepstriking units. Base size matters sooooo much for sooo many reasons now, and it really is the wild wild west for it, even though it can change how games are played.
That being said, I really think that the secondary base sizes need to go away. There should only be one base size for all of them. (Typically the most current ones). Allowing in multiple base sizes while nice in theory because it can make people happier is just a bad patch job. Tear the band aid off. It’s just like chess clocks. People will complain at first, but then get used to it.
That being said, It looks like it needs a bunch work as well. I would strongly advise taking a look at the chaos daemons in particular.
There are lots of entries that are wrong in there, or are plainly missing from the page.
I did not look at the rest of them, but I would recommend a lot longer look at the chart, if the rest is as messy as the Daemons one….
** I would also recommend that you clarify the size dimensions for anything labeled a “bike base” or anything like that, using a colloquialism can lead to “misunderstanding”. It’s better to be clear and specific. GW has the size dimensions for all their bases on the website as well so the particular dimension should be easy to find. A bike base could mean the long hot dogs, or the 25mmx50mm bases. When you go to buy bases in the GW website, there is no base called a bike base. So it can be confusing. (they are listed as 70×25 mm bases in there, but I can’t think of anything that still comes with them anymore)
A good example, would be Seekers of Slaanesh.
Seekers are shown in their pic on the GW website as being on the hot dogs, but in the description and what comes in the box now are the 25×50 mm ovals. (and only the 25×50’s came in the Wrath and Raapture khorne slaanesh box set)
I agree with you for the most part, but just over a month before LVO, I think it’s fine to accept a couple of different sizes, especially on models that largely won’t be impacted gameplay wise. (Small numbers of models, non-close combat units).
Now for the beginning of 2020, I think it would be a lot more reasonable to rip off that band-aid the rest of the way.
** I would also recommend that you clarify the size dimensions for anything labeled a “bike base” or anything like that, using a colloquialism can lead to “misunderstanding”. It’s better to be clear and specific. GW has the size dimensions for all their bases on the website as well so the particular dimension should be easy to find. A bike base could mean the long hot dogs, or the 25mmx50mm bases. When you go to buy bases in the GW website, there is no base called a bike base. So it can be confusing. (they are listed as 70×25 mm bases in there, but I can’t think of anything that still comes with them anymore)
A good example, would be Seekers of Slaanesh.
Seekers are shown in their pic on the GW website as being on the hot dogs, but in the description and what comes in the box now are the 25×50 mm ovals. (and only the 25×50’s came in the Wrath and Raapture khorne slaanesh box set)
It’s not so simple as just saying 1 base size for a lot of these, a conversation I have been having a lot lately, lol
For example, new Banshees and Incubi come on 28mm bases which you can’t even buy. So, saying they have to all be on those isn’t fair.
Same with some Marine units on 25mm bases which is what they come with still in some cases. You need to be flexible and allow for what they come with and for someone that put them all on 32’s to be consistent, etc.
And yes, as it says in the blog post, this was a big task and it was worked on by a lot of people to get it done and as such, there is likely to be a few missing or incorrect. It’s largely accurate though.
If you see one where the kit comes with multiple base sizes as with Seekers, we appreciate you letting us know so we can update it.
I’m going to have to disagree with you. I think it absolutely is as easy as 1 base size. You go and buy the most recent box, and whatever base is in that box is the only legal one. Is it easy to do, not always. Will it make some people mad. Of course. But is it the right thing to do? Yes. It cleans up a huge problem area. You don’t get the bases listed as an option with some of the boxes you buy anymore – (like the hot dogs with the seekers). It opens it up to people being unscrupulous with what they do. They will buy the current models and then buy the best base size option for what they are trying to do. Eliminate the loophole. It’s just like chess clocks. It’s time to tear off the band aid. AoS did it, and it is a much better game because of it.
This is something that I think you can absolutely do. You have shown in the past and in the current edition that you are willing to change things even when they are written clearly in the rules (all the ITC “fairness” changes in 6th/7th. and the terrain rules changes in the current edition. I think this is one area you could absolutely do the same thing. I’m not sure what your hesitation is on it. I feel like your current chart is too much of an appeasement, which doesn’t really solve the problem. I think you can absolutely make some unilateral decisions on some of them. Like some of the space marine characters still on 25’s that gw has not gotten around to yet, can totally be determined to be on 32’s going forward (as an example). Not every one will be clear cut, but a vast majority of them can be resolved with only 1 base size.
Also, just because it was worked on by a lot of people doesn’t mean they did a good job. I’ve collected the daemons one here for you as an example, hopefully it helps. I would strongly recommend all your “best people” redo the work if the rest are as bad as the daemon one.(I’m not trying to be a dick, but the daemons one is really bad, and when something is that bad, I would have my employees go over it again to make sure the same errors aren’t everywhere, (I’m also a daemons player, and a basing chart is the one thing that I will get on my soapbox for). Also, I’m not going to do all the work for you 🙂 Again I strongly recommend that it all is gone through again based on how many things were left off, or very wrong, (exalted flamers on 25’s really?). The Daemons one was a train wreck, but I was trying to be polite in my original post.
Ones I recommend a rename since “Large Oval” is confusing – especially to newer players – and there are 3 “large ovals” that are all close in size, Currently the “largest oval” is not the correct base size: (The largest oval is the knight base at 170mm by 105mm. I would name it to be the dimensions it specifically is to be absolutely clear. (Sorry it’s my technical writer popping out, large oval is ambiguous and a carry over from when it was the largest oval, and was the only one really – that means it’s time to update it)
Exalted Seeker Chariot – Rename to 120x92mm Oval
Seeker Chariot – Rename to 120x92mm Oval
Burning Chariot – Rename to 120x92mm Oval
Bloodthirsters- Rename to 120x92mm Oval (in fact, I would list all three with their specific names as specific entries)
These are the incorrect Options: – be aware that some of these were just plain wrong, and were not actually on the base sizes listed at all in the past so shouldn’t be options at all IMO.
Karanak – Should be 75x42mm Oval
Skulltaker – Should be 40mm Round
The Changeling – Should be 40mm Round
Epidemius – Should be 60mm Round (also should remove and heralds of nurlgle on palanquins – I don’t believe this is even an option in this edition at all
The Masque – Should be 32mm Round
Bloodmaster – Should be 40mm Round (Rename from Herald of Khorne)
Skullmaster – Should be 90x52mm Oval (This one is weird, since it’s on a bloood crusher and should be the same base as a crusher, but the only one that exists is the old finecast one on a 60mm – but I would still put it on the same base as a bloodcrusher for consistency)
Poxbringer – Should be on 32mm Round (Rename from Herald of Nurgle)
Bloodcrushers – Should be on 90x52mm Oval
Flamers of Tzeentch – Should be on 32mm Round
Exalted Flamer – Should be on 75x42mm Oval
Fiends of Slaanesh – Should be on 75x42mm Oval
Flesh Hounds – Should be on 60x35mm Oval
Furies – Should be on 32mm Round
These are the options that weren’t even listed: (Listed Keeper and Shalaxi for completeness for example, however be aware skarbrand and the bloodthirsters are not on the same base size)
Skarbrand – Should be on 100mm Round
Be’lakor – Should be on 60mm Round
Great Unclean One – Should be on 130mm Round
Rotigus – Should be on 130mm Round
Horticulous Slimux – Should be on 105x70mm Oval
Keeper of Secrets – Should be on 100mm Round
Shalaxi Helbane – Should be on 100mm Round
Blood Throne – Should be on 120x92mm Oval
Changecaster – Should be on 32mm Round
Fateskimmer – Should be on 120x92mm Round
Sloppity Bilepiper – Should be on 32mm Round
Spoilpox Scrivner – Should be on 40mm Round
Herald of Slaanesh on Exalted Chariot/Seeker Chariot/Hellflayer – Should be on 120x92mm (included here for completeness)
Hellflayer – Should be on 120x92mm Oval
Skull Cannon- Should be on 120x92mm Oval
Syll’Esske – Should be on 50mm Round
Infernal Enraptruress – Should be on 60x35mm Oval
Feculent Gnarlmaw- As per the model
Skull Altar- As per the model
Soulgrinder – As per the model
I think your point about the banshees on 28mm is a fair one.
However, that is the literally the only case of that. And it is only an issue because they made a brand new base size. If they had moved to 32’s it’s a non issue.
Every other base for a unit can be bought from GW or adaptors or individually resin etc..
In the case where you cannot get the updated base (because gw invented a new base size), then I would use both the old option and the new option until the new option is available for purchase. Once it is, you can remove the old option and move to the new option. You can also use the same time frame for events to do this as you do for new material. If the base isn’t available 1 month before, then the event will allow both. But 1 month after the base is available the old base size is no longer allowed.
It’s no real different, than not being able to use an old codex once GW comes out with a new one.
It’s part of the hobby, it’s something that pretty much all players know at this point. It’s time to start doing it better.
I see your point but there multiple versions of the same model with different bases being sold now. It’s really not as simple as you make it sound in practice. Really, no need to make someone rebase their model when it makes hardly any difference in game terms, you know? Especially when the most current version of the base in question is not even for sale. How would they get it? And, this is phase 1 of this project, in time as people acclimate we can get it tighter.
I appreciate your going over this but please also remember the people helping are not my employees, they are volunteers. I spot checked everything and caught a few errors but you have remember, this is covering a lot of ground. It’s every model currently in the game. So, I was counting on crowd sourcing some of it to an extent as asking volunteers to go through thousands of units to log their base size is a big ask. We built this off of what the ETC had as starting from scratch with the time and manpower available to us was not realistic. They were nice enough to let us use it but some of it is a little dated as you noted.
Thank you for the help though, it’s appreciated.
I am however, patiently (kinda, trying to be!) awaiting news on To-Be-Released Sisters models rules for LVO. As well as the base size for the new Hospitaller (looks like a 40-50!). I’m sure you guys are bogged down with even more questions following this announcement, thanks for all your hard work.
So… for us sisters players, who have repentia, who are now on 28s (why is this a thing?) we either have to buy loads of the new box set (OOP) or buy the eldar box set to get the 28mm we have or we cannot play? Same thing for eldar players, you simply cannot buy them.
Did you read the chart or the article? Your question is answered in it.
I’m sorry Reece this was a rhetorical question aimed at Anthony, this would be the case under his rigid changes. I understand and have read your chart. thank you!
Oh, ok. Cool!
The basing chart linked doesn’t have the correct base size that are supplied for Chaos Lords or Chaos Sorcerers. Both have had recent plastic kits released where they come with 40mm bases. Will the chart be updated to reflect this?
It sure will, thanks. However, I will double check to make sure there aren’t other versions of those models available as sometimes happens.
Chaos lords are also sold on 25 mm bases (Night Lords Lord, Iron Warriors Warsmith, Lord with Jump Pack).
Yeah, some are and some aren’t.
No problem. Also noticed Ahriman lists a separate base size for his disk. Per the GW website, ol’ psyker boy just comes with a 40mm base now.
So it is. TY for letting me know.
great write-up reece! a few ork basing mistakes:
•flash gitz are on 40s
•(grot oilers/ammo runts are unlisted but I’m hoping its obvious that they are gretchin?)
•big mek with kff is unlisted
•warboss on bike is unlisted
***correction- just saw the big mek listing, the rest stands tho
Fixed, thanks!
Hey Reece,
Awesome job laying all this out! It will make preparations much easier.
I know last year we had spoken about enclosed ruins and how there weren’t any in the top tables or at least far fewer than at the event overall.
Will you be continuing that policy? To be clear, I think most people gunning for the top really don’t care what terrain is there, we just want to know what to expect.
I know that many of us outside the west coast were completely surprised by the number of tables with 4 rock walls and a center building. Will this LVO have similar numbers of that table variant? I know it was a matter of cost and time and just wondering if those same considerations will heavily influence table lay outs.
The single biggest (and only, really) complaint out of SoCal was those exact tables. So, we’ve invested into 100 more GW buildings which we are currently building/painting/basing/etc. now to have those tables each have 2 of the ruins in the center which makes a big difference (there are 100 of those tables). So, that addition with the hills, area terrain, containers, etc. that are on them will go from mediocre coverage to excellent. They should be highly desirable to play on, now, and look amazing as well.
The stream table is all GW terrain so unlikely to have enclosed ruins as they don’t build it that way. It will though, have a lot of terrain. As I have told others, about 50% of our tables actually have enclosed ruins, possible even closer to 40% if I were to actually go in and dig into the inventory logs.
awesome, great to hear! I was not looking forward to practicing for that table.
Really appreciate you guys taking that feedback on board and makes changes so quickly.
You’re welcome, guys.
I think it was last year you guys had mentioned putting together a list of the “table variants”.
I’ve got to say, after playing with terrain at atlanta that I could reset after it got bumped was game changing for me.
So for instance, on the 4 walls and 2 center building table. I think we all know which way they’re supposed to centered but how far away are the walls supposed to be from the long and table edge.
Does that make sense?
Yes, but we have a LOT of different table layouts. I had meant to do it last year but logistically trying to pull each table out, get a picture of it, then print that, laminate it and distribute it in an event as big as LVO proved to be more than I had time to do. I am hoping to be able to do it this year but with moving and everything I don’t want to commit to it as I simply may not have the time. It’s a really big project actually but yes, it would be useful. I hope to find the time this year.
I was just giving that as an example. But it would be great if the table variants could have measurements distances similar to objective markers on major terrain pieces if they’re going to all be relatively uniform.
I also don’t like having the final table be all GW terrain as it’s kind of like having the final game of march madness with 10.5 foot basketball hoops. I understand the business considerations though. Just ask GW to supply GW terrain for the other 1000 tables 😛
Well, I understand that but you have to remember that we’re trying to accomplish multiple goals. For one, having good coverage is awesome for sure, it’s super important for the player experience. But, as I have said numerous times, the average player would rather have variety than strict standardization in terrain. Plus, at this point we’re not going to junk tables anyway just to standardize regardless as it simply doesn’t make sense to do it at the scale we’re currently operating at with events like the LVO.
Secondly, we work with GW which means to have their awesome stream team and massive reach, we have to use their stuff. It’s beautiful and functional and there’s a lot of coverage on those tables and it means we reach VASTLY more people than we could on our own which is better for growing the hobby, getting more eyeballs on competitive 40k, etc.
GW terrain, even if it were free for that many tables (and it’s not, lol) poses other issues, too. It’s obviously the best looking which is very important, but the new kits are really hard to build. The first time someone makes one, it takes 5-6 hours. Our best guy can build 8-10 in a day. A volunteer that comes in for the afternoon is lucky to make 1. So, for us that means if an employee is doing it nonstop, that’s several weeks paid labor to get them built working 40 hours a week. And that’s just building them, lol. Then you obviously have to paint them, base them, etc. So, even if we did get every table’s worth of GW terrain for free in some theoretical scenario, it would literally take an employee dedicated to the task months to build it all then another month to paint it, etc. It’d cost a fortune in labor to get it done and that employee isn’t doing their normal job.
Long story short, for a big event, going all GW isn’t realistic unless you had a way to get the labor taken care of efficiently and very cheaply.
What all of this really boils down to though, is having better terrain rules. So long as you have enough terrain on the table it really shouldn’t matter what it’s physical characteristics are in terms of windows, doors, etc. as the way it works now it gives you an incentive to have totally LoS blocking pieces which are not attractive at all. If we really want this to become a spectator friendly game, that has something like a “pro” circuit with sponsors and the opportunity to supplement your income as a player, possibly even a living wage, it absolutely has to look good. If we want people to see it and get involved with the hobby, it absolutely has to look good. If we’re trying to pitch this to a bigger sponsor, or someone tunes in that’s curious about 40k and they see unpainted MDF terrain on a crummy looking play surface, and badly or unpainted armies? Lol, that’s not going to work.
All of us have to be willing to strike a balance between functionality and aesthetics to achieve all of the overarching goals.
Is there a general terrain “Layout” we should be aiming for at the LVO tables?
SoCal did vary wildly (some tables had no ruins at all, others had them in every corner and the center). It would help immensely with list planning to know we won’t encounter any of “planet bowling ball” which has 4 rocks wall and some small terrain pieces and thus LoS to everywhere.
This has already been addressed in the thread, Brian. Just scroll up to read it.
I was just being tongue in cheek, it is wildly impractical to have GW terrain at scale. Y’all’s terrain is awesome. No argument here. Didn’t mean to strike a nerve there.
Well, I’ll be there early this year if you need more volunteers and would happily spend a day figuring out standardizing what tables I can.
I also think you’re right that most people don’t care and it’s just a few of us tryhards. I don’t pretend to understand or be a member of that group. (I’m repainting my army though, don’t worry 😛 )
Would a compromise be that maybe pick 3 layouts for top 20-40 tables and let the rest of the tournament be wild west? Assuming you still match table numbers to rankings.
I fly in early and would be willing to help with this effort as well.
Oh no offense taken, buddy. I was just trying to put that information out there so people understand some of the challenges faced in orchestrating all of this for events that are very big.
We can probably set the top tables to be the same layout if that’s what people want.
From a watching on stream perspective it’s kind of dull seeing games played on the same table over and over again. I’d enjoy it more if the terrain got shuffled around a bit every game.
Yeah, I feel the same way. We’ll see if GW has another terrain set they can bring but it’s not easy or cheap to so that.
I disagree with you insisting on only the GW provided base sizes. There are weird discrepancies from GW to try to enforce that. For whatever reason, there are some models that are getting different base sizes depending on which box that is still on the shelves that you buy them in (or so I’ve heard about the carnifex), and other weird situations like where one or two models from an entire range haven’t been updated to match the rest of the army. I’ve seen that personally with the techmarine from the tfc kit still coming with a 25mm base even though all other marines were updated to 32 minimum.
You illustrate why we have a basing guide. If you actually look at it though, in cases where models come on weird bases we let the player use that or the updated version that is sort of standard for that faction. For example, you could put the techmarine on a 25 or 32.
I must have messed up how the reply system works because that wasn’t supposed to be to you, Reece. I love what you guys have done actually! I was saying I disagree to Anthony Coutley that everything should be on the most recent base. I support your decision and appreciate your work!
Hey Mr. Biery,
Excited for class when it comes back. Hope you doing well.
Is there a reason that the Squad Marks are considered an acceptable form of distinguishing bases, but rubber bands are not? I don’t see any particular distinction between the two, so it feels a tad arbitrary.
Rubber bands look like ass.
So do goblin green base rims but we haven’t banned those yet.
We don’t want people just sticking random junk on models to differentiate them is why. Yes, it is arbitrary to an extent but the idea is to keep appearance standards high and people wrapping rubber bands on their models’ guns or arms or whatever looks really bad. Feel free to disagree of course but people complain about it and also the staff felt it wasn’t bringing us to where we wanted to be aesthetics wise.
No partnership with a rubber band company, I guess.
We don’t have a partnership with Squad Marks either. However, they made a product specifically for this purpose so we endorse it’s use. We gain nothing from it, though.
This is a lame rule. I’ve been using the loom band for a long time (after seeing it for the first time at LVO). I’ve never had one complaint. In fact, I’ve had many opponents tell me they appreciated that I took the time to put bands on my models so they can tell the squads apart easily from a long distance.
The amount of rules and obligations about model appearances just to play at LVO are starting to get silly. It feels like this and a bunch of other requirements are in reality being forced on players just to accommodate GW’s official steam, even though the corporate stream does nothing to benefit anyone who is actually showing up, playing, and paying to attend the event.
Is it much harder to paint the rims of your bases OR to put an elastic band around them ?
This is GW’s game … they own the IP as the model-making company … they want their televised games to look the best … BUT you have the right to say no thank you if you don’t want to appear … the same as they might not ask you if your models aren’t meeting their criteria.
The “battle ready” standard isn’t that difficult to accomplish – especially with contrast paint. I wish FLG would use the term rather than “three colours”.
I’m all for the painting guidelines but as many others have mentioned the basing guidelines are just a mess.
It’s partly down to trying to implement it in such a short time but I think it is mainly down to trying to introduce a strict basing format based on what GW supplies the models with.
GW has no consistent policy of base sizing, packaging the same models with different bases in different boxed set, changing the size and shape for no reason and not updating old models to be consistent with new very similar models. Implementing a system based on their random system seems really silly and is likely why they don’t have it as a rule.
Forcing players to pull apart a beautifully based model because the base is 8mm to wide or to use often pretty arse looking base extenders whilst also trying to encourage better looking armies also seems counter intuitive.
Obviously some form of basing guidelines are good or you could have people turning up with SM captains on knight bases for a bigger aura or other such shenanigans. Perhaps taking a more lenient and common sense approach and have it be legal to use the two most recent base sizes? GW can change the size pretty frequently and getting hold of certain base sizes (and decent looking rim extenders in the UK) can be hard and cost prohibitive at time. I know it is harder to judge but for alot of people this is just a hobby and causing disruption and hassle for many people just to catch out the try-hard idiots seems foolish.
I know your unlikely to change it now but at the very least add some additional options to your chart, daemons are one of the main issues and your chart is out of date compared to the current bases supplied by GW – kind of makes my case for me….
If you look at the base chart it often does exactly what you just said, of allowing two base sizes where it is genuinely confused.
And yeah, the Daemon category was off the most, the rest is largely accurate. I’d hardly call it a mess though, it’s easily fixed and I already have fixed most of the Daemon section.
A project this big done this fast was going to have some errors out the gates, I expected it, but again, with crowd sourcing we can fix it fast. So, if you see any big discrepancies let me know.
So what about doomsday arks and Triarch stalkers bases. The dda come on terrible bases and I have put mine on better bases. Then the stalkers don’t have bases but I had also put them on bases to match my army. Then you have imotkeh as on a 32 when the standard overlord comes on a 40mm. I use a converted imotekhs from that model so mine is on a 40mm. So how do these play out. I’m having to redo them? Because id rather just not attend ITC events if that’s the case.
Also pure strains came on 32mm but genestealers can only be on 25s? Mine are all on 32s same with gants and hormagaunts to match the base size of my gargoyles. Simply because on 25s the models constantly fall over and it messes with where models were on the table. So everytime people bump a table my stealers and horms always fell over and rolled around on 25s.
I Guess If this is the new thing I’ll just be playing local only and saving that money from travel play.
So, as it says in the post, this is for the LVO 40k Champs, this isn’t an ITC rule. If events choose to adopt it or not is up to them. So, your best bet is to ask your local TO’s if they plan on adopting it. As it doesn’t appear you’re going to the LVO, this has no impact on you. And, if you were but were playing in the 40k Narrative or Friendly, you wouldn’t have to worry about it either.
But base size has a very real impact on the way the game is played competitively and players have been asking for standardization for years. Many events already do it. It requires some concessions on all of our part to standardize. If that’s a deal breaker for you, well then OK. But to move towards a fair and level playing field, these types of things become necessary even if they do cause some inconveniences.
I have rebased things so many times now that it’s not really that big of deal IMO. I had the same opinion initially, that it was awful but transitioning my Marines up to 32s and my AoS armies to rounds, it’s NBD. The only time it really sucks is if you had cool, scenic bases that are now the wrong size. But with base extenders you can make them function in most cases.
Also, bear in mind that the basing chart is WiP. So if one specific thing rubs you the wrong way there’s a chance it may actually be inaccurate at this early stage.
Actually I had every intention of hitting LVO this year but things came up that made that not possible. I would have still backed out after this tho because my necrons are all painted well and I wont be redoing bases for them. They are mostly on correct bases but Doomsday arks stalkers are not even on the chart and then of course imotekh as I mentioned earlier should be able to be on a 40mm same as a standard overlord since that is what he is.
I have never ever lost a game due to someone having a slightly bigger or smaller base size. While I get the advantage and disadvantage on base sizes most of the time its such a small issue overall when compared to the stale missions and terrible terrain rules in the game atm. Seems like more effort could be used on those things instead of annoying people that actually hobby scenic bases.
Hopefully all ITC events don’t adopt this, but I know they will as they always blindly just do what ever is released as the new thing to do. Just like magic boxes have made their way everywhere.
We gotta start somewhere! This is a long time coming. There is a big difference from some armies like orks which can abuse the 25mm thing by getting 4 ranks in rather than 2 into close combat and being able to cram large horde armies into tight places.
Good effort on trying to implement this.
Thanks! And yeah, I knew this was point to be a massive PITA but as GW isn’t doing it it fell to the community to do it for ourselves. So, it will be a bit bumpy right out the gates but we’ll get it done.
Glad to have this all in one place. Nice work all around.
Feedback for base size. Genestealers being 25mm and Purestrain being 32mm. I know the big overkill boxset had two stealers on 32s but otherwise don’t these units pretty much share the same kit that currently ships with just 25mm slotters? With overkill being OOP also, just seems like an unnecessary requirement to be on 32s. I would at least allow purestrain the option between the two, as its same issue that carnifex on surfboard has.
That’s a good point, they do come on both base sizes now, don’t they? OK, I will update it to allow for either, although tactically the smaller base is better so going up to the 32 is modeling for disadvantage. No one will care about that.
Cool. Yeah that was my thought also, granted the monkey arms on those bad boys means they may as well be on 32s at times. If and when GW makes 32mm slotta then I could see them moving to that (or just redoing the kit to not need a slot.
Yeah, good points. And, as you can get them on either base size currently, following the logic we established we have to allow for both. Thanks for pointing it out.
Are there any genestealer boxes packed with 32mm bases at all? I have yet to see them (and boxes on GW website have 25mm in their info, same for this year’s Christmas Nid bundle).
The two princelings from Overkill are the only two stealers with 32mm base I’ve ever heard about. 32mm was always just a fan conversion due to their arms
I see tyranid stealers were updated but purestrain stealers (last option on the sheet) is still listed on just 32. Thanks!
Thanks for the basing chart. A few things you may want to recheck for the Imperium tab. Row 23 for Astra Militarum shows Assassins as a unit. Row 24 AM shows Henchmen as a unit. Row 29 Inquisition shows Infantry, Scion etc as a unit. Easy to figure out what you mean but you may want to update. However, what is a TDA Inquisitor? Is it the one in Terminator Armor?
Terminator, yeah and thanks for pointing that out. Once I have a moment I will split some of those up to make it easier.
I think the Necron Cryptec should have an optional base of 25mm. There are 2 kits sold one is supplied with a 25 one with a 50.
Cryptek and Necron Cryptek are both on the sheet and are two different units.
Yep I saw that after I posted but could not figure out how to delete my post.
Follow up question the cryptec that is supplied with a bigger base is modeled with a particular wargear option. I assume that only the model with that option can be put on the 50mm?
Either way I have to rebase the one I have on a 32 rip.
What’s the difference? Genuinely curious.
Two different models.
How so? Are we talking about the foot cryptek vs the canpotik cloak one? Otherwise, seriously, what’s the actual difference?
Look it up. not to be rude, but they have different names and are different models. Go to the GW website.
One thing not addressed in the basing chart is flying stands. Or maybe it doesn’t need addressing? As for the new Seraphim, I’m not a fan of the clear plastic stands and was planning on basing them by jumping off of various structures (light post, phone booth etc). To avoid modeling for advantage, I plan on matching the same height as if I was using the stands. For my old metal Seraphim, I’m not planning on changing even though they are much shorter. I’m thinking this approach will be ok?
*Shrug* I’m just putting mine on 32s? I don’t think theyre on “Flight” Bases, just have the little things that the Inceptors have. I haven’t put my box together yet, as i’m waiting for the multi-kits to come out. Plan on just bringing my metals to LVO!
Having 30 Blue Cadians, 30 Red Cadians, and 30 Tan Cadians all playing as Catachan is apparently confusing, but having 70 Green Cadians in a mixed detachment with 10 as Armaggedon, 10 as Cadians, 10 as Catachan, 10 as Mordian, 10 as Tallarn, 10 as Valhallan, and 10 as Vostroyan is ok as long as I have something like Squad Marks to differentiate. That makes all kinds of sense. What percentage of sales are you getting from Squad Marks?
We make no money from them. And you may not like it, which is fine, but we made what we felt was the best compromise we could.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, though.
My opinion is how dare you tell me that I’ve been hobbying wrong while pretending it is for the ease of opponents while providing an alternative to regiment distinction that requires me to buy a product from someone who sponsors the LVO which DOES mean you’re making money from them.
If this were a tournament organized at a game store, that’s one thing, but this event is sponsored by Games Workshop according to the LVO website which means that Games Workshop is now supporting your stance which I’m sure they’ll be glad to hear.
Lol. Ok, bro.
I think you should take a step back and a deep breath, haha.
First, you do not have to buy Squad Marks. It says clearly in the article you can use something like Squad Marks. Subtle but important difference.
Second of all, sponsors have no input on our stance. If GW made something like this we’d use it. And, FYI, they have SUPER high standards. They want your Iron Hands to be painted as actual Iron Hands. We’re far more lenient than they are.
Oh man, this is funny! Well, not to mock you but your response is comically disproportionate to what’s hapenning here. Are you even coming to the event? I don’t see a ticket for you. Why do you care so much, lol? Who’s telling you you’re hobbying wrong? Do what ever you want man, enjoy the hobby, paint your models the way you want, paint them with ranch dressing for all I care. Have fun and enjoy what is meant to be a diversion from serious stuff. But for our matched play events, we expect people to have armies that look like what most people think an army should look like to make it easy to play the game.
If you think it’s such a personal insult, perhaps don’t go (which it doesn’t look like you are?) Or play in the Friendly or the Narrative that has more relaxed standards which may be more suited to what your idea of fun is.
Just glancing through on GSC alone:
Patriarch comes on 40mm base not 50mm
Primus comes on 25mm base not 32mm
Magus old metal and overkill set ones came on 25mm, new girl one comes in on 32mm
Orginal Acolytes and Neophytes were both 25 mm (metal and single pose plastic)
No Nexos listed (40mm)
No Locus listed (32mm)
No Kelermorph listed (32mm)
No Santcus listed (32mm)
No Biophagus listed (25mm)
No Clamavus listed (32mm)
No bikes listed (small oval bike base; 32x60mm)
No quads listed (60mm)
No ridge runners listed (medium oval small vehicle; 90x120mm)
No sentinels listed (60mm)
No Brood Brothers of any kind listed (25mm for Infantry; 60mm for HWTs)
For the basing chart, it says Eldar Autarchs (on foot) need a 32mm base. I was under the impression that the only non-legends Autarch on foot, the Codex Autarch, was based off of Yriel and should be on a 25mm base. I have a converted Autarch (on foot, with Star Glaive) that is on a 25mm base, can I use this Autarch? Can I use Yriel as an Autarch? Has an Autarch on foot with a 32mm base ever even been sold?
What do the guidelines say about painting the edge of the base to differentiate squads? That’s been my go-to for years.
As long as it is coherently done in your army, it is fine.
What isn’t permitted is having Blood Hands, Ultra Hands, and Raven Hands all in the same army, painted completely differently, but all being Iron Hands.
Using base color to indicate squads, while having a coherent paint scheme and basing of the model is absolutely fine.
Okay, so I kinda feel stating “here is the list we are using, oh by the way can you check it” really gives the wrong impression, ESPECIALLY when it looks like it was taken from the ETC, and nobody even reviewed it.
Abbadon only on a 40mm base?
Not even a SINGLE Primaris unit mentioned at all?
No Custodes?
I have to say, it looks very sloppy, and it is made just a bit worse when the post on Frontline has all this “thanks everyone for doing a great job and getting this worked on and in such a fast period”.
It acrually looks like you guys took the ETC list and just copy/pasted it.
1. I would suggest splitting up the factions so that it isn’t “Imperium”. Just looking at Imperium, I can see that Custodes are completely missing, as well as Assassins aren’t covered. If I played Orks, I wouldn’t want to have to sort through Dark Eldar stuff. Will that mean a lot of tabs? Sure.
2. It also appears all Forge World models are missing, which makes sense as you got this from the ETC who don’t allow it.
3. Usage of terms “narrow bike base” and “large bike base”: sorry, but for example my Deathwatch Bikers have had three different base sizes, and what I might call the “large” might not be what you call it. I would STRONGLY suggest you all go here:
http://en-tharses-project.blogspot.com/2015/07/guide-to-40k-bases.html?m=1
As this guy has a VERY comprehensive breakdown of what bases were used by what, and the names for each.
4. Deathwatch are completely missing:
All non-Primaris HQ: 32mm
All Primaris HQ: 40mm
Veterans: 32
Intercessors: 32
Aggressors: 40
Van Vets: 32
Terminators: 40
Reivers: 32
Redemptor Dread: 90
Dread/Ven Dread: 60
Inceptor: 40
Bikers: 75x42mm oval (as with Deathwatch Biker Box/Kill Team Cassius) or 70×25 “pill”
Hellblasters: 40
Corvus Blackstar: 120x92mm Oval Flight.
5. If you are going to allow historic/old base sizes, what is the point of even NEEDING a spreadsheet? Can’t we just say “use the base size it currently is sold with” or “use what it came with from GW ” and call it a day?
Reecius,
You are a bit off about GW painting rules at Warhammer World, and only feel.the need to correct you as you are, to some people, an authority on competitive Warhammer.
Their rules are if you are painted as Iron Hands, you must play them as Iron Hands. You can’t be painted as White Scars, and not use White Scars rules.
However, if you have a custom color scheme that can’t be identified as an “official” First Founding color scheme, you can play any rules you want. So if you had Purple and Green Space Marines, you totally CAN play them as keyword IRON HANDS (I know, Ive seen it done, and the judges confirmed that’s how their rules are)
Thanks for clarifying, and that is what I meant but if it was confused then I am glad you cleared it up.
Reecius,
Can you explain the logic of why Space Marines get to stay on 25 mm bases, but Ork Boyz are required to move up to 32?
Space Marines have not been sold with 25mm bases for MUCH longer than Ork Boyz have been (I believe it has only been the past 2 years for 32 mm Boyz being sold)
I think that if there is going to be a standard set, it should apply equally. If Ork Boyz are required to use the “current” base that is only two years old, other factions shouldn’t be able to use a “historical” base that is over 6 years, imo.
Probably because marines would actually be modelling for disadvantage with smaller bases, while orks are the opposite. Marines aren’t taken (or able to be taken) in large enough squads for ranks to matter. Smaller bases = less deepstrike denial, shorter aura ranges.
Chaos Lords and Sorcs are sold with 40mm bases now. Should jump versions of those models be allowed on 40s as an alternative base size?
Hey Reece, thanks for being lenient with the howling banshees and other 28mm base models that have been recently released by GW. I was one of the people in the previous news post asking you about them so thank you for taking our feedback into account. You probably have already been told this but I just wanted to point out that you forgot to allow Jain Zar’s new 40mm base size from Phoenix Rising. As it stands the new model would be considered illegal at the LVO which would be ashame since it is a gorgeous model. I’m sure it will be fixed in time for the tournament but just wanted to let you know. Thanks and have a merry Christmas!
Do you not mind model height being altered? ie standing on rocks
Typically people only get mad about making models shorter as they’re easier to hide. Making them taller, like putting a Character on a rock is modeling for disadvantage in most cases so should be fine so long as it’s not extreme.
Yes, as the case with the Vindicaire Assassin, I could imagine someone putting it on a 3ft tall pillar…
Yeah, exactly, lol.
Hi,
Regarding obliterators, i have no issues with a bigger base for the last version (metal/finecast ones) is not a problem, but would they need need bulking up and out as the two new versions a bit taller and more dynamically posed?
Or with other old/new models like Abbadon also
The deadline for model approval was a while back, FYI, in the future be sure to ask these questions on time.
I am not the judge, so ultimately it is not my call. But I can tell you using the old Abby is for sure not OK as he is vastly smaller than the new model. Oblits on the right size base are probably fine as they’re close in size but to be safe I’d at least glue an extra gun (or whatever) on their shoulders to make their profile taller to avoid any potential issues with claims of modeling for advantage. We’ve had the policy of using the right sized models in place since 5th ed, so it’s nothing new.
And again, it is the judges call at this point as they’re the ones in the trenches making decisions as to what is acceptable at the table. That’s why we set up the entire system to get model approval in advance so players could be sure what they were bringing was acceptable.
Can I get a clarification on the painting requirements.
Our group has a local player who enjoys CSM and loves to paint different models as different factions. Is it possible to play a mono legion army with them being painted well as a different paint scheme? Could basing be used to satisfy “painted in a coherent fashion.”?
What do you mean? Like painting them as Night Lords and using them as like, Word Bearers or something? If so, yeah, that is explicitly allowed in the painting guidelines so long as you are consistent, ie. all Night Lords=Word Bearers (or whatever combo).
I mean he has, for example, Night lord obliterators and iron warrior rhinos that he wants to run as world eaters because he wants to run his whole army as world eaters. Which seems to be against the guidelines.
Yeah, that is explicitly what we’re saying don’t do. It gets super confusing for the other player.
Hey Reece, just wanted to chime in – while it seems to be a popular choice to use 60mm round base for attack bikes (since the days of flat base heavy weapons team and carnifex used to come in back in 3rd ed), the only official base ever supplied with attack bikes is the 80mm round, in the 2015 Dark Angles Battleforce box. The box came with 3 RBK’s with the 75x42mm oval base and the attack bikes on the 80mm round base.
This is the smallest, official round base that fits attack bikes without any overhang.
80mm round? That’s a massive base. That’s what a leviathan dread comes on. In fact, I don’t think any non FW units come on an 80?
Yeah, it is pretty big. However, you have to consider attack bikes do in fact have huge footprint.
It was a part of the limited run when GW was releasing re-packaged deathwatch bikers and ravenwing command squad boxes with 75mmx42mm oval bases before they pulled them from stock.
For what it’s worth, the 80mm is the ONLY base that actually came with any attack bikes ever.
It looks like it did at one point come on an 80mm and it also makes very little difference tactically. Added it to the chart and thanks for making me aware. It is currently not sold with a base and I think that that RW set may have been the only time it actually had a base as you noted from what I can tell in my research.
Would it kill you to put some effort into the base chart? Also, why are Space Marine named character arbitrarily allowed to be put on 32mm when that would increase their performance (auras), while Orks are denied 25mm for that same purpose?
Also, what about Custodes? Models that come with multiple base options in the box (jetbikes?) Why didn’t anyone check what base size models are on nowadays (Chaos Havocs, Chaos Lords, Chaos Sorcerers, Dark Apostles, Abaddon, the list goes on).
Your shit stinks to hell and I’m refusing to be there to smell it. Good day LVO.
Very constructive criticism, I’m sure they’ll miss you.
Lol, right? Sounds like the kind of person we really want at our events to make it fun for everyone =P
@Texas
Thanks for the feedback, lol. Really helpful. See ya when we see ya, I guess.
Yeah, lets ignore the fact that you are arbitrarily giving Space Marines an advantage, while disadvantaging Ork players and simultaneously don’t even bother to check your copy-pasted base chart for errors before publishing it. Very professional.
None of that is valid criticism in any way shape or form. And I hope the sponsors of those ugly plastic clippers bought you a really nice pool, after the rubber band sponsors denied you.
Lol, bought me a pool?! Hahaha, that’s amazing, ah man, your perception of the amount of money involved in this hobby is very skewed, but thanks for making me laugh, that was a good one.
Ah man, that was funny. But no, they’re not giving me anything and even if they did it would hardly buy a pool, not even a kiddie pool, lol.
If you don’t see why it’s important to have a basing standard then you don’t. I don’t know what to tell you. And I don’t mind criticism, the remark about the chart not being done well enough on release is entirely valid and I accept that as ultimately it was my responsibility to make sure it was correct. It’s just your tone man, when you come in with that kind of heat people aren’t going to want to listen to you and certainly not take you seriously. You were just venting emotion, not really communicating anything meaningful in the first post.
Up your comm skills if you want people to listen, don’t just shout obscenities and be rude.
I’m actually baffled by how you think Space marines being on 25s (vets and devs) are actually an advantage. They can’t take squads large enough for it to matter, those units mentioned would only be used as screen units, so bigger base sizes is better for them. I know this is hard to understand, being an ork player. But there are actually other tactics involved other than just combat. It’s actually disadvantageous for marines (especially characters) to be on smaller bases, so complaining about people being able to cripple themselves is just hilarious. Nice job though.
@Jvail Space Marines on 25mm generally don’t have an advantage, but old character models like Pedro Kantor and Helbrecht, who are sold on 25mm are now allowed to be placed on 32mm.
This effectively increases the range of their Aura abilities by 14mm and is clearly a gameplay advantage.
Sorry if my stupid brain cannot comprehend why it is okay to FORCE some units into a certain base size because it would be modelling for advantage otherwise, while at the same time allowing other models to do so.
Hey, the Astra Militarum “Techpriest Enginseer 2” from GW – the metal one – still comes on the old 25mm base. The “Techpriest Enginseer 1” from GW (plastic) comes on a 32mm.
I think right now 32mm is the only listed acceptable base; not sure if that’s intentional or an error given the above ^.
Fixed it.
Now see, this size thing is really sloppy. And I’m writing a STRONGLY WORDED POST to set you Reece, and FLG, straight:
Before, it was all really simple, 12 ounces. But then, with UK standards creeping into events, the 16 oz pint showed up. Okay, great, but that was more trips to the restroom. Or the ” luu ” or ” WS ” or whatever you Brits call it. (need an eyeroll emoticon here).
At some point, with the attitude of “make it bigger, they’ll pay more” a 20 ounce showed up. I mean, I understand pitchers were always there (a gallon), but that was meant to be shared.
And then all hell broke loose, and I swear there were like 3 different sizes of IPA indy brews, cans and bottles, to buy at SoCal (that Red Horse was good, I’ll admit), but … man.
I have an LVO beer cozy, but what?! Am I now expected to buy another to hold one of these larger servings outta some wider based, marketed – to -millennials mega can?! Damn it! That’s not fair (btw: cut off yer damned ‘man buns’. Worse than hippies, but I digress).
Reece, you and your, business-gotta-make-money capitalist greed! Food on the table! Ha! Pay rent!? You just moved to Nevada, so how about passing the savings along!?
Shame, sir. It’s a good thing one can’t post gifs here, otherwise you’d feel the humiliating sting of an aesthetic, dour woman ringing a bell behind an old naked chick. And she’d tell you Reece, “SHAME!” She’d shout it. “SHAME!”
SHAME!
…
Oh, wait. This hoopla is all about updating base sizes? Oh. That’s fine.
Nevermind.
-Casey H
Team BeerHammer
(with humble obsequies to Gilda Radner)
Well played, sir. Well played. Lol
Hey Reece, how come you don’t do everything perfect the first time, every time? And how come you don’t do exactly what I want? And why do you hate my rattle-can marines? And why do you insist that I expend effort? Argh! The ITC is ruining America!
Lol he’s on to me!
Hey everyone, updated this for greater specificity on the base and appearance issue. Big thanks to Val Heffelfinger for providing pictures of an acceptable method for using colored rubber bands around the model’s base and not on the model itself.
I have a question for next years LVO. Say we want to come for the convention, super swag bags (is High Roller package) but don’t want play in any events. How do I go about getting a ticket and such but not take away from the folks that wanna play in events?
Just buy a ticket and come and have fun =) There’s plenty of room for spectating.
Hey dudes – got a rules question.
Do Space Marine Pre-Game Stratagems have to be noted on lists or bought at the table as “normal”?
Strange precedent mentioned in the Marine codex specifically about the Chapter Master Strat and was wondering what the call was, and wasn’t sure where to ask!
Cheers
Please direct all rules questions here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd9YOogQuJDKvgHvshhGX3HS0Cav8Ci1N2nb22CLz3JLJG73w/viewform?usp=sf_link
The one thing that I just noticed that no one is talking about is that the GW streaming policy’s affect whether you make the finals or not. That means only GW models are allowed on stream and since all final tables are streamed, no one can play non-GW models in the finals. Let me repeat that if you have non GW models and make the finals you will NOT be allowed to continue and your spot will be given to the next qualifier in line that does have all GW models.
Reece, I disagree with many of the modeling and basing points but I can understand why you want it that way (as you stated above), it has to look good to gather viewers and sponsors. I do not understand limiting your players models to just GW, if they meet the painting and basing requirements. Other aspects of the game are not GW, you are using your terrain and table mats, your are using non-GW dice, you do not require GW accessories (measurement tools, wound counters, etc.) so why oh why are you promoting GW models exclusively?
ITC is the organization that changed the game enough by being independent and popular to force GW back into the realm of actual caring about its tournament customer needs, and now you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You have always maintained that TOs are welcome to make their own rules to play but please do not discount the trickle down effect that LVO and its rules have on the game. Enclosed ruins, first floor LoS blocking, ITC missions, ITC scoring and I am sure I am missing somethings, have generals been adopted by the wider audience of ITC TOs because that is how ITC plays the game at their Flagship tourney.
I personally have nothing against third party models and think there are some amazing one out there, but to take this to the next level we have to work with GW and their rules for their stream are that we have to use their stuff (which totally makes sense). And on the stream, we use GW terrain and tiles. It was a concession made on our part (we of course want to show off our mats and terrain on the stream) because we feel we can do more, grow more, and achieve more working with GW. For example, the LVO stream last year was the biggest there’s ever been for tabletop minis by a mile, we had over 100,000 unique viewers and 13,000 concurrent during the finals. We could not have done that without working with GW. It’s worth the trade-off.
And if your models aren’t fit for streaming we go out of our way to try and find substitutions. We don’t just boot someone outright, unless they refuse to swap out models but that has never hapenned so far.
People can bring and play with 3rd party minis, it’s just the stream table that has restrictions.
Reece thank you for the response. I am glad you work with people to find replacement models but then doesn’t that run up against the painting requirements for an army? Meaning detachments will have more than one paint and basing scheme, the original and the borrowed models and thus not look “good”.
Just remember you (among others) forced GW out of their shell, please do not let them drag you back in with them.
It does but for that specific circumstance we make exception. We don’t want to ruin someone’s experience. Last year for example, we had a guy using Gundams as Riptides and we found someone willing to let him use their Riptides and they were a fairly close match to the army colors. Obviously it’s best if someone just has the right models in their army but if they make the finals (which is obviously so difficult to do) we work with them.
If you really think you can make the finals, then it’s in your best interest to just come with a compliant army in the first place, you know?
And I hear you. In the bad old days we were the only voice really doing anything for competitive play, answering rules questions, etc. and it sucked. It did open the door for the ITC to become what it has become ironically, but I don’t want to go back to that at all. Working with GW is more effective. And they’re mindset about the community has changed massively, they really want to engage the players now and help build this into something awesome.
Thanks again for the reasonable informative response. I get what you are saying and your points are completely logical. A few things in the long run a larger field of secondary businesses based on GW’s game should keep GW, secondary and tertiary business based on GW’s games, and the game itself more healthy. Next, when I purchased my counts as models it was because I had a theme army, werewolves, Ragnorok and Warmachine/Horde models fit my concept of the army better (it converted them with GW bits). In the other case the models I need to compete at the time were unavailable (in this case wracks and Talos(plural)) anywhere, so I went to other modeling companies. The odd thing is this policy does not address the chinacast problem, probably the largest threat to GWs business. As the quality of the forgeries are getting to the level it is hard to tell them apart from the original and once painted are almost impossible to tell.
Yeah, it’s very difficult to tell if something is Chinacast once it’s painted.
I think there’s an errata with the carnifex secondary base: in some boxes it comes with 105×70, not 75×46.
Fixed it, thanks!
This was supposed to be my first LVO, but work stuff came up. I’m I guess a little relieved. I made a Primaris themed Alpha Legion army for my Chaos Marines and under the logic that the new Chaos characters have all been on 40mm bases – lords and sorcerers specifically, I based my Jump Pack character conversions that way. I’m a hobbyist first and I put great time and effort into basing, but right after I finished these models, I find out they are unacceptable because the old metal Lord cane on a 25. I’m not rebasing, so I guess it works out well that I can’t go because the beautiful characters I’ve worked on this year would be pulled.
I’m not laying this down as a guilt trip to LVO or you guys. I think what you do is incredible and it’s clearly taken a lot of work. I just wish some of these Codex options with older models would get updated because if there was a plastic jump pack Lord, this would likely be a non-issue considering the power armor characters are all on 40s. Maybe next year, but again, I’m not rebasing, so I’d either go all Daemon princes or just find a way to be competitive without my characters.
Can’t figur if legends are in or out?
For me it is the Bonesinger that i wanna use, it is both in legends and the new Chapter Approved?
Legends, as a whole, are not allowed. However, there is some unclarity with regards to units that have both a Legends entry and a point cost in Chapter Approved, which has caused a lot of confusion.
The custodes jetbikes only list the 60mm bases but the box comes both with circular 60mm as well as oval bases 🙂
Hi – I have a few questions…
1. Where is the link to google doc to submit conversions?
2. I didn’t see a base size for Lord Arkos (FW Alpha Legion HQ) on the base chart. Is he legal to use?
3. I just want to confirm, I’m pretty sure this is the case, daemons can be summoned on the first turn correct?
Thanks!
Forgot a fourth question…
I saw in the video today that all your models have to have the same base in your army… Would this apply to summoned units as well? All of my CSM part of the army have black bases but my daemons have textured bases (e.g. Nurgle guys have the nurgles rot all over the base, and the khorne guys have blood for the blood god on their bases).
Thanks again!
Mike
Ynnari/Harlequin list is missing the Starweaver and Voidweaver, which are also on 60mm Transparent bases just as the Skyweaver.
Basing standards for the Kharybdis Assault Claw are not present.
Not sure if this is intentional as they are often played without bases, but IIRC mine DID come with a flight base (the 120x90mm I think)… ive just never used it with it.
It obviously makes quite a significant difference for both LOS and ability to move.
If its up to the player, im cool with that, just wanna know.
From the Terrain Guide
“A reminder of BRB rule: Hills provide cover if your entire unit is in or on it and obscured from the viewpoint of the firing unit. Standing on a hill in plain sight of the firing unit provides no benefit to the unit being shot at.”
Which rule is that please? BRB p251 states:
“Hills are always considered to be part of the battlefield rather than a terrain feature, and so models on top of them do not receive the benefits of cover. Some particularly large hills may block a model’s visibility to a target unit, however, so get a model’s-eye-view to see if this is ever the case.”
There seems to be a disconnect somewhere. Do you have provenance for that hills rule in the terrain guide at all?
Thanks