The overview got long, so I'm moving the commentary to another post.  Pretty much, I was running a "five turn" list.  The same basic list ran undefeated in 5th in casual play where it always got to at least five turns.  In 6th, prior to NOVA, I lost three out of twelve games, but in each of those three I was stressing the list to see what would break it.  Classically, by not dancing with a Ghaz/Kan horde list, but instead walking up to it and trying to win by superior firepower.  In each case, it did a lot better than I thought and this helped me out in those short games with the close victory conditions.  Five turns in 150 minutes wasn't a problem locally, but even with the great opponents I played against, there wasn't an automatic trust extended in the same way it is with the guys you play locally against.  At NOVA, it took a bit more explaining on both sides.  Nothing much, but it slowed down the games bit by bit.

Which tells me that if TOs keep to the same objectives/quarters type of scoring that NOVA used, the system is going to break down.

First things first, Mike and his staff did a great job from what I saw.  His people were kind, courteous, dedicated and worked to fix issues in a timely manner.  They didn't always succeed and I'll list some of those issues in another post as well as where they dealt with the unexpected quickly.  The NOVA team should cover most of that in their post event hot wash.

Here, I mainly want to discuss my actual experience playing in the GT.  I went 1-5 with a close fight in the win, four losses by a sliver and once getting slaughtered.  IMO, TOs for tournaments need to make some changes, because like Mike's idea that "well everyone can just play their 5th lists mainly" when he made the switch to 6th, I think there is a lot of wishful thinking going on.  This is an overview, so I'm not going to break down each battle here.  My list is here.

Sometimes you do have to interpret rules with no clue to what the design was to be because the way the rule is written is somewhat ambiguous.  Now the first thing is to try and discern the intent and the second is decide what the possible interpretations are and check for exploits.  Our example for today will be the No Retreat rule from 5th Edition. 

For the next section, here is what looks like an example of how RAI gets claimed to be RAW.  As far as I've been able to research this one, it is solid.  It concerns the interpretation that there is a difference between "removed as a casualty" and "removed from play" when pulling a model from the table.  Now it has long been said that this is RAW and nothing can change it, but I first encountered it early in my 40k career with regards to Necrons and WBB (yes, the old Necron codex) vs. Sweeping Advance. Pretty much, everyone cited the line in the 5th Ed rules (and backed it up with the 4th Ed rules, a.k.a. last edition hangover) where models in a unit caught by Sweeping Advance were "removed from play", therefore WBB didn't work.  Is this true?  Well, not if you read the 5th Ed Sweeping Advance rules in context.

With 6th Edition out there is a lot of time being spent on deciding what rules mean.  Of course, the usual suspects are out crawling around interpreting away on the basis of defining what the meaning of the word "is" is.  They claim the "holy" justification of RAW, make ritual manual gestures (hand waving) and solemnly intone "We are right because GW writes bad rules and therefore you have no defense against us, because we are always speaking of a rule GW has written badly."  How can we tell the difference between people with a clue and internet rules charlatans?  Well, there are a few ways to do this.   First we have to cover how rules and their reading are covered.

RAW (Rules As Written)
RAD (Rules As Designed) -- NOTE: this replaces Rules As Intended because of the conflict with the next one.
RAI (Rules As Interpreted) -- NOTE: the implication here is for interpreting based on a guess or personal bias.

It will get long after the break and since I'm not writing something for academics those who have some knowledge of this subject might note a lack of rigor, but then I'm aiming this more to the majority I read on the Internet who don't get the context..

Well, my Testbed list performed in many ways sort of like I expected.  Including at my LGS where I played a leisurely game with an older gentleman about my age who was learning and we were double checking all the rules and discussing tactics as we went.  Of course, to the derisive comments of the younger "boys" who were of the opinion that since they knew how to stick it in, pump fast, finish quickly and roll off to the next engagement they had a clue how to play.  Needless to say, I was hearing severa rules mistakes being made by all participants, although in many cases it appeared to be in the interests of speeding up the game process.  OTOH, with the obvious attitude of not sticking to the "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" ethic = stupid, I quit bothering to correct their "issues".  Anyway, back to 40K.

A few funsies:
1) Precision Shots & Strikes: allocate them to non-Character heavy/special weapons guys.  Only Characters are allowed to use the "Look Out, Sir" rule vs Precision.  Generic Apothecary in a squad, pop him and end FNP!
2) PW/PF butchery: In the assault vs a squad with a Sgt with PF/PW and no IC, call him out.  Either he accepts and you get a chance to use your higher I to remove the threat or he bails and you still remove the threat.  Oh, and the squad's Ld probably goes down 1 in either case.
3) Tarpitting: What, here comes that super CC unit.  Just slam your IC in and challenge.  That CC unit that could have gone through your unit like a hot knife through butter now has to sit and cheer on their leader while you and he solo each other.  Even if he is a monster, with some lucky dice you can tie up that unit for a couple of assault phases.  Might not be much, but your squad can either move backwards (buying more time) or a counter charge unit can come up.  Even if you do lose, position yourself so that you are ready to torrent the enemy again.

Of course, realize all this can happen to you also, but speaking as a Black Templar player under 6th, I don't have any unit that wants to be in CC as much as possible anymore and the only "character" is in the Terminator Command Squad.  This actually can give us an advantage in CC with Crusader squads with PW/PF or Terminators.  Nobody to call out.

And for that part I'm happy enough.  Just the BT are killy enough to get above the "fail" point in Nike's metrics system.  As long as we remember that the metrics do not tell you if you have a strong or winning list, simply that it isn't too weak to make the cut.  We also have to remember that there are some key changes in 6th Edition, namely that Power Weapons do not necessarily get past armor saves (which means my Reclusiarch got 5/6 to wound but had to eat the 1/3 to get past armor save for CC with his Crozius) and that glancing hits are more effective at degrading vehicles, which means all anti-tank got 16.7% "better" in most ways.

The next issue is objective seizing, but going with Stelek's 4+2 rule and giving my opponents choices with downsides (kill the transports with troops and you ignore the artillery, kill the easy to kill Speeders and you ignore the Terminators, kill the Terminators and you ignore the objective grabbers, etc.) plus the newly enhanced mobility potential of vehicles (12" move + 6" "run")  and either list should be fine.  I'm leaning towards the Reclusiarch led Black Templars supporting a unit of the "High Marshall's Own" IG Regiment, but I might change that up later, partly depending on how the extra rules from NOVA & GW come out.  It does mean I can mostly finish painting what I need to paint and simply hold a few models back until then. 

The weakness, as always, high KP. (19 in this case), but I have a lot of firepower to throw downrange, so, maybe it will balance out.  OTOH, I have extra vehicles and bodies for blocking and tarpitting, although I'm thinking about adding a handle to one of my Chimera's and redoing my EC so I can have him holding onto the outside and "running along"

Looking over the issues of mobility (still required), the lack of even a hint of real updating in our FAQ and some of the changes, do the Black Templars work better as Allies, even if they get the bulk of the points, than as the primary detachment? 

After all, our troops aren't top of the line by any stretch of the imagination and any metal box except a Drop Pod is way overpriced, so having just one Troop isn't a problem and a simple Las/Plas works fine for a rear area objective holder (note, I'm expecting a 5 point cost for Flakk ML upgrades, which means it can become a ML(Flakk)/Plas squad easily enough.  For our Land Speeder Typhoons, 6th has made it so that having three in one squadron is not the detriment it was in 5th Edition nor do we get any bonuses for LOS shooting with the spare Speeders which makes the considerations of tactical flexibility and KP vulnerability more important.  The amusing bit comes with our THDC Terminators, because to get more than one as the Ally force you have to go ahead and buy that extra HQ anyway. 

I'm torn here, because when I work builds with primary BT, by the time I buy requirements and wants (HQ, CMD Term, 2x Term, 3x LS-Typhoon, 2xTroops, EC), I end up with low points left for the Allies, but when I build the other way, I still get HQ, CMD Term, 3x LS-Typhoon, 1xTroop, EC, but I end up with enough points to flesh out the allies some.  The question, is it worth the extra expense?  Also, while I do have duality, I don't have the repeated units that normally work into lists.

I think I'm going to run Nike's metrics over these lists and see what I get.  Yes, things have changed, but the basics of what can you kill

Just putting the thought down, but given the silliness of not being able to take the EC as a Warlord and not being able to use the Allied detachment CO as the Warlord put another thought in my head.  Why not take IG as primary and Black Templar as secondary?  Of course, the first thing that pops up is that I end up taking an extra BT HQ anyway (EC is free slot) to open up the Terminator Command Squad.  OTOH, it seems to avoid the problems I've been having with transportation.  The concept is to use the combination of IG HW Squads, Typhoon Speeders and a pair of THDC Terminator squads to open and escort the way for IG Troops in Chimeras to score objectives.  Given the new Squadron and Cover rules, having one, two or three Speeders isn't real important now, whereas in 5th a pair of Speeders was critical for maintaining full fire and cover in the most efficient manner.

Edited for addition to list.