Stronghold, Dataslates & Escalation, a TO's musings

So Stronghold Assault & Escalation have been out for a while now, and while my local club is not running another 40k tournament for a few months, I like to get a headstart on any amendments to the tournament pack that I can. 

I have some initial thoughts around Escalation, Stronghold Assault, Allies, Forgeword & the Dataslates, and I would like to share them and get some feedback from yourselves. 

For those of you that read this blog and know me, please do not feel that anything I say here will suddenly appear in the next tournament I run, all the final decisions made about any tournament pack are discussed by a group from the club to Iron out any kinks or concerns. This is just a chance to air some views and ideas and see what comes of it.

I do not intend to FAQ the rules themselves, unless there is something ambiguous, so while I detest a 2++ rerollable save, I don't want to start changing that, as I personally feel it is a very slippery slope.

There will be some 'Comp' imposed on your force Organisation chart. That will be as follows:

Each army gets its full Primary Detachment Force Organisation Chart
Each Army may choose to include ONE of the following:

  • An Allied Detachment (includes the Inquisition Supplement)
  • A Fortification
  • A Lords of War unit
  • A Dataslate
  • One Forgeworld 40k Approved / Lords of War Unit
This will prevent people being too limited, while also stopping the crazy armies you could see with potentially 4 different forces being represented. 

Stronghold Assault.

My view is that I will be using the newer rules for buildings that are presented within this book as they do make more sense, and I think overall make buildings and their use's more sensible. 

I will not be allowing the Formations of Fortifications, so if you want a fortification, then you can have one, but you cannot have an entire defence perimeter. 

So for Escalation, I propose a slight rules change. If you have a Special Character with a fixed Warlord trait, when facing a Lord of War, you may choose to roll on the Lords of War Warlord table replacing your fixed Warlord trait. 

I think this makes sense, as special Characters shouldn't be at a disadvantage when facing a Lords of War unit. 


So dataslates... I don't own any yet, although the Tyranid Hunter one tempts me, so I can't comment too closely on how over / under powered / priced they may be. 

I feel I will allow these, although they would still be subject to the 'Comp' I detailed earlier in the article. 

Allied Detachments

I have no problem with Allies, playing with them myself or against them. I also don't mind attending tournaments where they are banned. After all if every single tournament had the same rules set I wouldn't need as many models as I have. 

I however when imposing restrictions on some of the other items, I thought it was time that the Allies got looked at too. 

So the only change I will be making here (as shown in the initial list of 'Comp' is to prevent people from taking Allies & an Inquisition detachment. 

You can still take those cool inquisitors, and they can still be your warlord (as much as that particular change might irk me), but you can't take Inquisitors, Grey Knights & Space Marines and end up with 4 Inquisitors on the table top. 

Hopefully this makes sense, and will illicit the least comments and challenge. 

So I was going to leave these guys out, but thought it was something to include as another 'food for thought' piece. 

40k approved Forgeworld units could be allowed as well, at which point, it seems sensible to consider allowing Forgeworld Lords of War choices.

It is something that if allowed would be treated the same way as everything else is at the beginning of the list, allowing you to only take one unit of Forgeworld, and in doing so you would prevent your access to other allied detachments. 

In Summary
I would really like to hear for you all, what of these proposals makes sense, sounds good, terrible or indifferent?

The more we can get the community to feed into these decisions the more likely the tournaments are to be ones you will enjoy. 

There is a lot of fear out there at the moment, so if anyone has played with any of my suggestions above (or just Escalation & Stronghold Assault), I am keen to hear your experiences.


Chris Kyle said…
I think this is a decent list of tweaks. Small, common sense, and mostly unobtrusive changes that still allowing a majority of the "meat" of the game as it currently stands.
Anonymous said…
I think your ideas are a good step. However though I think its funny that others overs at BoLS and other sites were against opening up these various supplements as they "weren't official". Now that the Nid codex is out and they and the new dataslates improve them, I think TOs will be forced to come to the same conclusion that you have.
Senekal said…
Don't know about your particular scene, but we are doing playtests on Lords of War and will likely wind up disallowing them. So far all the playtests have resulted in pretty miserable, unfun, broken and VERY short games. YMMV.

We also limit fortifications to 50 square inches or less, (a single Firestorm redoubt or smaller) but that is due to the fact that we go with fixed terrain at our events so space is a significant consideration.
Kraggi said…
Thanks for the response guys, I hope we get a few more as its good to get some debate going on this topic.

I actually had this written and scheduled for just before the Tyranid book came out, but kept pushing it back.

In Hindsight I am thinking / aiming towards the banning of models with Ranged D weapons.

This does limit some armies abilities to use a Lords of War, but to be honest i haven't had the time to play test it yet, so I can't really comment for definite.

This would also remove the Aquila from Stronghold Assault which is possible one of the more powerful parts of the book, although you do pay for it far more than the Triple Void Shields.

I have wondered about allowing formations of fortifications, but the Triple Void Shield is the one that gets me... its easy enough to limit the Generator to 0-1 mind.