I have been reading and contemplating the new 7ed rulebook and obviously it isnt fit to be played consistently in tournament play without a few adjustments to avoid imbalance issues that will rise.
Feel free to suggest rules that should be added to the list of suggested rules for warhammer 40k Tournament Organisers in order to help them facilitate fun and friendly environments were the rules wont be abused into nauseam.
This is a living document. Please feel free to comment on why or why not a suggestion should be on or off the list.
Current list of suggested rules modifications for standard tournament play: So far it seems as a whole we have come to the following conclusions:
No unbound armies (i.e. it gets silly when you run an army of IC's from all the codices)
No double forge org or unlimited detachments(1 primary, 1 ally, 1 formation (optional))
No come the apocalypse allies
Lord of war (event by event decision on whether allowed or not)
Fortifications need to be clarified on what is allowed and what is not!
Invisibility (moved to warp charge 3, changes to WS 1 and BS 1 for units attacking them, or Stealth and shrouded granted instead of current effects)
Any suggestion for bringing the psychic phase down some. Current balance issues: (massive psyker spam can both null the phase for one and make it impossible for you to stop the other, invisibility, Daemonology/Summoning)
Maelstrom cards (Not recommended for serious tournament play; although these are fun they are to random for a competitive environment; visualize scouring in 6th that was widely modified for tournament play)
The way the BAO has currently ruled their tournament format:
Spoiler:
1850 point limit.
1 Combined Arms Detachment (C.A.D.) which can be comprised of a single faction, chosen from any of those shown in the BRB (pg.118). This detachment can be drawn from multiple sources, such as a codex, supplement of the parent codex, data slate of the parent codex or Forge World unit of the parent codex. Note, unlike in the past, we are not allowing Forge World army lists this year as many of them have not yet been updated for 7th edition.
For example, you could take Tau as your primary faction and in the confines of your Combined Arms Detachment you could have units from the Tau Codex, Farsight Supplement, a Tau data slate and Tau Forge World units, but must abide by the limits of a single Force Organization Chart (ie. no more than 2 H.Q., 3 Elites, etc.).
In the case of a Forge World unit having a profile in a Forge World book and Codex or Codex Supplement, the rules in the Codex or Codex Supplement are always used.
0-1 Allied Detachment, which is defined in the BRB (pg. 122) as being units comprised of the same faction, but not of the same faction as your C.A.D. Note, unlike in the past, we are not allowing Forge World army lists this year as many of them have not yet been updated for 7th edition.
For example, you could take a Chaos Space Marines C.A.D. and Chaos Daemons as your Allied Detachment. The Chaos Daemons could then be comprised of units drawn from multiple sources as described above for Tau.
Please note, per the FAQ, the only exception to this currently is Space Marines who can choose an allied Detachment from their own codex so long as the Allied Detachment have different Chapter Tactics than the C.A.D., ie. Ultramarines with White Scars allies is acceptable.
A detachment taken from the Inquisition Supplement counts as the Allied Detachment if taken.
In the case of a Forge World unit having a profile in a Forge World book and Codex or Codex Supplement, the rules in the Codex or Codex Supplement are always used.
Come the Apocalypse allies will not be allowed for the BAO 2014.
0-1 Formation, which will take the place of the Allied Detachment if chosen.
0-1 Fortification chosen from the following list. All of the rules may be found in the Stronghold Assault supplement
Aegis Defense Line
Fortress of Redemption
Imperial Bastion
Promethium Relay Pipes
Skyshield Landing Pad
Void Shield Generator
Firestorm Redoubt
0-1 Lord of War All of the rules for Lords of War available at the BAO 2014 may be found in the Escalation, Apocalypse and Imperial Armor: Apocalypse supplement with the updated rules found in the BRB in effect (such as the new D Weapon rules). Players are required to have the actual LoW model to use them. Exceptions will only be made for exceptional conversions. What constitutes an exceptional conversion is determined at the sole discretion of the Tournament Organizers. Send pictures of your model in advance if you have any doubts.
Please note, the Impending Doom (+1 to Seize the Initiative for a player facing a LoW who does not have one), and Through Attrition, Victory (+1 Victory Point for every 3 Hull Points or Wounds done to a LoW, counted towards the secondary mission) special rules will be in effect if either player in a given game has a Lord of War.
A LoW may be chosen from the following list.
All of the Baneblade chassis vehicles except for the Hellhammer and Stormsword, which are not allowed for the BAO 2014.
Crassus Armored Assault Transport
Gorgon Heavy Transporter
Minotaur Artillery Tank
All Macharius chassis vehicles.
All Malcador chassis vehicles except the Malcador Infernus which is not allowed for the BAO 2014
Valdor Tank Hunter
Marauder Bomber (may not take Hellstorm bombs)
Maurader Destroyer
Fellblade
Cereberus Heavy Tank Destroyer
Thunderhawk Transporter
Greater Brass Scorpion of Khorne
Obelisk
Stompa
Gargantuan Squiggoth
Kustom Battle Fortress
Kill Krusha Tank
Kill Blasta
Cobra
Scorpion
Lynx with Pulsar (but not with Sonic Lance)
Tiger Shark (Escalation version)
Orca Dropship
Barbed Hierodule
The Nova Open has currently decided on the following rules for their tournaments:
Spoiler:
The NOVA is going to have a structure something like this for army construction in the GT/Invitational:
- 1850 Points
- 2 Detachments, maximum of 1 Combined Arms Detachment
- No Lords of War*
- Force Structure Addendum - Detachments are built by FACTION as per the Rulebook, and not by source/codex
- Fore Structure Addendum - Conjured units are under your control, but are not a part of the army selection process, and thus are not part of a detachment. They therefore do not benefit from things which affect the same detachment or army, and do not benefit from detachment-specific rules such as Objective Secured; conjured models will follow the Allies Matrix per normal (as it is done on a by-model basis, not a by-unit/detachment basis)
Useless Tactical Objectives - the ones where you have no chance to get at all - can be immediately discarded and replaced.
Example - getting the Tactical Card for killing flyers against an army without any flyers.
It'll prevent situations like this:
You start off with 3 cards: kill enemy flyers, kill enemy fortification and kill enemy psyker. Your opponent has no flyers, no fortifications and no psykers.
He then draw his 3 cards: Secure Objectives 1, 2 and 3 which his troops are already on.
You're instantly down 0-3 without even having done anything in the game.
No suggestions. We should just go ahead and play 6th edition again since that's pretty much what your suggestions boil down to
But seriously, the Unbound isn't a rule change. Battle Forge only is completely within the rules so I'd like it if people stopped referring to it as a change.
No Double Force Org removes Marine/Rakuan and other, Eldar/Iyanden, Tau/Farsight, and CSM/Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter. You can't ally with same factions anymore. So you're literally taking armies away from people, ones that people have been playing. And double force org isn't nearly as bad as it seems anymore. The real deal breaker on that one was Flamer/Screamer daemons.
I'd say no come the apocalypse allies, not no desperate, but that's due to fluff on my part, not actual game play. Also several AoC went to desperate so I think they need still be on the table. I think the penalties are fine since we all know how important deployment is in a game.
Limiting the number of warpcharges limits the ability to stop things like 2+ rerollables. But yeah, let's totally keep that going while making the tools we used to use to fight it way, way less effective. You do know that mathmatically the psychic phase actually got worse right?
The rules actually solve the 2+ reroll problem for the most part. The only one left will be the screamerstar but that took a hit due to UNITS not being able to do the same power. So only 1 summons, 1 flickering, 1 boost to invul, and so forth.
And eldar, because the powers that make it 2++ are on the warlocks, have to use enough dice to make sure you can't cancel it while trying not to die from perils since they don't haev a ghost helm.
I have no experience with the tactical cards yet since I haven't opened the ones I got but I'd assume that due to their grossly random nature those won't be used by most tournaments.
I like Jy2's tactical card suggestions. Furthermore, I'd really like to make them work, because they make the game more fun when it runs turn to turn (at least, in my humble opinion).
Daemonology needs to be limited somehow. I would suggest that every army only be allowed to have one of each power from the Daemonology table, period - but that's an initial suggestion.
I would suggest 2 sources for an army. Furthermore, you can ally to yourself- that way it doesn't feth over Tau/Tau, SM/SM, or Nids/Nids. THAT, or allow a second FOC from the same army as your second "source".
I haven't tested against come the apoc allies yet, so I'll reserve judgement on that.
1) Remove the objective cards. Even if you find a clumsy solution to the worst problems of getting objectives that are literally impossible to accomplish because of your opponent's army choices there's still the huge problem of random objectives having a lot of potential to ruin games with rolls that strongly favor one player. Mission objectives need to be symmetrical, and they need to be clearly stated before the game begins.
2) Remove the demon summoning powers entirely. These are just stupid in every way, they're blatantly unfluffy and arguably overpowered to the point that they break the game. I can't think of a single good argument for including them besides "GW published them", and any solution besides complete removal (like limiting warp charge or unit spam) is probably going to be an awkward mess that screws up a bunch of other stuff as a side effect.
Disagree with this. It's part of the game now, whether we like it or not, and people are going to start building unbound armies. Until we see a clear reason to ban it (so far the hypothetical unbound abuse is not very impressive) this rule is just excluding people for no good reason. Same with other limits on double FOC/etc, before reflexively proposing rules that are effectively "go back to 5th edition" I think the proposal needs to be accompanied by a list of exactly what game-breaking armies exist that require such a dramatic solution.
No desperate allies
Absolutely not. Removing desperate allies after non-imperial armies all had their levels of alliance reduced skews allies even more in favor of the "we're battle brothers with everyone" imperial faction. If anything the level of alliance that needs nerfing is battle brothers, not desperate allies. IMO everyone should just be AOC with everyone.
Absolutely not. Removing desperate allies after non-imperial armies all had their levels of alliance reduced skews allies even more in favor of the "we're battle brothers with everyone" imperial faction. If anything the level of alliance that needs nerfing is battle brothers, not desperate allies. IMO everyone should just be AOC with everyone.
I'm thinking TK actually meant to say....No Come the Apocalypse allies.
Really, really not impressed with random objectives, especially ones that give you "d3" victory points.
Its like they said in that team zero comp batrep - the victory points gained by each player seemed to have very little to do with what actually happened on the table.
There are still interesting ways of using the cards, though. For example, both players could pick three each at the beginning of the game and those three would be the primary mission in the game. By not having to disclose which cards were picked, you could get some interesting mind games going on.
Dakkamite wrote: Really, really not impressed with random objectives, especially ones that give you "d3" victory points.
Its like they said in that team zero comp batrep - the victory points gained by each player seemed to have very little to do with what actually happened on the table.
I actually like the Maelstrom of War missions. While it isn't completely fair, what it does do is to add some fun variety to the game.
If you want to play a standard game, you can always play the normal Eternal War missions (Crusade, Purge, Scouring, etc.). This type of mission is more suited for tournament player as each player knows what to expect.
The Maelstrom of War scenarios are more like beer & pretzel scenarios for casual games (at least to me). You get the objective and then you react to it. It's more appropriate for players who enjoy playing card games. I have no problems playing this in competitive play as long as the randomness can be mitigated to a certain extent (as per my examples above). As long as both players have the possibility to score points each turn, I'm actually ok with it.
Thud wrote: There are still interesting ways of using the cards, though. For example, both players could pick three each at the beginning of the game and those three would be the primary mission in the game. By not having to disclose which cards were picked, you could get some interesting mind games going on.
But that still doesn't fix the problem of having unequal objectives that favor one player before the game even begins. Let's say I draw "hold objective 1", "hold objective 2", and "kill the enemy HQ", and objectives 1 and 2 are the ones in my deployment zone. Oh, and I'm playing gunline Tau. Then you draw "kill a psyker", "destroy a flyer", and "hold objective 1". My army has no flyers or psykers so you've got two dead cards, and you're going to have a hard time taking my objective away from me while I can just camp there and get easy VP. Even if you allow re-draws on impossible objectives it still leaves very difficult ones. For example, I might have a single flyer that spends most of the game in reserve until your AA is all dead, or you might replace the psyker card with another card that requires you to capture one of my objectives.
Now, this is fine for a silly casual game between players who like random surprises, but it's completely inappropriate for a tournament. Tournament missions need to be symmetrical and balanced so that neither player starts the game with an advantage.
Thud wrote: There are still interesting ways of using the cards, though. For example, both players could pick three each at the beginning of the game and those three would be the primary mission in the game. By not having to disclose which cards were picked, you could get some interesting mind games going on.
But that still doesn't fix the problem of having unequal objectives that favor one player before the game even begins. Let's say I draw "hold objective 1", "hold objective 2", and "kill the enemy HQ", and objectives 1 and 2 are the ones in my deployment zone. Oh, and I'm playing gunline Tau. Then you draw "kill a psyker", "destroy a flyer", and "hold objective 1". My army has no flyers or psykers so you've got two dead cards, and you're going to have a hard time taking my objective away from me while I can just camp there and get easy VP. Even if you allow re-draws on impossible objectives it still leaves very difficult ones. For example, I might have a single flyer that spends most of the game in reserve until your AA is all dead, or you might replace the psyker card with another card that requires you to capture one of my objectives.
Now, this is fine for a silly casual game between players who like random surprises, but it's completely inappropriate for a tournament. Tournament missions need to be symmetrical and balanced so that neither player starts the game with an advantage.
So you think that every tournament should be completely equal? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that you were one of the people who believes in inherent inequalities between the codexes. Does that mean we should ban Eldar or Tau armies in order to prevent someone from having a supposed advantage? If that's the reasoning we're using, I'm just curious where we draw the line at.
Personally, I'd like it if we try to incorporate at least SOME of the composition changes of 7th edition. I think that if a TO told me they weren't allowing allies, weren't allowing Daemonology, weren't allowing multiple force orgs, and were restricting the number of psykers, I'd be pretty irate. It's okay to prefer to play the game a certain way, but I don't think it's okay to force everyone else to play that way. If you've got one or two things you've got an issue with that's fine, but let's try to curb our bloodlust as organizers. I may toy around with restricting the use of EITHER superheavies/gargantuan creatures OR D-weapons, but not both.
I don't think every tourney needs to be Unbound, but I'd sure like to see a couple of them! If running, I would probably specify if the tournament is allowing Unbound lists, although I think I might toy with some mechanic to reward Battle Forged lists. (An extra VP for every game?)
I think that removing Daemonology is punitive to some armies more than others, and is akin to not allowing transport vehicles, or not allowing template weapons.
I haven't had a chance to look at the tactical cards yet, so I can't weigh in. I don't even understand the mechanics behind them at this point. (Specifically, I thought they were only available during certain missions. If that's the case though, we wouldn't even be talking about this, would we? TOs who didn't want to use them would just use standard missions...or am I misunderstanding?)
Restricting the number of force orgs isn't a tournament restriction I'd have a problem with, really. It's a blanket thing that would affect all armies the same, so there's no unfairness there. It's another change though, so I would personally be careful before adding it in with a bunch of other restrictions.
I guess it's a judgment call, but I think that when it comes to making house rules for tourneys (beyond clarifying grey areas within the rules) I'd err on the side of caution.
Thud wrote: There are still interesting ways of using the cards, though. For example, both players could pick three each at the beginning of the game and those three would be the primary mission in the game. By not having to disclose which cards were picked, you could get some interesting mind games going on.
But that still doesn't fix the problem of having unequal objectives that favor one player before the game even begins. Let's say I draw "hold objective 1", "hold objective 2", and "kill the enemy HQ", and objectives 1 and 2 are the ones in my deployment zone. Oh, and I'm playing gunline Tau. Then you draw "kill a psyker", "destroy a flyer", and "hold objective 1". My army has no flyers or psykers so you've got two dead cards, and you're going to have a hard time taking my objective away from me while I can just camp there and get easy VP. Even if you allow re-draws on impossible objectives it still leaves very difficult ones. For example, I might have a single flyer that spends most of the game in reserve until your AA is all dead, or you might replace the psyker card with another card that requires you to capture one of my objectives.
Now, this is fine for a silly casual game between players who like random surprises, but it's completely inappropriate for a tournament. Tournament missions need to be symmetrical and balanced so that neither player starts the game with an advantage.
There are already advantages and disadvantages inherent in the game though. A Tyranid list going up against Dark Eldar is going to be disadvantaged before the game even starts. To use a Magic: the Gathering example, if I keep drawing starting hands of nothing but lands, that doesn't make the game bad.
Thud wrote: There are still interesting ways of using the cards, though. For example, both players could pick three each at the beginning of the game and those three would be the primary mission in the game. By not having to disclose which cards were picked, you could get some interesting mind games going on.
But that still doesn't fix the problem of having unequal objectives that favor one player before the game even begins. Let's say I draw "hold objective 1", "hold objective 2", and "kill the enemy HQ", and objectives 1 and 2 are the ones in my deployment zone. Oh, and I'm playing gunline Tau. Then you draw "kill a psyker", "destroy a flyer", and "hold objective 1". My army has no flyers or psykers so you've got two dead cards, and you're going to have a hard time taking my objective away from me while I can just camp there and get easy VP. Even if you allow re-draws on impossible objectives it still leaves very difficult ones. For example, I might have a single flyer that spends most of the game in reserve until your AA is all dead, or you might replace the psyker card with another card that requires you to capture one of my objectives.
Now, this is fine for a silly casual game between players who like random surprises, but it's completely inappropriate for a tournament. Tournament missions need to be symmetrical and balanced so that neither player starts the game with an advantage.
If you're incapable of picking the objectives best suited to your army, and your opponent is capable of that, the maybe you deserve to lose? Or did you miss the part where I said "pick"?
Just spitballing, though. I'm sure someone else can come up with a better solution.
I think we're all in over react mode right now. I'm only 2 games into 7th, but I think the randomness of psychic powers will make itself apparent quickly. Summoning is nice, but it also detracts from your damage output. Horrors are shooting or summoning. A warp charge three power needs six dice to cast with a semblance of reliability. So the average circus summons about three units a turn (assuming Belakor, Fatey, two level 3 psykers and two units of horrors to start for 16+d6 dice) but does so at the cost of casting any buffs and witch fires. I think most competitive armies can drop at least the summoned units (who'll have no protection really) to keep dice more or less level. And again, no buffs or damage spells if you're going all out on summoning.
As for the maelstrom missions, they were a lot of fun. The randomness of the cards can make it a little frustrating and I'm not sure id use them for a tourney but the fact that you discard each objective after completing it actually forces decisions on gun line armies. They might get the one easy card to start, but they can't necessarily win camping on just objectives like they do in eternal war missions.
Let's give it a week and play some more games. I've had a lot of fun so far, especially with the quick reference card opening divination up to SM and CSM.
1) Remove the objective cards. Even if you find a clumsy solution to the worst problems of getting objectives that are literally impossible to accomplish because of your opponent's army choices there's still the huge problem of random objectives having a lot of potential to ruin games with rolls that strongly favor one player. Mission objectives need to be symmetrical, and they need to be clearly stated before the game begins.
2) Remove the demon summoning powers entirely. These are just stupid in every way, they're blatantly unfluffy and arguably overpowered to the point that they break the game. I can't think of a single good argument for including them besides "GW published them", and any solution besides complete removal (like limiting warp charge or unit spam) is probably going to be an awkward mess that screws up a bunch of other stuff as a side effect.
Disagree with this. It's part of the game now, whether we like it or not, and people are going to start building unbound armies. Until we see a clear reason to ban it (so far the hypothetical unbound abuse is not very impressive) this rule is just excluding people for no good reason. Same with other limits on double FOC/etc, before reflexively proposing rules that are effectively "go back to 5th edition" I think the proposal needs to be accompanied by a list of exactly what game-breaking armies exist that require such a dramatic solution.
No desperate allies
Absolutely not. Removing desperate allies after non-imperial armies all had their levels of alliance reduced skews allies even more in favor of the "we're battle brothers with everyone" imperial faction. If anything the level of alliance that needs nerfing is battle brothers, not desperate allies. IMO everyone should just be AOC with everyone.
Love the irony that daemon summoning needs to go, and Gw put it in the game is not a good enough reason....but that same reason is good enough for unbound armies....lol.
In general I'm for letting things play our a bit before jumping to conclusions. However my thoughts off the top are
No unbound
2 detachment max
I think that if the summoning powers become a problem the easy if is to institute fantasy rule of no more than one of each spell in your army, then make an exemption for spell focus primaris powers.
Gw make no pretense to balance the game. Infact they have progressively (regressively?) moved towards more imbalance and an inelegant rule set.
The community needs to step in and adress this further for like minded players who enjoy the material but want a different experience than GW currently offer.
Psychic phase, missions and the FOC all need reviewing. My concern is there being a lack of consistency in changes and a splintered player base which is already very small.
djn wrote: Gw make no pretense to balance the game. Infact they have progressively (regressively?) moved towards more imbalance and an inelegant rule set.
The community needs to step in and adress this further for like minded players who enjoy the material but want a different experience than GW currently offer.
Psychic phase, missions and the FOC all need reviewing. My concern is there being a lack of consistency in changes and a splintered player base which is already very small.
You hit the nail on the head for the reason this thread exist. Also please note these are all suggestions. TO's can always do what they want still. However, I would like to see an established norm if possible to avoid someone showing up to an event and see a completely different rule set being played.
even though the summoning power can be good i dont see it as broken. You need alot of dice to do it and building armies around that power are weak in other areas. Demons cant summon yet imperials get dirt cheap super scoring vehicals that are now harder to kill ?!
The FOC is my biggest concern. Not only due to the ridiculoius crap you can do with it but also consistancy in how we play it in Tournaments. The possibility for there to be 10 different FOC formats alone drive me nuts.
What I'm planning as a TO is a limit of two detachments (so you can either double-up on your primary, take an ally OR take a formation) and a limit on number of warp charges per list (something like 10). I think this would keep things sane enough. If 2++ rerollables are still a problem, that could additionally still be nerfed LVO-style.
I'd never use maelstrom of war missions in a tournament, because they're too random and I can't really expect everyone to have the deck, but I'd like to try and create scenarios that use some of the new elements.
Tomb King wrote: Feel free to suggest rules that should be added to the list of suggested rules for warhammer 40k Tournament Organisers in order to help them facilitate fun and friendly environments were the rules wont be abused into nauseam.
May I suggest some tourney mechanics / procedures, as opposed to rules changes / adjustments ?
If a TO is going to use Maelstrom Missions and the ToT table, she/he ought to be sure to provide players with a really clear score card (I know it sounds like a 'duh' item, but still).
"Turn 1 (the 3 dice result rolls or card pulled)" and an Achieved box to be X'd or checked. Lather, rinse, repeat for 6 more turns (yeah, yeah, the game has become slower again, and only speedy players or small armies will get to Turn 7 games. ).
1) Remove the objective cards. Even if you find a clumsy solution to the worst problems of getting objectives that are literally impossible to accomplish because of your opponent's army choices there's still the huge problem of random objectives having a lot of potential to ruin games with rolls that strongly favor one player. Mission objectives need to be symmetrical, and they need to be clearly stated before the game begins.
2) Remove the demon summoning powers entirely. These are just stupid in every way, they're blatantly unfluffy and arguably overpowered to the point that they break the game. I can't think of a single good argument for including them besides "GW published them", and any solution besides complete removal (like limiting warp charge or unit spam) is probably going to be an awkward mess that screws up a bunch of other stuff as a side effect.
Disagree with this. It's part of the game now, whether we like it or not, and people are going to start building unbound armies. Until we see a clear reason to ban it (so far the hypothetical unbound abuse is not very impressive) this rule is just excluding people for no good reason. Same with other limits on double FOC/etc, before reflexively proposing rules that are effectively "go back to 5th edition" I think the proposal needs to be accompanied by a list of exactly what game-breaking armies exist that require such a dramatic solution.
No desperate allies
Absolutely not. Removing desperate allies after non-imperial armies all had their levels of alliance reduced skews allies even more in favor of the "we're battle brothers with everyone" imperial faction. If anything the level of alliance that needs nerfing is battle brothers, not desperate allies. IMO everyone should just be AOC with everyone.
Love the irony that daemon summoning needs to go, and Gw put it in the game is not a good enough reason....but that same reason is good enough for unbound armies....lol.
In general I'm for letting things play our a bit before jumping to conclusions. However my thoughts off the top are
No unbound
2 detachment max
I think that if the summoning powers become a problem the easy if is to institute fantasy rule of no more than one of each spell in your army, then make an exemption for spell focus primaris powers.
Exalted
I love you peregrine but you;re equivocating a bit as breng has pointed out.
1 foc err detachment or whatever, all this talk of battle forged, it's like 75% as stupid as unbound. It's worse than double foc and it's at like any freakin point limit, it's just bad.
Jimsolo wrote: So you think that every tournament should be completely equal? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that you were one of the people who believes in inherent inequalities between the codexes. Does that mean we should ban Eldar or Tau armies in order to prevent someone from having a supposed advantage? If that's the reasoning we're using, I'm just curious where we draw the line at.
No, that's not it at all. Mission design shouldn't favor players. Mission design that favors armies is entirely different. For example, it's completely fine if my army with no scoring units does poorly in a tournament with lots of objective-based missions. What I'm talking about is missions where one player gets an advantage, where both players can show up with the exact same army and one of them will have advantages because of the mission. For example, the previously-mentioned issue of drawing better objective cards from the random deck. That has nothing to do with strategic choices made in army construction, it just randomly gives one player an advantage over their opponent.
I think that removing Daemonology is punitive to some armies more than others, and is akin to not allowing transport vehicles, or not allowing template weapons.
I don't think it's at all the same. Transport vehicles and template weapons are an inherent part of lots of armies. Demonology isn't, no current army depends on being able to use it (since it didn't exist when those armies were made). And so far the only interest in it seems to be based on exploiting the balance mistakes GW made in creating it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There are already advantages and disadvantages inherent in the game though. A Tyranid list going up against Dark Eldar is going to be disadvantaged before the game even starts. To use a Magic: the Gathering example, if I keep drawing starting hands of nothing but lands, that doesn't make the game bad.
See previous comment about advantages based on list construction being entirely different from advantages based on the mission favoring player A or player B completely at random.
Also, in MTG you can in theory draw nothing but land, but unless you suck at deckbuilding that's almost never going to happen. GW's random objectives, on the other hand, are a much more frequent problem.
Thud wrote: If you're incapable of picking the objectives best suited to your army, and your opponent is capable of that, the maybe you deserve to lose? Or did you miss the part where I said "pick"?
Ok, if by "pick" you mean "choose" rather than "draw from the random deck" then that's a much better solution. I'm not sure it's a great idea since it means that you'll always take the easiest objectives for your army and never face the challenge of accomplishing a difficult goal (like you do in a tournament with good mission design).
Breng77 wrote: Love the irony that daemon summoning needs to go, and Gw put it in the game is not a good enough reason....but that same reason is good enough for unbound armies....lol.
The difference is that demon summoning seems to have pretty clear balance issues, while most of the "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING" response to unbound lists seems to be based on wild speculation about spam lists that probably aren't anywhere near as good as the people posting them think. I think the default should be playing the game according to the standard rules, especially when it comes to army construction since making changes there means excluding people from your event entirely instead of maybe making one of their units a bit less effective. But that doesn't mean that the default of "play the game by the standard rules" is some kind of absolute law that we should blindly follow, even when there are good reasons to change something. If unbound lists turn out to be a balance issue (and no, "I don't like your fluff" isn't a balance issue) then I will support banning them. But so far that is far from certain.
Crablezworth wrote: Peregrine, I'm kinda surprised that you're fine with battle forged as is, I am shocked good sir. Sell me on the absurdity.
I'm not at all fine with the new army construction rules. I think it's exceptionally poor design, even for a company as incompetent as GW. However, I strongly disagree with the idea of "I don't like your army" being a good enough reason to ban something. We need to recognize the fact that people are going to be making unbound lists and expecting to be allowed to use them, so unless there turns out to be a major balance problem that can't be solved by anything short of banning unbound armies entirely they need to be allowed.
Taking out CtA allies removes the possibility of Chaos Knights, though. Now that it's finally an option I'd hate to see it go so fast.
For fixing Warp Charge, I'd just make it so a Psyker can only use his or her warp charge plus however many from the pool they want. For example, an army has a ML3 Lord of Change and an 11 size squad of Horrors. They roll 4 on the warp charge. The LoC would have access to his 3 warp charge, the horrors would have their 2 warp charge, and each could pull from those extra 4 dice, but neither can use eachother's warp charge.
This edition has one of the most widely outspoken reactions urging change. That doesn't mean it's needed, but those urging no change are as experienced with the new edition as those urging change. Everyone does need to get some experience with it under their belts.
I think that removing Daemonology is punitive to some armies more than others, and is akin to not allowing transport vehicles, or not allowing template weapons.
I don't think it's at all the same. Transport vehicles and template weapons are an inherent part of lots of armies. Demonology isn't, no current army depends on being able to use it (since it didn't exist when those armies were made). And so far the only interest in it seems to be based on exploiting the balance mistakes GW made in creating it.
No current army depends on 12 super-scoring drop pods - at least, when those armies were made. Yet that is going to be a thing in tournaments.
You talk like 'exploiting the balance mistakes GW made' isn't what the entire competitive scene is about. The only interest in battle brothers in the competitive scene is combining Baron/Buffmander/Tigurius into broken units to exploit balance mistakes...
And finally... without Daemonology, I think that Daemons will be an incredibly weak army. FMC's took a huge nerf with not being able to change flight mode and charge on the same turn, and again with only doing one smash attack, leaving Daemons with even fewer anti-tank options than they had before. With the changes to psychic powers, daemons now throw out significantly less psychic shooting attacks which was previously a staple of the force - eg Horrors which previously would reliably throw out 3D6 shots per turn will now be lucky to shoot even once.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MasterSlowPoke wrote: For fixing Warp Charge, I'd just make it so a Psyker can only use his or her warp charge plus however many from the pool they want. For example, an army has a ML3 Lord of Change and an 11 size squad of Horrors. They roll 4 on the warp charge. The LoC would have access to his 3 warp charge, the horrors would have their 2 warp charge, and each could pull from those extra 4 dice, but neither can use eachother's warp charge.
Hence ensuring that only one power ever gets cast by an army each turn...
You need 4+ dice to cast a WC1, 6+ dice to cast a WC2, and 8+ dice to cast a WC3 (with some level of reliability). Every psyker in the game (except fateweaver?) needs more dice than they can generate to cast anything, so those D6 dice in the pool will be gone after the first cast.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: Taking out CtA allies removes the possibility of Chaos Knights, though. Now that it's finally an option I'd hate to see it go so fast.
For fixing Warp Charge, I'd just make it so a Psyker can only use his or her warp charge plus however many from the pool they want. For example, an army has a ML3 Lord of Change and an 11 size squad of Horrors. They roll 4 on the warp charge. The LoC would have access to his 3 warp charge, the horrors would have their 2 warp charge, and each could pull from those extra 4 dice, but neither can use eachother's warp charge.
Psychic powers outside of Malefic and Invisibility haven't actually gotten any better that it would deserve being so limited, instead I'd suggest simply limiting Malefic powers and possibly Invisibility, which are the only big offenders. Limiting summoning powers to one per turn would probably be fine, I'd say, or even remove the power completely from an army after it has been cast once (so after summoning has been cast by a psyker, all psykers on that side lose copies of summoning). Allows some play for summoning, but prevents massive summoner armies.
The only other thing is that low psyker armies really have no incentive to take any psykers now, because if you're going against a high psychic army your guy's just going to be denied and do jack all. Possibly a way to... even up powers (allow low power psychic armies to function, and restrict super-psychic armies a bit more) would be to change how DtW dice are generated. If you make it that the player doesn't generate his own deny dice by counting up his psychic levels, but instead gets the same number of deny dice as the active player gets casting dice, that would mean that low psychic armies could still get spells off and could still do some denial against psychic heavy armies. Psychic heavy armies would still have more protection from various maledictions, of course, so they're still getting some defensive benefit from having lots of psykers.
So, 2 ideas:
1) Summoning powers are limited to once per turn for each side, or even once per game for each side.
2) Players generate the same number of DtW dice as their opponent has casting dice.
@peregrine, my point is that we have as much evidence that summoning armies are unbalanced/auto win as we do for un-bound. They have some obvious bad match ups IMO, and assume that players have enough models available to truly abuse the system (with my daemons I could summone maybe 2 troop units I. Addition to what I'm fielding.
I would simply contend that deregulating how armies are constructed further pushes 40k into the realm of apocalypse.Battle Forged isn't much better than unbound and to pretend that those two things will likely become the norm seems naive to me in the extreme. Battle forged on it's own is just way worse than double force org. I would really prefer limiting detachments and using a single foc.
1. Battleforged only
2. Limit of 2 (maybe 3) detachments
3. No named characters
4. 10 Psychic dice max
5. At least 4 pieces LOS-blocking terrain
6. Missions from Mission Catalog or The Peoples' Missions
Trasvi wrote: No current army depends on 12 super-scoring drop pods - at least, when those armies were made. Yet that is going to be a thing in tournaments.
Unless people are taking nothing but minimum-size tactical squads in pods (which is a really bad list) then it isn't going to be a thing.
You talk like 'exploiting the balance mistakes GW made' isn't what the entire competitive scene is about.
Of course it is. But the point is there's no legitimate army based around demon summoning, especially mass demon summoning. We aren't talking about people being excluded from events because their standard "40k night at the local store" army isn't legal, like we would be if unbound armies are banned. We're talking about armies that exist for the sole purpose of exploiting the broken psychic rules. And you don't get much sympathy from me if you're banned from exploiting a balance mistake.
And no, battle brothers was not just about taking buff ICs. Maybe it was for a tiny minority of hardcore tournament players, but plenty of people were building their armies around being allowed to use allies.
You need 4+ dice to cast a WC1, 6+ dice to cast a WC2, and 8+ dice to cast a WC3 (with some level of reliability).
Since when are we defining "reliable" as "over 90% chance of success? FFS, by demanding 4+ dice to cast a WC1 power you're saying that you need a better chance of success than a LD 10 psyker had of casting it under the old rules or it's just not enough for you. More realistically two dice is probably enough for WC1, maybe going up to three if you really need it.
Breng77 wrote: @peregrine, my point is that we have as much evidence that summoning armies are unbalanced/auto win as we do for un-bound.
I'm not saying that it's an auto-win, I'm saying that there's pretty clear evidence that it's overpowered and the only real question is whether or not it's overpowered enough to break the game. Meanwhile the opposition to unbound armies seems to consist of little more than "I don't like your army", with no solid argument about power levels. A few people have proposed one-dimensional lists that spam units the internet tells them are overpowered (nothing but Riptides, for example), but I don't see any compelling arguments that this is a case of unbound breaking the game rather than the individual units in question being a problem regardless of whether they're used in unbound lists or in FOC-limited lists.
Also, complaining about unbound is kind of silly when even the "FOC-limited" armies aren't really limited all that much. You might have a point if you were comparing unbound to 5th edition, but when the FOC is already barely relevant in an edition of multiple FOCs, allies that don't take up FOC slots, formations that don't take up FOC slots, etc, then I don't really see how giving the option to remove the FOC entirely (at a high price) is a major problem.
They have some obvious bad match ups IMO
This isn't really that much of a defense. The fact that A has a bad matchup against B doesn't solve the problem of A absolutely crushing X, Y and Z so thoroughly that anyone playing those armies is going to wonder why they bother playing the game at all. For example, everyone insisted on banning D-weapons in 6th because of titan lists, despite the fact that titan lists had obvious bad matchups. But the D-weapon bans were still justified by the fact that they ruined the game for most opponents even if a dedicated anti-titan list could beat them pretty easily.
and assume that players have enough models available to truly abuse the system (with my daemons I could summone maybe 2 troop units I. Addition to what I'm fielding.
This is absolutely wrong. You never assume that "people won't buy the models" is a balancing factor.
Again though what clear evidence is there that it is "broken". Enlighten to need fixing any more than unbound?
Most 6e events had limited FOC (no formations was common, no double FOC was common.)
Your argument that "well banning unbound stops legitimate armies that guys bring to their lgs but getting rid of daemon summoning doesn't " is false.
Either you meant no ones 6e army is excluded if we leave out daemon summoning, so if we ban it right away people won't go out and spend money on it. Which is also true for und bound armies. No one was playing them before so banning them changes nothing.
Or you are saying, well he can just take different powers, instead of summoning, which if his army is build around summoning (maybe just having min troops wanting to summon more, or spam summoning or whatever) it likely does not function without them.
Or you have not argument because some guy could very well play daemon summoning armies at his lgs, and by banning them you are telling him he is not welcome.
Essentially if what you are saying is well the unbound guy lacks the models to play but the other guy at least has a legal army..that amounts to nothing, if he auto loses ever game. Furthermore, that assumes a player who has never played before and buys an unbound army. Otherwise he already has a bound army.
As for ruining the game for many opponent nets I'm pretty sure 10 riptides, or 10 heldrakes, or 20 thud guns, or thunder fires, will do much the same...so that is a moot point.
As for the money thing, it is not that no one will do it, it is that I see it being uncommon.
And here I was looking forward to fielding Marine Reserve companies. Is everyone that afraid of facing off against 100 assault marines? There are a lot of "unbound" armies that would be great fun to play against. Banning everything is terrible. The most trouble with "unbound" lists is most likely to come from spamming psykers, flyers, MC/FMC, Lords of War and possibly HQ's. So limit those. I'd say scale it so that you can never get more of these units (added up) in an unbound list than you can get normally. For each 370-400 points in a tourney allow the players to bring whatever units they want (though following the faction list restrictions you have below). This allows you five units from the list in 1850 to 2k. You can certainly take more psykers in a regular Daemon list, more MC/FMC as well. More flyers etc.
This will lead players who seek to max out on these choices to stay within the confines of the FOC, and allow the players who are looking to field the less offensive "unbound" armies to do so. Limiting the amount of certain builds is fine with me, but banning everything is unnecessary.
Tomb King wrote: 2. No double forge org or multiple factions (1 primary, 1 ally, 1 formtion (optional)
I like this. Think it should be applied to unbound armies as well. Primary has your Warlord in it. You are allowed to take units from 1 allied faction, and 1 formation drawn from those belonging to your primary or allied faction. Solves some of the more offensive combinations.
I disagree. I think the non battle brothers combinations are far less powerful than the battle brothers combinations. Why ban Chaos Marines with a Knight, the only current way to get Chaos Knights? Traitor Guard with Daemons?
Tomb King wrote: 4. A limit to the number of psykers and/or the amount of warp charges that can be generated.
Only played three games of 7ed so far. My Librarian was able to kill himself in two of them, once powering up Scryer's Gaze, the second time trying to cast foreboding (? the div power that gives rending against the target). I actually think the psychic abilities of your psyker heavy armies got quite a nerf already. I don't see a reason to put a limit on the amount of warp charges you can generate. You do realize that you basically get 1 dice in place of each power (for the most part) you used to be able to cast?
Tomb King wrote: More to follow... thoughts and recommendations?
Actually play some games of 7ed before we set out to turn it back into 6ed. Did everyone forget that the tourney scene wasn't exactly loving it just a few weeks ago?
Stormcrow wrote: I think that people should just relax and play the new rules for a month or so before making claims about what is and isn't fair for a tournament.
When I see elmer fudd running towards a banana peel, I don't need to wait a month to understand how it's going to play out.
How I would have tournies:
1. set up universal formats. -Codex tournament: Only your codex options may be used, along with fortifications. -Alliance tournament: One extra detachment is allowed, whether it be another primary, an ally, dataslate, or other supplemental item. -Lords tournament: All options available, in addition to Lords of War.
2. Some specific nerfing/errata
-Summoned units have an "upkeep" paid in psychic dice. The cost is equal to the number of dice the player used to cast the summon (IE generally 6-7 per unit.) These dice are automatically subtracted from the owning player's dice pool in both his own and his opponent's psychic phase, after psychic dice are generated, but before any powers are rolled, as long as that unit still exists in the game. If the owning player must pay more dice than he has, he must instead choose a summoned unit to remove as casualties, and must repeat this until his psychic dice pool would become zero or above. These units are counted as being removed as casualties for the purposes of victory points and tactical objectives.
-Summoned units are removed from the table at the end of the game, before results are tallied. If kill points are being used, any unit that was at half strength (or wounds) or below counts as killed. Thus summoned units cannot claim objectives at the end of the game, nor can they claim linebreaker.
-Summoned units may not summon other units.
(MAYBE with all of those in place, a daemon summon-horde might be workable in a tournament.)
-Invulnerable saves may never use stackable bonuses to increase beyond a 3++. A 2++ invulnerable save may never be given a reroll.
3. Cards -After objectives are placed, but before armies are deployed, if the game is a maelstrom of war mission, both players may choose and declare 3 different tactical objectives. Any further objectives beyond these are rolled and/or drawn as normal.
-A tactical objective that is "literally impossible," such as shooting down an enemy flyer when he possesses no flyers, is immediately re-rolled or discarded and the player may draw a new card to replace it.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: Taking out CtA allies removes the possibility of Chaos Knights, though. Now that it's finally an option I'd hate to see it go so fast.
For fixing Warp Charge, I'd just make it so a Psyker can only use his or her warp charge plus however many from the pool they want. For example, an army has a ML3 Lord of Change and an 11 size squad of Horrors. They roll 4 on the warp charge. The LoC would have access to his 3 warp charge, the horrors would have their 2 warp charge, and each could pull from those extra 4 dice, but neither can use eachother's warp charge.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: Taking out CtA allies removes the possibility of Chaos Knights, though. Now that it's finally an option I'd hate to see it go so fast.
For fixing Warp Charge, I'd just make it so a Psyker can only use his or her warp charge plus however many from the pool they want. For example, an army has a ML3 Lord of Change and an 11 size squad of Horrors. They roll 4 on the warp charge. The LoC would have access to his 3 warp charge, the horrors would have their 2 warp charge, and each could pull from those extra 4 dice, but neither can use eachother's warp charge.
that is one elegant solution sir.
No it isn't, it is simply neutering psykers by essentially saying, "no psyker can attempt to manifest more than 1 power per turn, unless you only bring a single psyker to begin with."
Given some of the passionate arguments against reeling in the rules some it appears people are not understanding the intent of the thread.
This threads intent is to discuss possible changes to the current rule set to allow it to function in tournament play.
This is NOT a thread for how to play in casual play.
This is NOT a thread for someone who wants to run a laid back tournament of randomness.
This is a thread to try and bring balance and consistency to a tournament environment.
I know 6th was far from perfect. Hell, I hated 6th edition. However, 7th does have potential if we bring the rules in a little bit to fit a tournament environment it wasn't built for.
If you want to play unbound and see eldar farseer jetbikes leading a couple of khans on a glorius charge of death and destruction then by all means have fun. The issue with unbound isnt that people will run the list they have always wanted to run it. The issue with unbound is in its name. There is literally no limit to what can be ran. It seize to be a game about armies and factions. It becomes hero hammer or a giant game of mordheim where anything is game and fun and narrative are both absent for at least one side of the battle. Sure it could work IF everyone played nice... but lets be realist here. The only way I could see unbound working is if list were turned in for approval in advance or there were some sort of comp system put in place.
A battle forged army with unlimited factions wouldnt be much better then unbound. You could legally run an entire army of inquisitors.
Tomb King wrote: Given some of the passionate arguments against reeling in the rules some it appears people are not understanding the intent of the thread.
This threads intent is to discuss possible changes to the current rule set to allow it to function in tournament play.
This is NOT a thread for how to play in casual play.
This is NOT a thread for someone who wants to run a laid back tournament of randomness.
This is a thread to try and bring balance and consistency to a tournament environment.
I know 6th was far from perfect. Hell, I hated 6th edition. However, 7th does have potential if we bring the rules in a little bit to fit a tournament environment it wasn't built for.
If you want to play unbound and see eldar farseer jetbikes leading a couple of khans on a glorius charge of death and destruction then by all means have fun. The issue with unbound isnt that people will run the list they have always wanted to run it. The issue with unbound is in its name. There is literally no limit to what can be ran. It seize to be a game about armies and factions. It becomes hero hammer or a giant game of mordheim where anything is game and fun and narrative are both absent for at least one side of the battle. Sure it could work IF everyone played nice... but lets be realist here. The only way I could see unbound working is if list were turned in for approval in advance or there were some sort of comp system put in place.
A battle forged army with unlimited factions wouldnt be much better then unbound. You could legally run an entire army of inquisitors.
This really needed to be said.
Ultimately it must be realized that Games Workshop does not produce rulesets intended to function in organized, competitive environments. If people wish to play the game that way, it must first be acknowledged that the rules as currently written do not work and are not intended to work for such events.
Second, having acknowledged that, it must be established that certain changes will have to be made, and some rules and mechanics will have to be altered or removed. Not just for balance, but for practical considerations as well. (e.g. terrain setup)
Third, it must be realized and accepted that some of these changes will make certain army and/or unit builds unwelcome at such events, as their existence would otherwise cause even greater disruption, or must be made to operate in ways different to what they were made originally to do (e.g. putting limiters on rerollable invul saves, etc).
This is not to say that people can't bring their models or armies, be they 100% pulled from a print codex, or things like Be'Lakor dataslates, Forgeworld Hornets, Electronic Only books like Sisters of Battle or the Inquisition, or whatnot, but that there to limits to certain abusive mechanics and fidgety army construction gimmicks that can be employed.
If you want to hamfiist a game not designed for tournaments into tournament play, and want to have something approaching playable within a limited timespan format with pre-set tables and the like, and where you don't have certain armies or builds run roughshod over most everything else, changes will have to be made.
To repeat, Warhammer 40,000 7th edition, like 6th edition, is not a ruleset for competitive tournament play. Neither was 6th, 7th is even less so.
If you want to force it into something it wasn't meant to be and make it into something workable, then ultimately, people will need to accept that there are certain combinations of things they won't be able to bring, or that it may function differently.
This is a sad thread. I think mostly the people complaining wish they could still play fourth edition... You know back in the good old days. I won't be attending any events that super shoe horn 40k to make things easier for themselves.
Dozer Blades wrote: This is a sad thread. I think mostly the people complaining wish they could still play fourth edition... You know back in the good old days. I won't be attending any events that super shoe horn 40k to make things easier for themselves.
And I hope you will find none with people doing it to make it easier on themselves. I wont even play in a single 7th edition GT this year and most of next. I am still helping the cause though. I would rather see revisions to fix the issues then let the issues dissolve and already steadily decreasing player base. I ask that any further comments provide constructive positive or negative criticism(i.e. reasoning's for your comments rather than accusations).
Tomb King wrote: Given some of the passionate arguments against reeling in the rules some it appears people are not understanding the intent of the thread.
This threads intent is to discuss possible changes to the current rule set to allow it to function in tournament play.
This is NOT a thread for how to play in casual play.
This is NOT a thread for someone who wants to run a laid back tournament of randomness.
This is a thread to try and bring balance and consistency to a tournament environment.
I know 6th was far from perfect. Hell, I hated 6th edition. However, 7th does have potential if we bring the rules in a little bit to fit a tournament environment it wasn't built for.
If you want to play unbound and see eldar farseer jetbikes leading a couple of khans on a glorius charge of death and destruction then by all means have fun. The issue with unbound isnt that people will run the list they have always wanted to run it. The issue with unbound is in its name. There is literally no limit to what can be ran. It seize to be a game about armies and factions. It becomes hero hammer or a giant game of mordheim where anything is game and fun and narrative are both absent for at least one side of the battle. Sure it could work IF everyone played nice... but lets be realist here. The only way I could see unbound working is if list were turned in for approval in advance or there were some sort of comp system put in place.
A battle forged army with unlimited factions wouldnt be much better then unbound. You could legally run an entire army of inquisitors.
Not saying this in regards to casual play.
Not saying this in regards to laid back tournaments of randomness.
I'm saying this as a tournament player who plays in more than a few events every year.
And what I'm saying is it's way to early to try and "fix" 7th edition. Worst thing we could do is stifle this game in it's infancy because we jump to knee jerk reactions.
An example: Limiting Power Dice
This actually makes seer council better, not worse. This also actually makes the game less psychic than it was at the closing of 6th. All at the expense of stopping "summoning" which isn't likely to be nearly as ridiculous as it's being made out to be out the door.
Just play the game for a little bit before we start hammering down on the ruleset.
1. Unbound armies are banned.
All forces must be Battleforged and may contain no more than 1 Primary Detachment + 1 additional Detachment/Allied Detachment/Formaiton.
2. 1850pts and under = no Lords of War.
3. Psykers must choose their psychic disciplines during list creation, and state exactly how many power(s) they are taking from each school they can select from.
No tailoring your disciplines to each opponent!
4. No Mealstorm of War missions.
All missions use Kill Points as a Secondary Objective, however there are no added VP's for First Blood.
(let's see you summon farm now!)
5. Any units gained through Conjuration psychic powers DO NOT! count as Scoring Units, they may not contest any objectives, nor can they claim the Linebreaker bonus.
(take that summon farm!)
6. A 2++ save may never be re-rolled, no matter the source of that re-roll. (well, unless the dice is cocked/falls on the floor, etc... but hopefully common gakking sense still exists!)
7. Don't be a dick.
Just a few quick ideas...
No need for arbitrary caps on Warp Charge limits or Psyker limits.
While the Daemon Factory is still playable if someone really wants/loves the idea of it, good luck actually winning when you're handing out easy KP's like candy, and none of your additional 'free' units can score or even contest anything!
As well, no First Blood means going first is no longer essentially a freebie KP that only 1 player can ever claim.
If you really want, you could even limit the added Detachment to the same slot set-up as an Allied Detachment. (ie: only 1HQ instead of 2, 1-2 Troops max & only 0-1 of the other slots)
Why? Please give some examples of unbound lists that are so overpowered in tournaments that a blanket ban is justified to deal with them.
2. 1850pts and under = no Lords of War.
This is a terrible idea. Most LoW aren't actually that powerful, and if you feel that a titan nerf is necessary then nerf titans without banning all of the other LoW options. 7th edition should not be an excuse to return to the bad old days of comp-heavy tournaments where the first response to losing a game to something is to ban it.
3. Psykers must choose their psychic disciplines during list creation, and state exactly how many power(s) they are taking from each school they can select from.
No tailoring your disciplines to each opponent!
Why should such a fundamental part of the psychic system be changed?
All missions use Kill Points as a Secondary Objective, however there are no added VP's for First Blood.
I fail to see any reason for making KP secondary in every mission. Also, mission design should be separate from the core rules.
6. A 2++ save may never be re-rolled, no matter the source of that re-roll. (well, unless the dice is cocked/falls on the floor, etc... but hopefully common gakking sense still exists!)
This fails to address the problem in an effective way because it actually makes a re-rollable 3++ better than a 2++. You're penalizing people for improving their saves. If you want to limit re-rolls then it needs to be done in a way that applies consistently to all saves (limiting the re-roll to a 4+, not allowing re-rolls at all on invulnerable saves, etc).
Dozer Blades wrote: What I said is perfectly reasonable. You perceive issues which is fine but not everyone agrees.
Not sure what you're doing in this thread then.
Its a discussion on the matter. You need opposing opinions to reach the best median.
Hulksmash wrote:
Tomb King wrote: Given some of the passionate arguments against reeling in the rules some it appears people are not understanding the intent of the thread.
This threads intent is to discuss possible changes to the current rule set to allow it to function in tournament play.
This is NOT a thread for how to play in casual play.
This is NOT a thread for someone who wants to run a laid back tournament of randomness.
This is a thread to try and bring balance and consistency to a tournament environment.
I know 6th was far from perfect. Hell, I hated 6th edition. However, 7th does have potential if we bring the rules in a little bit to fit a tournament environment it wasn't built for.
If you want to play unbound and see eldar farseer jetbikes leading a couple of khans on a glorius charge of death and destruction then by all means have fun. The issue with unbound isnt that people will run the list they have always wanted to run it. The issue with unbound is in its name. There is literally no limit to what can be ran. It seize to be a game about armies and factions. It becomes hero hammer or a giant game of mordheim where anything is game and fun and narrative are both absent for at least one side of the battle. Sure it could work IF everyone played nice... but lets be realist here. The only way I could see unbound working is if list were turned in for approval in advance or there were some sort of comp system put in place.
A battle forged army with unlimited factions wouldnt be much better then unbound. You could legally run an entire army of inquisitors.
Not saying this in regards to casual play.
Not saying this in regards to laid back tournaments of randomness.
I'm saying this as a tournament player who plays in more than a few events every year.
And what I'm saying is it's way to early to try and "fix" 7th edition. Worst thing we could do is stifle this game in it's infancy because we jump to knee jerk reactions.
An example: Limiting Power Dice
This actually makes seer council better, not worse. This also actually makes the game less psychic than it was at the closing of 6th. All at the expense of stopping "summoning" which isn't likely to be nearly as ridiculous as it's being made out to be out the door.
Just play the game for a little bit before we start hammering down on the ruleset.
Limiting power dice was just an original suggestion. It is by no means a final product. Currently taking any ideas to make the psychic phase a little more reasonable. That can include either targeting specific spells, power dice, and/or mastery levels. So far initial games have seen daemonology easily doubling the size of a daemon army within the span of a game.
As for the other changes. Surely you can see the issue with both balance and the very foundations of the game. What is the point in having different races and/or factions if its just one big cesspool of combat with no rhyme or reason why that guy is fighting that guy and why that guy is allied with that guy. The biggest reason the game is so successful is because of the background. The story that most of the players in the hobby follow. At the very least unbound needs to be reeled in.
Experiment 626 wrote:1. Unbound armies are banned.
All forces must be Battleforged and may contain no more than 1 Primary Detachment + 1 additional Detachment/Allied Detachment/Formaiton.
2. 1850pts and under = no Lords of War.
3. Psykers must choose their psychic disciplines during list creation, and state exactly how many power(s) they are taking from each school they can select from.
No tailoring your disciplines to each opponent!
4. No Mealstorm of War missions.
All missions use Kill Points as a Secondary Objective, however there are no added VP's for First Blood.
(let's see you summon farm now!)
5. Any units gained through Conjuration psychic powers DO NOT! count as Scoring Units, they may not contest any objectives, nor can they claim the Linebreaker bonus.
(take that summon farm!)
6. A 2++ save may never be re-rolled, no matter the source of that re-roll. (well, unless the dice is cocked/falls on the floor, etc... but hopefully common gakking sense still exists!)
7. Don't be a dick.
Just a few quick ideas...
No need for arbitrary caps on Warp Charge limits or Psyker limits.
While the Daemon Factory is still playable if someone really wants/loves the idea of it, good luck actually winning when you're handing out easy KP's like candy, and none of your additional 'free' units can score or even contest anything!
As well, no First Blood means going first is no longer essentially a freebie KP that only 1 player can ever claim.
If you really want, you could even limit the added Detachment to the same slot set-up as an Allied Detachment. (ie: only 1HQ instead of 2, 1-2 Troops max & only 0-1 of the other slots)
I like the enthusiasm but might be a little harsh on the daemons themselves who did get worse off at shooting. As for the 2++ re-rollable it can come down to the individual TO's on that decision. This discussion is primarily on the rulebook flaws. Not so much stacking game mechanics flaws.
I would also leave secondary of missions up to the TO's. Most dont even use rulebook missions. Kill points the secondary of every mission would crush some armies.
FoC limitation to what we had in 6th edition tournament format seems appropriate.
Come the apocalypse allies doesn't seem broken since it comes with it's own drawbacks.
Unlimited summoning is the issue.
-limiting the power known to a psyker to it's mastery level.
-another possibility would be to end the psychic phase if a peril of the warp is triggered.
-making a power that triggered a peril of the warp FAIL instead of succeed.
-disallowing a summoned demon to take Malefic discipline would be a step in the right direction.
More extreme solution would include relinquishing to the opponent the control of a summoned demon unit if a Peril had triggered during it's casting...
So ... by making Perils a real issue (more than taking a wound), you might limit the use of psyker spam.
and to be honest if you have an army of psyker on the other side, i find it acceptable to not be able to cast a single one of my power during my turn.
that 's my 2 cents
Hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment
Why? The disadvantages from "come the apocalypse" are prety hefty. What crazy/broken lists dose this create?
I fail to see how it's any more unbalenced then the new Battle Brothers for example.
I don't mind something being banned, but their needs to be a REASON to ban it. If someone could explain to be the issue that was created here. If anything my feeling right now is that come-the-apoc helps balence allies in tournies.
No Maelstrom cards
I'm ok with this in a tournment, because well fun they run the risk of slowing down game play. Tournment games need to played quickly after all.
While I agree with your point about the battle reports, we still have no context for a tournament style report.
Where are the reports with nova style terrain in a nova timelimit? Where are the reports with tournament style missions?
Until we see that we cant know for sure if it will be an issue for tournaments.
I think limited changes at most for now.
Fix all the D3 victory points to 2 on maelstrom cards. Be able to redraw for cards you literally cant complete.
Two-three charts max. So something like 1 main, 1 ally, and 1 formation/LOW.
The summoning powers and the invisibility power seem to be just undercosted to me. A real elegant solution is just to bump them up in cost. Probably even just +1 WC could do it. Nudge both up in cost until they are strong but not broken.
Khei99 wrote: FoC limitation to what we had in 6th edition So ... by making Perils a real issue (more than taking a wound)
Have you even read the new Perils of the Warp effect chart?
It's impossible to have a discussion about supposedly fixing 7ed when there are so many uninformed opinions being thrown about.
I'm for unbound armies being allowed. Although I would like to see them held to a two source (primary codex based on warlord, one allied codex, one formation drawn from either codex's available formations) format just to allow the opponent the courtesy of knowing what army it is that they are fighting. Apply the same rule to battleforged armies.
Not sure if the Five Point system I outlined above (loosely) is necessary, but would go a long ways towards limiting unbound armies abilities to min/max a specific build rather than allowing builds that should have been available all along.
Banning Come the Apocalypse allies is terrible. They are already not going to work well together, but removing them bans a lot of army builds that are completely in keeping with 40k lore. Genestealer Cult IG allied with Tyranids, Chaos Knights to name a few. Keep the armies to a two source build and everything will be fine.
Capping WC dice is ridiculous. There was a big nerf to psychic powers, play a few games and you'll quickly see that.
I do not understand how players can think Fateweaver gives 7 WC's, when it is clearly written that he's a ML 4 psyker.
Having played two games with the tactical objective cards, I can say that getting a bad initial draw is certainly not fun if you come up with objectives that are clearly impossible against your current opponent (kill flyers if your opponent has none, cast a pyschic power if you have no psyker). An auto discard would have been nice in those instances.
My lvl 2 librarian has now killed himself in three of my four 7ed games. Last night he exploded and took a good chunk of a command squad with him.
Dice cap limit really hurts Tzeentch armies, yes they are strong in 6th Ed but they didnt run away with each tourny or really smash armies like they did with the flamer screamer spam.
When every thing for tzeentch is psyhic based limiting them to just x amount would mean people just wouldnt take them.
I would say a limit to how many dice you can roll at a spell might be a idea, ala fantsy 6 dicing, this gives you a 65% chance to get a WC3 power off, this will affect all wc3 powers the same. So trying to get summoning off you can only roll 6 dice with a 35% chance of failing 26% chance of perils of the warp (or more if its santic or malefic and not GK/Daemon), then your opponent can deny very slim chance granted but still it does limit the probabilites a lot.
Def limit the FOC to one primary FOC and one ally only, I dont see the problem with d weapons now either which is nice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Dwarf Wolf wrote: What about playing another game? There is a lot of systems out there who are better for this type of thing.
This edition is so broken for competitive game play...
Thanks for the input, hardly constructive to the thread and I do wonder why you are reading.
People who say that "we can't possibly know how the balance has been affected this quick" make me sad.
When it's this ludicrously obvious, it's not really a knee-jerk reaction any more. Just a reaction.
Malefic is far and away OP. It wouldn't be AS bad if the most versatile and commonly used summon spell WASN'T the primaris.
As for what can be done about it, here is my list of...
Ten options to make summon daemons more tournament friendly!
1. Increasing WC cost of any of the summons to 4, thus requiring 10+ dice to cast with good success rate, and also almost ensuring a perils. (In fact, for non-daemons, they literally could not succeed at the power with perils.)
2. Giving each summoned unit an "upkeep," draining the psychic dice that were used to summon them from the controlling player every psychic phase until they die.
3. Have summoned units be "unstable," and fall apart at a rate of 1 wound at the start of each of its controller's turns. Alternatively take daemonic instability tests at the start of every round.
4. Have summoned units be unable to do anything objective-relevant, such as hold, contest, etc.
5. Have daemons be unable to summon other daemons that follow the opposing chaos god. (IE tzeentch models can't summon nurgle etc.) Additional possibility: During a warp storm attack by one of the chaos gods, they will ALWAYS attack a summoned unit of their opposing god, instead of only on a 6.
6. Have each summoner only able to sustain one summon, and be unable to shoot, assault, go to ground, or make attacks in close combat while concentrating on keeping his summons corporeal. If the summoner dies, his summons vanish.
7. Similar to the previous, have a summon "tethered" to its summoner, being unable to leave an 18" area around him. Also similar to the previous, if the summoner dies, the summons vanish. If any model is unable to stay wholly within 18" of the summoner, it is removed from play.
8. Have summons be unable to summon more.
9. Have a periled, failed, or denied summon spells summon models of the opponent's choice. The opponent then gains control of them. (To represent daemonic in-fighting.) Killing these does not satisfy any tactical or secondary objective related to killing the opponent's units. (IE you don't get first blood or a kill point from them.)
10. Limit the psyker phase in tournament play to x minutes (5 seems like it should work.) Any powers not completely resolved in that time are instead failed.
I would most likely want a tournament to run number 2, as well as 4.
Khei99 wrote: FoC limitation to what we had in 6th edition So ... by making Perils a real issue (more than taking a wound)
Have you even read the new Perils of the Warp effect chart?
It's impossible to have a discussion about supposedly fixing 7ed when there are so many uninformed opinions being thrown about.
My lvl 2 librarian has now killed himself in three of my four 7ed games. Last night he exploded and took a good chunk of a command squad with him.
Yes I have read the Peril's chart.
Calling me uninformed is a little childish and unproductive.
Yes, Perils are more dangerous than before, but it's still meaningless to Demons player who can abuse the system.
If you dont care about losing your psyker, nothing prevents your from going all in for every important roll. (like summoning another psyker capable of summoning another squad next turn).
The fact that you lost your librarian to perils of the warp in 3 of 4 games just means you didn't grasp the odds behind Perils or perhaps are not lucky at all.
You can play poker and go All In every hand, but you won't win many games.
Are you suggesting all of these combined or are you throwing these out as stand alone ideas?. Quite a few I would have strong issues with, most of them need a lot of book keeping.
Psyhic phase being 5 mins, yea during your psyhic phase I'll stand there for 4 minutes 50 seconds deciding whether to dispel or not, at 4.59 I say yes and roll all my dice to deny the power then announce the psyhic phase is over. fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So, how about limiting dice per spell to 6 max, limiting who can take Malefic powers (limit to vanilla psykers so basically HQ choices and daemon princes in HS, they are so expensive if they die they lose a lot of points). So no horrors spamming summoning etc.
Useless Tactical Objectives - the ones where you have no chance to get at all - can be immediately discarded and replaced.
Example - getting the Tactical Card for killing flyers against an army without any flyers.
It'll prevent situations like this:
You start off with 3 cards: kill enemy flyers, kill enemy fortification and kill enemy psyker. Your opponent has no flyers, no fortifications and no psykers.
He then draw his 3 cards: Secure Objectives 1, 2 and 3 which his troops are already on.
You're instantly down 0-3 without even having done anything in the game.
That doesn't seem bad, but I would also say if a player gets a free discard because his objectives are impossible his opponent should get the option to discard an equal number of cards.
I would also add that both players should always play from the same deck.
Another really fun element is if the TO really wanted to go the extra mile he could print out a customized deck for the tournament and stuff the new cards in MTG sleeves, and keep the missions cards secret until the tournament.
No Double Force Org removes Marine/Rakuan and other, Eldar/Iyanden, Tau/Farsight, and CSM/Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter. You can't ally with same factions anymore. So you're literally taking armies away from people, ones that people have been playing. And double force org isn't nearly as bad as it seems anymore. The real deal breaker on that one was Flamer/Screamer daemons.
I'd say no come the apocalypse allies, not no desperate, but that's due to fluff on my part, not actual game play. Also several AoC went to desperate so I think they need still be on the table. I think the penalties are fine since we all know how important deployment is in a game.
The rules actually solve the 2+ reroll problem for the most part.
Screw it give double FOC a try. There are a few combinations that might be bad like 6 annihilation barges that will be brutal because of the low cost of the units. Other combos like 6 units of chaos spawn or hell drakes tend to cost so many points that they create serious weakness in the list.
Are we ready for triple or quadruple force org? At this point we start seeing silly things like adding Tigiurius and 2 scout squads as one of the FOC, a grenade caddy inquisitor and nothing else exc exc....
A 2 codex cap + dataslate + fortification seems plenty enough.
Come the apoc should be TO discretion and approved ahead of time. Mostly it should have to pass the rule of cool.
2+ reroll is pretty much gone against shooting, but it's alive and well in close combat thanks to priests joining terminators and/or GK. I think the BAO 4+ on the reroll works just fine.
MarkyMark wrote: Are you suggesting all of these combined or are you throwing these out as stand alone ideas?. Quite a few I would have strong issues with, most of them need a lot of book keeping.
Psyhic phase being 5 mins, yea during your psyhic phase I'll stand there for 4 minutes 50 seconds deciding whether to dispel or not, at 4.59 I say yes and roll all my dice to deny the power then announce the psyhic phase is over. fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So, how about limiting dice per spell to 6 max, limiting who can take Malefic powers (limit to vanilla psykers so basically HQ choices and daemon princes in HS, they are so expensive if they die they lose a lot of points). So no horrors spamming summoning etc.
It's a list of ten options, so no, they're not intended to all be used together. Just to be a list that people can look at to see some options they may have not thought of. I think the "take daemonic instability on all summoned units at the start of the turn" one is pretty fluffy and effective.
Timed psychic phase...there's an unspoken "don't be a complete jerk" rule in there, but if you feel like you must speak it, you can declare that the opponent has 10 seconds to deny. I would think anyone mature enough to dress themselves wouldn't need this rule though. Magic tournies have the "stalling" rule in their tournaments, but even when I was a DCI judge, it barely got touched upon, and they didn't even bother to put any specifics as to what counts in the comprehensive rules. It was never a problem.
Limiting the dice thrown to 6 max sounds creative, but I find the bigger issue is that they can just keep casting the power each turn. And despite what people seem to think, perils really isn't that scary. The odds that something worse than a no-save wound happens to you is really low. This is just top of my head math, but if you have a daemon throw 6 dice at a summon every turn for 5 turns, he will get a dragged into the warp result AND fail the leadership for it one out of twenty games, or 100 turns. Multiply that by say...5 psykers doing the same, and you'll lose one of your five psykers on average every 20 turns, or once every 4 games. The rest of the perils will just be random wounds, and the occasional buff.
I don't think limiting to higher level or higher profile casters will really stop it either. You can still get fatey, 4 heralds, and 3 princes all able and willing in one FOC. At the very least, it would need to be combined with another option.
I can't believe some people are suggesting to allow unbound and super-heavies in standard tournaments. You simply won't win with a TAC army ever unless you get ridiculously lucky with matchmaking, so you might as well play rock paper scissors yourself. If the tournament is big enough someone will run a list that hard-counters yours.
Even absolutely stupid lists are stupidly good against the majority of lists that tried to be decent against everyone. You can get 20+ Annihilation Barges in one army now instead of 3 and they're all scoring, and because of the way Tesla and Gauss work can destroy anything. How has any of you planned to kill things like the Aetaos'rau'keres? The one and only answer was to ground it and then drop 4 Pulsar rounds on it, and both of the options were nerfed.
I think the easiest way to make 7ed playable in tournaments is to play 6th ed, but I look forward to seeing what kind of a leaflet (or book) you guys can come up with to make the game playable.
One major issue I have with any sweeping changes to the psychic phase: This Tzeentch army is actually quite fluffy. It's entirely possible that new player or a fluff bunny builds a mono-tzeentch list with 20+ power dice. Even a mono-slaanesh or nurgle build can get 15 dice without much effort. You need to make sure whatever you want to do accounts for that possibility.
Daemons are just the most in-your-face this-looks-powerful army at the moment. Give it one tournament which gets won by 12 Drop Pods or Invisible Draigowing.
Trasvi wrote: One major issue I have with any sweeping changes to the psychic phase: This Tzeentch army is actually quite fluffy. It's entirely possible that new player or a fluff bunny builds a mono-tzeentch list with 20+ power dice. Even a mono-slaanesh or nurgle build can get 15 dice without much effort. You need to make sure whatever you want to do accounts for that possibility.
Daemons are just the most in-your-face this-looks-powerful army at the moment. Give it one tournament which gets won by 12 Drop Pods or Invisible Draigowing.
While I believe the daemon summon horde is the most powerful list in 40k at the moment, I also realize that it will both lack representation at tournaments due to people not having all the daemon models needed, and it will also not be able to actively play in a tournament due to an incredibly lengthy turn. Long psychic phase, along with deep strikes, followed by running each summoned unit to get them out of "pie plate me" formation. Even quick players will most likely struggle to make it to turn 4 before the clock catches up.
MarkyMark wrote: So you believe something, yes we can theory hammer but if it theory hammer was all we need to do to win tournies, why bother using dice.
I'm sorry? I thought I was on an internet discussion forum, specifically in a "tournament discussions" subforum.
Trasvi wrote: One major issue I have with any sweeping changes to the psychic phase: This Tzeentch army is actually quite fluffy. It's entirely possible that new player or a fluff bunny builds a mono-tzeentch list with 20+ power dice. Even a mono-slaanesh or nurgle build can get 15 dice without much effort. You need to make sure whatever you want to do accounts for that possibility.
Daemons are just the most in-your-face this-looks-powerful army at the moment. Give it one tournament which gets won by 12 Drop Pods or Invisible Draigowing.
While I believe the daemon summon horde is the most powerful list in 40k at the moment, I also realize that it will both lack representation at tournaments due to people not having all the daemon models needed, and it will also not be able to actively play in a tournament due to an incredibly lengthy turn. Long psychic phase, along with deep strikes, followed by running each summoned unit to get them out of "pie plate me" formation. Even quick players will most likely struggle to make it to turn 4 before the clock catches up.
Somehow I don't think a list that will be putting out negligible to almost no damage against their opponent's list for 2 turns is going to be crushing Tournaments like you're Chicken Little'ing here...
Yes we have a video batrap that was horribly fixed to prove a predetermined point.
How about we try putting the so-called "OP Daemon Factory" up against the likes likes of Eldar or IG who will be able to gun down massive chunks of it while it's spending all of it's effort to summon a bunch of weak MSU units.
Daemon Factory isn't overpower, Alpha Strike Armies, Mobile Armies such as Space Marine Bikes, Armies with Barrage Weapons , such as mortars, Wyverns, Thunderfire, Manticores, etc.. Really do cut the armies throat. As it allows them to specifically target the guys that are really going to be bringing in the Daemons the Heralds. It's a huge chunk of the warp power.
CKO wrote: So how do people feel about escalation now that d weapons are toned down?
Much less horrible but still abuseable in small games; a cap on the percentage of your army that can be a superheavy or a "no superheavies below X points" rule would be indicated.
In the general sense once you say "Battle-forged lists only" and cap the number of psychic mastery levels per points on the table (potentially also ban Malefic Daemonology outright, it's too abuseable for Daemons to get to double the size of their army for free and it'd turn the entire game into GK v. Daemons) I think the game has the potential to be one of the most balanced renditions of the core rules in years.
schadenfreude wrote: That doesn't seem bad, but I would also say if a player gets a free discard because his objectives are impossible his opponent should get the option to discard an equal number of cards.
Why should the other player get a discard? This isn't a voluntary discard to try to get objectives that are better for your plans, it's fixing the problem of cards/table options that shouldn't exist at all.
Another really fun element is if the TO really wanted to go the extra mile he could print out a customized deck for the tournament and stuff the new cards in MTG sleeves, and keep the missions cards secret until the tournament.
This is a terrible idea, and allows the gimmick of mystery objectives to dominate the game and minimize the importance of what's actually happening on the table. Missions should always be public and posted in advance so that everyone knows what they are.
Come the apoc should be TO discretion and approved ahead of time. Mostly it should have to pass the rule of cool.
Absolutely not. The TO should never be allowed to decide whether or not an army is legal based on how much they like it. This kind of idiotic "I don't like your fluff" comp rule disappeared for a reason, please don't try to bring it back.
Another really fun element is if the TO really wanted to go the extra mile he could print out a customized deck for the tournament and stuff the new cards in MTG sleeves, and keep the missions cards secret until the tournament.
This is a terrible idea, and allows the gimmick of mystery objectives to dominate the game and minimize the importance of what's actually happening on the table. Missions should always be public and posted in advance so that everyone knows what they are.
Many other games systems use hidden objectives to create a fun system.
As far as I can tell, the Escalation book itself is effectively obsolete and replaced by the core rulebook, the only relevance it really has is its special missions if you want to run those (and a selection of some Lord of War units), otherwise the option to take superheavies and gargantuan creatures is built right into the basic FoC out of the rulebook.
Vaktathi wrote: As far as I can tell, the Escalation book itself is effectively obsolete and replaced by the core rulebook, the only relevance it really has is its special missions if you want to run those (and a selection of some Lord of War units), otherwise the option to take superheavies and gargantuan creatures is built right into the basic FoC out of the rulebook.
There are also the Warlord trait options that are available if your opponent is fielding a LoW, assuming those are still considered to be part of the game.
*Limiting the game to the OP's force org and ally keeps the game in 6th edition release. Were going to see the same lists as before. Eldar, tau, demons. Etc. There is noting wrong with detachments or fortifications.
*maelstrom cards should be in. This allows a weaker army set up a chance to still win, tie, or be close in points. You could still win games in 40k with 4 models left on the table in 6th edition. Only because you secured the objectives. I have crushed an opponent on the table but still only get half battle points because of current missions. There isn't anything wrong with D3 obj, they usually reward you for doing above and beyond the objective. It adds flavor to the games, and I think that tournaments should take advantage of this mission type to help balance armies.
As long as TO don't give EXTRA battle points for winning the game, example: primary obj, score 4 more obj points to get max battle points, secondary score 2 more obj points to get half battle points, etc....that's garbage and screws people...it screws people in 6th with current rules.
* Psyker phase, I see no problem with how it is currently. I do not agree with the notation of limiting warp charges.
I have seen people fuss about invisibility and changing it..BS.
*invisibility - it's fine. Everyone almost can take it and it's random if you get it. You can deny it, save your deny dice for it, twin link stuff or master craft.
*hidden objectives - garbage.
People tried to change the game when 6th came out, and swore allies would break the game etc. Just play.
MLKTH wrote: What I'm planning as a TO is a limit of two detachments (so you can either double-up on your primary, take an ally OR take a formation) and a limit on number of warp charges per list (something like 10). I think this would keep things sane enough. If 2++ rerollables are still a problem, that could additionally still be nerfed LVO-style.
I'd never use maelstrom of war missions in a tournament, because they're too random and I can't really expect everyone to have the deck, but I'd like to try and create scenarios that use some of the new elements.
I would not go to this type of tournament. Sounds like your playing a completely different game...
MLKTH wrote: What I'm planning as a TO is a limit of two detachments (so you can either double-up on your primary, take an ally OR take a formation) and a limit on number of warp charges per list (something like 10). I think this would keep things sane enough. If 2++ rerollables are still a problem, that could additionally still be nerfed LVO-style.
I'd never use maelstrom of war missions in a tournament, because they're too random and I can't really expect everyone to have the deck, but I'd like to try and create scenarios that use some of the new elements.
niv-mizzet wrote:
While I believe the daemon summon horde is the most powerful list in 40k at the moment, I also realize that it will both lack representation at tournaments due to people not having all the daemon models needed
I've ceased to be amazed at the things people will buy to play in a tournament. Besides, having 200 daemons isn't that much different than having 200 orks. I could field either tomorrow...
, and it will also not be able to actively play in a tournament due to an incredibly lengthy turn. Long psychic phase, along with deep strikes, followed by running each summoned unit to get them out of "pie plate me" formation. Even quick players will most likely struggle to make it to turn 4 before the clock catches up.
Which may play to the daemon player's advantage. Consider, if I, the daemon player, draw a hand that nets me a quick 3 VP, I may be happy to spend an hour summoning units, denying you time to catch up. But if you get the better hand of cards, I can play faster, or forgo summoning, in favor of getting better cards/more points.
Anything that can take a long time is to the advantage of the player controlling that action.
Since many of you all are "trying" to change the rules of the game and how it's played.
1. Overwatch - only a single snap shot may be fired from each model.
2. Assaults - d6 +6
3. You may now assault out of a transport.
There yah go - this would help make CC armies more "balanced" in tournaments when playing against shooty armies.
Seriously...why play the game if your changing rules? My rule change suggestions are just as legit as the anyone one else's in this thread, but it won't happen. Why? Because people played each new rule set and conformed to its rules.
If we were two to three months out I MIGHT think that it would be valid to talk about making changes. However it has not even been a week and people are trying to say something hypothetical is going to be broken in tournaments. Lets see some tournament games with armies designed for 7th edition(IE not static gunlines) and see how this broken combo works.
Leth wrote: If we were two to three months out I MIGHT think that it would be valid to talk about making changes. However it has not even been a week and people are trying to say something hypothetical is going to be broken in tournaments. Lets see some tournament games with armies designed for 7th edition(IE not static gunlines) and see how this broken combo works.
One does not have to have lit a cat on fire "before" to able to predict the end results. There are people here who have played for more than half their lives, literally decades, and they are likely able to read rules and make fairly accurate predictions of how that will incentivize list building and the overall direction of the game err "meta" as some say.
Leth wrote: If we were two to three months out I MIGHT think that it would be valid to talk about making changes. However it has not even been a week and people are trying to say something hypothetical is going to be broken in tournaments. Lets see some tournament games with armies designed for 7th edition(IE not static gunlines) and see how this broken combo works.
One does not have to have lit a cat on fire "before" to able to predict the end results. There are people here who have played for more than half their lives, literally decades, and they are likely able to read rules and make fairly accurate predictions of how that will incentivize list building and the overall direction of the game err "meta" as some say.
Actually many of the people who have that much experience are also saying wait it out and see if it works because they know we don't have enough data to know for sure. Incentivize list building is all about the missions. Until you know what the win objectives are you cant incentivize much of anything.
People can predict what is a statistically better choice but how long before they fine tune it? We still have no idea how everything interacts on the table right now, we also have to remember that many people are just prone to seeing a possibility and making that that the norm, so to respond to such is not a good way to limit what you want to limit.
Leth wrote: If we were two to three months out I MIGHT think that it would be valid to talk about making changes. However it has not even been a week and people are trying to say something hypothetical is going to be broken in tournaments. Lets see some tournament games with armies designed for 7th edition(IE not static gunlines) and see how this broken combo works.
One does not have to have lit a cat on fire "before" to able to predict the end results. There are people here who have played for more than half their lives, literally decades, and they are likely able to read rules and make fairly accurate predictions of how that will incentivize list building and the overall direction of the game err "meta" as some say.
Actually many of the people who have that much experience are also saying wait it out and see if it works because they know we don't have enough data to know for sure. Incentivize list building is all about the missions. Until you know what the win objectives are you cant incentivize much of anything.
People can predict what is a statistically better choice but how long before they fine tune it? We still have no idea how everything interacts on the table right now, we also have to remember that many people are just prone to seeing a possibility and making that that the norm, so to respond to such is not a good way to limit what you want to limit.
You don't need to measure the length of the cat's hair or record in detail the colour, it burns all the same. The plural of anecdote is not data.
We don't even have a game to examine the impacts of list building in, we have a sandbox. If no one is even playing the same game, good luck getting a baseline.
I respect that mike brandt is gonna take some time before he makes any decisions, that's fine, but that's not the same as denigrating others who can read the writing on the wall, the whole sky is falling accuse anyone of knee jerking is pretty disrespectful to the collective intelligence of 40k players. Much the same, if someone tells me these problems won't be as big a deal in his or her gaming group, I'm likely to believe them. That doesn't mean I know what game they are playing.
But one should probably make sure it's actually a cat before you light it on fire and call it a cat.
As somone who has played for a very long time and been heavily involved in the tournament scene since I started I'm of the opinion to play 7th edition as written.
And no, saying no Unbound is not changing the rules. It's specifying the armies permitted which is different than changing how battle forged works or the psychic phase.
Leth wrote: If we were two to three months out I MIGHT think that it would be valid to talk about making changes. However it has not even been a week and people are trying to say something hypothetical is going to be broken in tournaments. Lets see some tournament games with armies designed for 7th edition(IE not static gunlines) and see how this broken combo works.
One does not have to have lit a cat on fire "before" to able to predict the end results. There are people here who have played for more than half their lives, literally decades, and they are likely able to read rules and make fairly accurate predictions of how that will incentivize list building and the overall direction of the game err "meta" as some say.
Actually many of the people who have that much experience are also saying wait it out and see if it works because they know we don't have enough data to know for sure. Incentivize list building is all about the missions. Until you know what the win objectives are you cant incentivize much of anything.
People can predict what is a statistically better choice but how long before they fine tune it? We still have no idea how everything interacts on the table right now, we also have to remember that many people are just prone to seeing a possibility and making that that the norm, so to respond to such is not a good way to limit what you want to limit.
Agree pretty much with this. I don't mind some of the things in the first post, but banning CtA allies? Its BB allies which are more of a problem, as they were through 6th. Most tournaments still allowed allies though they lead, and still do tip the scales of balance a bit far. Possibly bit biased though, read down the list and my head was going 1. No Nids. 2. No Nids. 3. No Nids.
Limiting or restricting anything in the current rules is not easy. Any limitation has to be weighed against every army and possible outcomes for each - by trying to stop one army tipping the balance you can easily gimp another. And -everyone- has their own idea on how to balance, and any changes which nerf will also be held in contempt by your audience. Yay TO's.
Of course, different tournaments will have different takes all the time. I would prefer unbound vs unbound and such, least at first, players need to be eased in.
I say balance through the missions, not through significant rules changes.
Cap on Warp Charges? Possibly but not the 10 I was seeing thrown around.
I say give people time to adjust to the edition and see where all the problems are before hammering one down and leaving another issue.
Limit the force org? I think that one is fine as in one primary, one ally.
The goal is to limit the extremes not create a whole new game. But we wont know how the extremes need to be limited(if at all) until we see the extent of the problem.
I would rather have options and agree to limit them than not have the options at all.
Leth wrote: Limit the force org? I think that one is fine as in one primary, one ally.
I would agree with that, but I've already been accused of "whining, knee jerking and proclaiming the sky is falling" on various forums for even making that suggestion. And I don't think it's fair, having used an foc for over a decade, it's safe to say I understand the relationship between it and what can be put in a list.
Regardless of how powerful the Summoning Farm list idea is or is not, do we not agree that it is an issue when allowed in a game based around having 2 armies with equal points values?
I have always, and will always be opposed to any rule that gives one player more resources on the battlefield than another. The concept that makes a points based system meaningful is that both players start the game with the same number of points, which in theory equate to resources. When one player can create more resources and another cannot, this breaks the very foundation of the game system.
I hate Tervigons, Portal Glyphes, Skyblight Gargoyles, etc. and I have never understood why these things get a pass. Probably because they were not able to create free units on this scale, but the point is the same.
In a fair, and there fore competitive game the resources available to each player should be the same, creating more resources destroys this balance. I say ban the Malific Table. Even if your not making daemons, you are basically hunting cursed earth, which is yet another way to combo with the Grim. of True Names to get a 2++ save, no need to hunt Forewarning any more. What is worse, the buff is to all units within 12 inches of the caster... and it's WC 1 !!!
I disagree with no double force org but that's mostly because I feel like with allies from the same faction we get the same thing anyway.
This is mostly in response to the other thread we were derailing but Ritides mentioned seeing the super cheap super unit in 6's instead of 4's could be intimidating. I figured we could take a look at some of the undercosted and most used units and see if spamming is that bad:
-Heralds...oops, if we allow allying with ones self we get 8 no matter what.
-Thunderfire Cannons - 600pts. Good but also requiring 4 troops and 2 HQ's. And they aren't that great without the ability to walk blasts back.
-Wyverns - Extremely solid. May have a case for 4 instead of 6 but since you can already take 9 I'm not seeing the issue really. Oh, and you can also PotMS them too so even the number vs. targets is already doable. (Extra troop choice washes cost for 2 techpriests)
-Annihilation Barges - Again, awesome. But each one taken is one less flyer. We've already know how much tesla fits in a necron list. This isn't going to increase it noticably without draining from other essential portions of the list.
-Psyback Henchmen are probably the worst. 12 Psybacks w/Acolytes & Psykers for 816pts is pretty insane (well 1k once you include the actual HQ's). But has 36 TL St6 Really broken the game yet? Heck, you can get more shots out of 4 Serpents for approximately the same points.
The long and short is that most units, even the undercosted ones, are to expensive to truly spam beyond 4 or start to detract fro the army in other major ways. So what is the difference between allied & additional FOC outside of limiting MSU which helps the armies we currently hate (deathstars & 2++) and armies the internet already hates (daemon summoning armies)?
Kal-El wrote: One primary and one ally? No way. Even 6th allows primary, an ally, a IK or inqusitor and fort.
There is only so much you can cram into 1500-2000 points. The way the 7th book is isn't broke. Just play it, mess around, test and you will see.
And apocalypse allows players whatever they want, did that make it better than 40k? For some yes, for others no.
I guess the difference is before you could simply choose one, the other or play both on occasion.
Try sharing a hamburger where one guy wants everything on it and other just wants a burger and a bun. I'm a picky eater myself.
Having to take things out shows how bloated the last two editions have been. A lean and mean core game would not detract from those that want to play casual, loose or "unbound" by an foc.
Hulksmash wrote: -Psyback Henchmen are probably the worst. 12 Psybacks w/Acolytes & Psykers for 816pts is pretty insane (well 1k once you include the actual HQ's). But has 36 TL St6 Really broken the game yet? Heck, you can get more shots out of 4 Serpents for approximately the same points.
I dunno, that one does sound pretty bad . You're better at thinking up the scary spam lists than I am...
I'm open to considering 2 FOC allowed... but 1 FOC plus 1 Ally (perhaps allowing self-allying to make up for restricting to 1 FOC) sounds much better...
You'd then have:
3 HQ 8 Troops
4 Fast
4 Elite
4 Heavy
If you allow dataslates too, then you've got even more options. But 12 Psybacks with Psykers inside for 816 does sound like the kind of thing that will make this game un-fun with 2 FOC. Can't most armies combat deathstars with the slots I listed above, plus dataslates? 2 FOCs seems to take the pendulum all the way the other direction... and unlike 6th, limiting point levels doesn't automatically take away the multiple FOC.
I really should say multiple, since the book has no limit lol. Let's talk 18 Psybacks with Psykers inside for 1224
Except that with that with FOC & Self Ally I can still run 12 Psybacks. The difference being that 4 of them have to come from other units which might not be as cheap but add even more to the army.
Heck, I can run 12 Psybacks now with 30 MEQ's and 6 Henchmen Squads for less than 1500pts. So if it's unfun to play against 36 shots a turn in boxes that can already be done. That's kinda the point, most of the abusive stuff can still already be done. Expanding it doesn't make it worse and gives you more flexibility for dealing with meta shifts.
Additionally, and from a purely selfish viewpoint, it allows modelers who like to build crazy custom and thematic armies a wider branch to pull from
@Hulk, thanks for the reply from the other thread here...
I definitely have a biased towards the Twin cities based tourneys as those are the ones I am likely able to attend year in and out now that the bug has bitten, possibly Bugeater.
I think it's definitely easy to get wrapped up in the "holy crap, they are 6 necron AB's" without seeing the big picture. Thanks for a little bit of perspective.
I am definitely in the position where if i were to see 6 riptides across the table with some markerlight support, that i am going to be in a bad spot. just a random example.
but to put it in perspective, the 5 games i got in over Darkstar represented more games I had with the 6th edition Tyranid codex prior to that.
Hulksmash wrote: Except that with that with FOC & Self Ally I can still run 12 Psybacks. The difference being that 4 of them have to come from other units which might not be as cheap but add even more to the army.
Heck, I can run 12 Psybacks now with 30 MEQ's and 6 Henchmen Squads for less than 1500pts. So if it's unfun to play against 36 shots a turn in boxes that can already be done. That's kinda the point, most of the abusive stuff can still already be done. Expanding it doesn't make it worse and gives you more flexibility for dealing with meta shifts.
Additionally, and from a purely selfish viewpoint, it allows modelers who like to build crazy custom and thematic armies a wider branch to pull from
Well, 1500 points is a lot more than 816 . Or if we go "RAW, no restrictions" and allow 3 FOC... 18 Psybacks for 1224 (plus HQs).
So, it's not really the same, as you will see what you currently see, but a LOT more of it!
I am all for thematic armies, that's what I go for, too . And 12 dreadnoughts has it's appeals for me. But I'd be willing to go with 8 (which I could run with 1 FOC and an ally), as I can still have a pretty insane theme with that many.
You missed the point by a bit. The twelve razorbacks are not that great. Adding 30 meq with those razors all woth specials is exponentially better. Well worth double the points. But that response was almost entirely in response to 12 razors being unfu to play against.
And i thought i had been pretty open about wanting a 3 org limit but being willing to do two. Which is what weve been discussing. Either 2 force orgs or foc and allies.
i talk to team stomping grounds and frontline gaming,we they both agree that the allied matrix where you can do stupid things with it and stuff,they like even with come to apoc,but you can only bring 2 detachments primary and allied,and the deamons stuff is dumb with summons and people are forgetting plus one to your invule save for deamons to a 4 up invule,i think that would help and no dam missions cards and stuff,just have battlepoints to your mission score and to me since everything is about scoring it evens out,i mybe wrong what do you think?
No worries. Im in the cities too. And i wouldnt sweat it to much. The local scene is a good one to play in amd learn the game. Mostly because it doesnt freak out to much beyond some silly hyperbole for fun. Check out frozen north on facebook for a huge group of cities gamers.
Hey Hulk, sorry about that- I didn't mean the 3 FOC comment to be directed at you, but more generally (i.e. to someone saying no tweak would be needed).
And I defer to you on what is best, you have a lot better handle on it- I guess I was listing 18 razors full of psykers as being even more "unfun" to play against than 12 but it's probably more S6 than anyone would ever want (especially with the likely arms race up to AV13-14 vehicles given the change to the armor penetration table).
I meant that post to be still in the vein of thinking out loud and not necessarily jumping to conclusions... I'm totally planning my "dreadgasm" army right now but how many I cram in is something I'm considering in light of tournaments, since I like to build towards events. Obviously there's no way to know what will be allowed yet... so really just bouncing ideas around here.
I'm by far not an experienced tournament player, actually i've yet to play my first tournament. That said, with the rules being proposed here i don't think i would ever go to a tournament.
The thing that i think should be absolutely kept of the 7Th for a more fun tournament scene is: Maelstrom missions.
I would never go to a tournament that does not allow those. You can make those less random, there are many ways:
1) A free mulligan on the first draw.
2) Redraw impossible objectives.
3) Capture objectives can't be completed in the first turn in your deployment area.
4) When you draw you draw 2 and pick one.
5) d3=2
Choose one or more. There are many ways to tone down the randomness if that is a problem, but they are really beneficial to the game. The tournament scene right now is either gunlines or deathstars, which are the direct counters. The FOC limitations seems so important due to this, gunlines favor the non-troop models, so the more i can cheat the FOC the better is my army.
Both gunlines and deathstars though are weak in a scenario where you need number of units, many troops and high mobility. Maelstrom missions are the best thing GW gave us in 7Th, the perfect answer to our sick meta, why would want to discard it?
Let's fix maelstrom to a more tournament oriented rule set and at the same time allow everything from 7Th. Let's wait for this new meta to form (which no amount of experience can predict) and then let's make decisions.
I like the idea of making it so that you automatically score any objectives that are impossible against your opponent's army. Taking armies that ignore core elements of the game should be punished, not rewarded.
Really? So because I don't take a flyer, but instead take an anti-flyer unit (like a Stalker/Hunter) you should get a free point for supposedly killing my flyer?
RiTides wrote: Really? So because I don't take a flyer, but instead take an anti-flyer unit (like a Stalker/Hunter) you should get a free point for supposedly killing my flyer?
That seems... really off, imo.
Yes. People will adapt and start fielding more inclusive armies, and that'll be good for the game.
RiTides wrote: Really? So because I don't take a flyer, but instead take an anti-flyer unit (like a Stalker/Hunter) you should get a free point for supposedly killing my flyer?
That seems... really off, imo.
Yes. People will adapt and start fielding more inclusive armies, and that'll be good for the game.
It's never a good idea to force someone to have to run certain units. For example, I don't like flyers and now I am getting penalized for it?!?
Ok, here are my suggestions on what to do with the Psychic Phase:
1. Distributed Casting. No unit can use more dice than 2x his Mastery level, plus 1/2 of the D6 pooled dice (unless there is only 1 psyker in that army, which can then use all of the D6 pooled dice).
Here’s the problem that this is trying to fix. Say you have a Lvl 3 Daemon Prince with Invisibility, the Summoning and Iron Arm. On average, it’ll take 2 dice to cast a Warp Charge 1 power with any reliablity (75% chance). Thus, to cast Summoning somewhat reliably, you need 6 dice, 4 dice for Invisibility and 2 dice for Iron Arm. Now he’s only got 6 (Level 3) +D3 dice so he needs to choose carefully which power he wants to cast.
This also forces you to allocate some dice for lesser units like Pink Horrors to cast their powers. In short, you cannot use all the dice in the dice pool just to cast the most important powers on just a couple of very important psykers. Instead, you are forced to spread out the dice.
2. Limited Summoning. Cannot successfully bring in more than 1 unit per turn using Malefic Powers (including Summoning, Incursion, Sacrifice and Possession). This should make the game manageable.
3. The New Invisibility. Any unit that shoots or assaults the targeted unit does so at BS1/WS1.
4. Deny. You can only ever use as much Denial dice as 2x the opponent’s Power Dice, plus the D6 pooled dice.
My thoughts on changes that need to be considered. Tier 1 changes are changes that need to be changed at a basic level. Tier 2 are changes that can be handled local by each tournament but need to be addressed.
Tier 1 changes • Invisibility o Suggestions
-Remove the need to hit on 6’s or have it a negative to hit the unit including in melee
- Revert back to shroud and stealth.
- -2 Bs when shooting at the unit and -1WS/-1 I in melee with the unit
- Other suggestions?
• Malefic removal of powers or Daemonlogy -Remove Daemonlogy power
-Upkeep on summon units
- Look at adding summoning sickness or some type of limitations on Summoning
• Psychic Phase cap limitation of dice – What scaling of powers should be casted for a power. -No cap depending on malefic removal of dice
-12 +d6 cap limit – Estimate 4 level 1 powers would be casted
-18+D6 Cap limit – Estimate 6 level 1 powers could be casted
-24+D6 cap limit – Estimate 9 level 1 powers could be casted
- Limit the number of dice a caster can throw at a power to ML+1 so a ML 1 caster could throw two warp charges at a power. Level 3 could throw 4.
• Deny the witch -Bonuse to deny the witch mechanic in conjunction with blessings only.
-Difference in psyker level add +1
- Adamantium will add +1 to deny the witch on blessing
• Maelstrom mission card mechanic change -Add a mulligan mechanic
-If player doesn’t possess units that are needed to secure the objective, discard objective card and pull an additional card.
- Ability to discard one or two cards per turn
• Reroll 2+ mechanic - 3+/3+ is the best roll you can achieve
-Any reroll of a 2+ save afterwards turns into a 4+ save.
Tier 2 - changes that can be done at the tournament themselves such as the tournament packet. • Force organization change – Can be done at each tournament themselves -What is a source?
-Limits on Forge organization chart
-How many sources can you pull from?
• Terrain rules -Tournaments describe area terrain and what counts being in Terrain
- Terrain coverage rules
-25% terrain determination.
• LOS rules -Can a foot anywhere on the model count as LOS? Change to line of sight to the models eyes.
Changes that should be considered • Ignore cover -Change this to -2 to a cover save
• Snap shot mechanic -Make this -2 to snap shots
• Jink -Unable to Jink if the model hasn't moved or immobilized.
• Barrage -Barrage can now hit any floor anywhere – put limitations on it? Should it be only the top floor
• Hit and run - All models must have hit and run instead one model that possess hit and run gives it to a whole unit or IC’s cannot pass hit and run to a unit unless the whole unit has hit and run.
Sorry for some reason it isn't liking the formatting on my bullet points...
1. Distributed Casting. No unit can use more dice than 2x his Mastery level, plus 1/2 of the D6 pooled dice (unless there is only 1 psyker in that army, which can then use all of the D6 pooled dice).
Here’s the problem that this is trying to fix. Say you have a Lvl 3 Daemon Prince with Invisibility, the Summoning and Iron Arm. On average, it’ll take 2 dice to cast a Warp Charge 1 power with any reliablity (75% chance). Thus, to cast Summoning somewhat reliably, you need 6 dice, 4 dice for Invisibility and 2 dice for Iron Arm. Now he’s only got 6 (Level 3) +D3 dice so he needs to choose carefully which power he wants to cast.
This also forces you to allocate some dice for lesser units like Pink Horrors to cast their powers. In short, you cannot use all the dice in the dice pool just to cast the most important powers on just a couple of very important psykers. Instead, you are forced to spread out the dice.
This might be ok if you could allocate spells with any kind of reliability between psykers. However because it is random, you'll end up getting 3 good powers on one psyker and 3 naff ones on another. It just ends up meaning that you end up casting maybe one power per army... Or you get Prescience on a Lv1 psyker and can't cast it because you can only use 2 dice but need 5.
2. Limited Summoning. Cannot successfully bring in more than 1 unit per turn using Malefic Powers (including Summoning, Incursion, Sacrifice and Possession). This should make the game manageable.
This would make the game easy, not 'manageable'. Summoning armies could not exist with this. And before you shout that that is a good thing: try and build a competitive daemon list now without using summoning.
3. The New Invisibility. Any unit that shoots or assaults the targeted unit does so at BS1/WS1.
I'm in support of this, because it removes the immune to blast part of the rule while preserving the spirit. Maybe add 'successful blast hits must be re-rolled' or something to make blasts not the immediate counter.
4. Deny. You can only ever use as much Denial dice as 2x the opponent’s Power Dice, plus the D6 pooled dice.
This makes deny very unlikely for WC2 and 3 powers. One of the counters to the new psychic phase is that everything can be denied. I think a bigger problem is that no-one has cottoned on to building psychic defense in to your army. The Psychic phase isn't that different to the Fantasy magic phase, and if you show up there without a single wizard, you've just built a terrible list and deserve to lose just as much as if you build with no anti-tank. We're just not in that mindset yet for 40k.
If you want to stop summoning, target summoning rather than the Psychic phase in general. Best ideas I've seen are: - Summoned Daemons must take a Daemonic Instability test at the start of every turn - Summoned Daemons must pay an upkeep cost of 1-2 WC per turn. - Summoned Daemons must be upkept by *harnessing* 1 WC per unit per turn. - Summoned Daemons do not gain Objective Secured.
1. Distributed Casting. No unit can use more dice than 2x his Mastery level, plus 1/2 of the D6 pooled dice (unless there is only 1 psyker in that army, which can then use all of the D6 pooled dice).
Here’s the problem that this is trying to fix. Say you have a Lvl 3 Daemon Prince with Invisibility, the Summoning and Iron Arm. On average, it’ll take 2 dice to cast a Warp Charge 1 power with any reliablity (75% chance). Thus, to cast Summoning somewhat reliably, you need 6 dice, 4 dice for Invisibility and 2 dice for Iron Arm. Now he’s only got 6 (Level 3) +D3 dice so he needs to choose carefully which power he wants to cast.
This also forces you to allocate some dice for lesser units like Pink Horrors to cast their powers. In short, you cannot use all the dice in the dice pool just to cast the most important powers on just a couple of very important psykers. Instead, you are forced to spread out the dice.
This might be ok if you could allocate spells with any kind of reliability between psykers. However because it is random, you'll end up getting 3 good powers on one psyker and 3 naff ones on another. It just ends up meaning that you end up casting maybe one power per army... Or you get Prescience on a Lv1 psyker and can't cast it because you can only use 2 dice but need 5.
The idea is that the psykers are forced to spread the warp dice and not allow 1 single psyker to cast all the powers. So if you have 1 psyker with all the good powers, now he has to make a choice as to which power he needs to cast. This will help to limit all the psychic craziness as well. And there shouldn't be such a thing as a psyker with all bad powers. At the very least, they can attempt the Primaris or do something like cast Flickering Fire (for Tzeentch daemons). What it will force you to do is to even out the casting so that all psykers will be able to do something rather than spending 18 dice out of, say 20 dice, on just 1 psyker casting 3 powerful spells whereas everyone else just sits and watches.
2. Limited Summoning. Cannot successfully bring in more than 1 unit per turn using Malefic Powers (including Summoning, Incursion, Sacrifice and Possession). This should make the game manageable.
This would make the game easy, not 'manageable'. Summoning armies could not exist with this. And before you shout that that is a good thing: try and build a competitive daemon list now without using summoning.
It would make the game more manageable in terms of Time. In terms of tournament play, which is what this thread is about, overloading the psychic phase with multiple summonings a turn is what will slow the game to a crawl.
And if you think that the only way daemons can remain competitive is to overload on Summoning, then you are sorely mistaken. My advice - DON'T RELY ON SUMMONING as your main strategy. Play a more well-rounded....and dare I say, a funner game.
4. Deny. You can only ever use as much Denial dice as 2x the opponent’s Power Dice, plus the D6 pooled dice.
This makes deny very unlikely for WC2 and 3 powers. One of the counters to the new psychic phase is that everything can be denied.
I think a bigger problem is that no-one has cottoned on to building psychic defense in to your army. The Psychic phase isn't that different to the Fantasy magic phase, and if you show up there without a single wizard, you've just built a terrible list and deserve to lose just as much as if you build with no anti-tank. We're just not in that mindset yet for 40k.
This is how it works. Let's say you have a marine army with 1 Lvl 2 psyker (and thus, 2 warp dice) going against a daemon army with 30 dice. There is no way in heck he will ever be able to cast any powers. The intent of this rule is to curb that. So in this case, the marines can use 2+D6 dice to cast his spells, whereas the daemon army can only use 4+D6 dice to deny it. Otherwise, there is almost no way in hell to get off any power against Daemons or the Grey Knights or Tyranids or the Seer Council for a normal army.
Moreover, why are you forced to spam psykers just to keep up with daemons, grey knights and tyranids? Am I pigeonholed into running 4 rune priests in my Space Wolves list when I actually wanted to run Logan and and a Thunderwolf Lord? The over-the-top psychic phase is going to stymie variety. Now it's going to be you either run lots of psykers or don't even bother running them at all.
If you want to stop summoning, target summoning rather than the Psychic phase in general. Best ideas I've seen are:
- Summoned Daemons must take a Daemonic Instability test at the start of every turn
- Summoned Daemons must pay an upkeep cost of 1-2 WC per turn.
- Summoned Daemons must be upkept by *harnessing* 1 WC per unit per turn.
- Summoned Daemons do not gain Objective Secured.
Decent solutions. I especially like the "Do not gain OS" rule. However, they don't do anything to address the Time issue with regards to tournament play. As a matter of fact, with the exception of the last one, they add to the Time issue as you are forced to do more bookkeeping.
Darkwynn wrote: My thoughts on changes that need to be considered. Tier 1 changes are changes that need to be changed at a basic level. Tier 2 are changes that can be handled local by each tournament but need to be addressed.
Tier 1 changes • Invisibility o Suggestions
-Remove the need to hit on 6’s or have it a negative to hit the unit including in melee
- Revert back to shroud and stealth.
- -2 Bs when shooting at the unit and -1WS/-1 I in melee with the unit
- Other suggestions?
• Malefic removal of powers or Daemonlogy -Remove Daemonlogy power
-Upkeep on summon units
- Look at adding summoning sickness or some type of limitations on Summoning
• Psychic Phase cap limitation of dice – What scaling of powers should be casted for a power. -No cap depending on malefic removal of dice
-12 +d6 cap limit – Estimate 4 level 1 powers would be casted
-18+D6 Cap limit – Estimate 6 level 1 powers could be casted
-24+D6 cap limit – Estimate 9 level 1 powers could be casted
- Limit the number of dice a caster can throw at a power to ML+1 so a ML 1 caster could throw two warp charges at a power. Level 3 could throw 4.
• Deny the witch -Bonuse to deny the witch mechanic in conjunction with blessings only.
-Difference in psyker level add +1
- Adamantium will add +1 to deny the witch on blessing
• Maelstrom mission card mechanic change -Add a mulligan mechanic
-If player doesn’t possess units that are needed to secure the objective, discard objective card and pull an additional card.
- Ability to discard one or two cards per turn
• Reroll 2+ mechanic - 3+/3+ is the best roll you can achieve
-Any reroll of a 2+ save afterwards turns into a 4+ save.
Tier 2 - changes that can be done at the tournament themselves such as the tournament packet. • Force organization change – Can be done at each tournament themselves -What is a source?
-Limits on Forge organization chart
-How many sources can you pull from?
• Terrain rules -Tournaments describe area terrain and what counts being in Terrain
- Terrain coverage rules
-25% terrain determination.
• LOS rules -Can a foot anywhere on the model count as LOS? Change to line of sight to the models eyes.
Changes that should be considered • Ignore cover -Change this to -2 to a cover save
• Snap shot mechanic -Make this -2 to snap shots
• Jink -Unable to Jink if the model hasn't moved or immobilized.
• Barrage -Barrage can now hit any floor anywhere – put limitations on it? Should it be only the top floor
• Hit and run - All models must have hit and run instead one model that possess hit and run gives it to a whole unit or IC’s cannot pass hit and run to a unit unless the whole unit has hit and run.
Sorry for some reason it isn't liking the formatting on my bullet points...
Welcome to the thread Nick.
I like most of the suggestions. Can you elaborate further on your warp charge cap area? I am not sure I like being able to deny blessings with adamantium will as that is geared more to the individual model stopping things that are affecting them. I can give adamantium will to my AM vehicles and that would help me dispel your blessings on the other side of the battlefield. I do like that psykers might help dispel. Perhaps something attuned to fantasy where you get a +1 the dispel dice for a psyker you have but if you fail to deny then you cant use that psyker anymore. Note that this isnt cumulative as I would not want to see level 3 or 4 psykers shut down an entire army.
Also i just noted that the option to jink isnt removed if a model is immobilized. That is one elusive vehicle that is stuck in the mud over there.
For the psychic powers I like the idea of trying to balance it out with those new units being unstable. It is actually fluffy as those models need a warp rift to help keep them around as they will eventually dematerialize.
@thread: For the psychic phase and in particular some of the broken powers we need to find a solution that the majority of people agree upon. This is so we have one ruling that can be expected at a majority of events that we attend. There are a couple of good suggestions but not very many are on the same page.
@ Those who dont believe there is a problem: I realize you are weary of modifying the ruleset and creating hopefully a more balanced system. TBH 6th was getting to the point of needing fixed. 7th took it a step further. We cant act like this is the first time change has been suggested. How many tournaments in 6th edition did you see stronghold assault allowed, escalation, or some of the data slates? There were things that were banned from larger tournaments because of balance issues. I am not saying that unbound cant be played, or you cant run tactical objectives. By all means play them all you want. However, if you are looking to play in a competitive based tournament then I would not expect them. TO's as a whole like to level the field as much as possible so as to not see one or two broken combinations or complete out of the control randomness decide the fate of a game. If you play the maelstrom from war missions you could play a flawless game tactically and still lose miserably based completely on drawing some crappy cards. Players love the new psychic phase until they realize with the current ruleset only 3 to 4 armies will be able to use it regularly(daemons, eldar, GK/Inquisition, and maybe tyranids).
I like most of the suggestions. Can you elaborate further on your warp charge cap area? I am not sure I like being able to deny blessings with adamantium will as that is geared more to the individual model stopping things that are affecting them. I can give adamantium will to my AM vehicles and that would help me dispel your blessings on the other side of the battlefield. I do like that psykers might help dispel. Perhaps something attuned to fantasy where you get a +1 the dispel dice for a psyker you have but if you fail to deny then you cant use that psyker anymore. Note that this isnt cumulative as I would not want to see level 3 or 4 psykers shut down an entire army.
It just depends on how you approach the problem. The core issue is people are afraid of how warp dice scale, because of the underlying problem you are able to throw as many dice needed for your core powers. Once those go off the rest of the powers you don't care s. If there isn't a scale or some process to put those systems in check you can steam roll your opponent without any real play. Some would say this should be army compensation but the high end needs to be pulled down to level the playing field. How does a Necron book or a Ork book scale to the dice that Grey knights, daemons , Eldar or other armies?(GW could make rules real easy for it by saying only so many psykers can be in the area to use the power of the warp) The limit on the dice would be as base cap that you can hit. So if you had 20 casters that produce dice and the cap was 12. You could only generate 12 dice +d6.
Math wise I am taking into account that for every Warp charge needed to succeed you will add +1 dice. Because I see that being the average or most efficient use of Warp Charges needed and stays close enough to a LD 9 or LD 10 psyker success cast rate.
As for Dispel , the base math behind the mechanic for blessings is really flawed. Core idea is to stop things such as fortune and other blessings on a level of maledictions and witch fires. If you shift the curve down by one due to psyker level and you need a 5, I think it gives the opposing player to actual dispell those powers instead of needing a hopes prayer. There is very little in the game that can add or help with deny the witch on blessings. It doesn't need to be on parity but I think you could pull that number in close moving it from a 6+ to a 5+ in certain ways such as psyker levels or Admantium Will ( because you just ignore that blessing, besides that ability should get more play and while things that carry adamantium will rarely have psykers or low count)
The other areas as Tier 2, really comes down to TO's but they are going to need to level set those ideas. Now I think most of the TO's can get together and we are but its a starting point. Plus we have to see how these games are developed, played and see what is truly a problem.
That said the time for GW to balance a game is gone. I think the community is okay and welcomes that To's or a group of people come together who care and can put balance into the equation with logical sense and reason (hopefully above counts).
jy2 wrote: The idea is that the psykers are forced to spread the warp dice and not allow 1 single psyker to cast all the powers. So if you have 1 psyker with all the good powers, now he has to make a choice as to which power he needs to cast. This will help to limit all the psychic craziness as well. And there shouldn't be such a thing as a psyker with all bad powers. At the very least, they can attempt the Primaris or do something like cast Flickering Fire (for Tzeentch daemons). What it will force you to do is to even out the casting so that all psykers will be able to do something rather than spending 18 dice out of, say 20 dice, on just 1 psyker casting 3 powerful spells whereas everyone else just sits and watches.
I think you're trying to address a specific problem (summoning) with a solution that is too general (all psykers).
If you look at the other end of the spectrum: an army with one Lv2 psyker, trying to cast prescience and misfortune. Getting even one of those spells off will be difficult if he is capped to 4+(D6/2) dice.
It would make the game more manageable in terms of Time. In terms of tournament play, which is what this thread is about, overloading the psychic phase with multiple summonings a turn is what will slow the game to a crawl.
/shurgs. There will always be slow armies and players, and players that manage to run the same army in half the time. A tau gunline can spend more time shooting in the opponent's turn than the opponent does doing anything; a tervigon spawning horde will summon roughly the same amount of models as a daemon summoning army (at least in the first turns) and doesn't have the advantage of quick deployment via no scatter deep strike. Deal with slow summoning players the same way that you deal with anyone else in tournaments.
And if you think that the only way daemons can remain competitive is to overload on Summoning, then you are sorely mistaken. My advice - DON'T RELY ON SUMMONING as your main strategy. Play a more well-rounded....and dare I say, a funner game.
It's nice of you to say that, but the main competitive daemon builds have been severely nerfed. Witchfire powers are now much more costly, much less likely to be cast, more likely to damage the caster, and more likely to be dispelled. A unit can't cast multiples of the same witchfire (so no Screamerstar or Pinkstar with 4 Tzeralds). Screamerstar with Heralds can't Jink if they want to witchfire the next turn. FMCs took a severe nerf to their offensive power (vector strikes toned down and can't charge on the turn they land). The only competitive daemon list that didn't take a severe beating was hound rush, and that was a mid-tier army at best.
Plus now *every non-daemon psyker in the game* has reliable access to Santic - Banishment, which halves the survivability of all Daemon units.
This is how it works. Let's say you have a marine army with 1 Lvl 2 psyker (and thus, 2 warp dice) going against a daemon army with 30 dice. There is no way in heck he will ever be able to cast any powers. The intent of this rule is to curb that. So in this case, the marines can use 2+D6 dice to cast his spells, whereas the daemon army can only use 4+D6 dice to deny it. Otherwise, there is almost no way in hell to get off any power against Daemons or the Grey Knights or Tyranids or the Seer Council for a normal army.
I think the mathematics of this don't really end up changing anything much. You have one WC2 spell that you really need to get off with your Lv2 psyker? You use all your dice (say, d6=4 so 6 dice total) and get 3 successes; the daemon player now rolls 16 - which is probably what was going to happen anyway. You just cap the psychic-heavy player at a 50% dispel chance instead of 75% if he used all 22 dice.
The reality of it is: Yes, if one army stacks psykers and the other doesn't, the stacking player is going to dominate the psychic phase. That shouldn't come as a surprise, and preventing it seems arbitrary. Does a player that stacks melee units then get to whinge and nerf shooty armies to D6 shots per unit to make it fair? Does a player with weak melee units get to reduce his opponent's initiative to 3 or attacks to 2 to stop him dominating the assault phase before the weak models get a chance to do anything?
I am an off and on tournament player that typically does pretty good without going overboard on abuse. Here are my thoughts.
1) No more then two sources, inquisition counts as one source
2) Remove the entire Malefic Powers, this would then eliminate the need to have a limit on warp charge
3) Change invisibility to the old version or remove and replace it with something else.
4) No unbound lists
5) No Maelstrom cards
Tournament Armies should be drawn from 2 sources only: 1 primary detachment, and 1 other source. Some folks like Formations here, some don't. Some want to see armies able to ally with themselves, some don't. But in general, expect to see 1 primary and 1 allied detachment at tournaments. That is fair, allows for tons of creativity in list building and avoids the situation we had at Adepticon where you had 9/16 finalists with Inquisition...because why WOULDN'T you take one if you can? The paradox of choice is that more choices allowed to players equals less variety as everyone cherry picks the best stuff. No Unbounds lists. Perhaps for specialized events bu in general, it just does not work. No, we do not need to try it first to see, simple logic dictates that this is a truism. No Maelstrom Cards as they are right now. I love the idea of the cards but we've played 8 games with them now and they simply do not work as they are presented in the book. 7/8 games the player that drew the better hand in the first draw won the game regardless of what happened in the game. The 8th game, the player with the better hand tied despite having 4 models left and being about to get tabled. The core mechanic of them simply does't work. With modifications, they could be a lot of fun, but as is: not for tournaments. The Psychic Phase needs work. If you don't spam Psykers, the new psychic phase is great! It is harder to get powers off than before, and really helps to even out the power of psykers. However, when you spam out psykers, the wheels come off the ship. Combined with Malefic powers, you can reliably bring around 40 Warp Charge Dice to the game which just dramatically throws this phase out of whack and makes the game unenjoyable. Some folks may like the idea of facing an army that can reliably bring 500+ points of new units onto the table every turn, but the vast majority of gamers will not. It is quite clearly a broken game mechanic. Armies that dramatically skew the warp charge pool will cause all kinds of problems. We need to either limit Warp Charge or in some way limit the psychic phase to bring some balance to the equation. Invisibility is way too good. No one I have spoken to thinks otherwise. We have to ban this or tone it down somehow. As I stated over at Frontline, a T6 target with a reroll 2+ save (which, damn it, are still in the game for some stupid reason) + invisibility will be indestructible. A Bolter has a 1/1296 chance of actually hurting this unit. And, with 40+ warp charge to throw at psychic powers, it is not unlikely at all to get this off every turn I'm wondering what the upper limit on Warp Charge Dice needs to be. ????if they remove invisibility, and remove daemonic summoning tree no one would care about warp dice
lucian the dead one wrote: Tournament Armies should be drawn from 2 sources only: 1 primary detachment, and 1 other source. Some folks like Formations here, some don't. Some want to see armies able to ally with themselves, some don't. But in general, expect to see 1 primary and 1 allied detachment at tournaments. That is fair, allows for tons of creativity in list building and avoids the situation we had at Adepticon where you had 9/16 finalists with Inquisition...because why WOULDN'T you take one if you can? The paradox of choice is that more choices allowed to players equals less variety as everyone cherry picks the best stuff. No Unbounds lists. Perhaps for specialized events but in general, it just does not work. No, we do not need to try it first to see, simple logic dictates that this is a truism.
No Maelstrom Cards as they are right now. I love the idea of the cards but we've played 8 games with them now and they simply do not work as they are presented in the book. 7/8 games the player that drew the better hand in the first draw won the game regardless of what happened in the game. The 8th game, the player with the better hand tied despite having 4 models left and being about to get tabled. The core mechanic of them simply does't work. With modifications, they could be a lot of fun, but as is: not for tournaments.
The Psychic Phase needs work. If you don't spam Psykers, the new psychic phase is great! It is harder to get powers off than before, and really helps to even out the power of psykers. However, when you spam out psykers, the wheels come off the ship. Combined with Malefic powers, you can reliably bring around 40 Warp Charge Dice to the game which just dramatically throws this phase out of whack and makes the game unenjoyable. Some folks may like the idea of facing an army that can reliably bring 500+ points of new units onto the table every turn, but the vast majority of gamers will not. It is quite clearly a broken game mechanic.
Armies that dramatically skew the warp charge pool will cause all kinds of problems. We need to either limit Warp Charge or in some way limit the psychic phase to bring some balance to the equation. Invisibility is way too good. No one I have spoken to thinks otherwise. We have to ban this or tone it down somehow. As I stated over at Frontline, a T6 target with a reroll 2+ save (which, damn it, are still in the game for some stupid reason) + invisibility will be indestructible. A Bolter has a 1/1296 chance of actually hurting this unit. And, with 40+ warp charge to throw at psychic powers, it is not unlikely at all to get this off every turn I'm wondering what the upper limit on Warp Charge Dice needs to be? If they remove invisibility, and remove daemonic summoning tree no one would care about warp dice
I don't fully understand why people see the need to nerf the psychic phase at all? Why doe's it matter that someone can reliably have 30+ dice per phase?
If it is specifically because of Summoning then address Summoning.. (personally I do not believe it is as broken as people make out) otherwise you stray into the realm of nerfing Tyranids (for example) without meaning too because you are worried about Daemon factory.
bodazoka wrote: I don't fully understand why people see the need to nerf the psychic phase at all? Why doe's it matter that someone can reliably have 30+ dice per phase?
If it is specifically because of Summoning then address Summoning.. (personally I do not believe it is as broken as people make out) otherwise you stray into the realm of nerfing Tyranids (for example) without meaning too because you are worried about Daemon factory.
Because if someone outnumbers you in wc dice by 6 to 1, which some armies can do in a single detachment easily, they can literally negate all your psychic powers.
You straight up just don't get to play that part of the game.
Nice! Quoting over the conclusions / suggestions at the end of the article here:
1. No unbound armies outside of specialized events, such as Ard Boyz for those who enjoy this.
2. Limit the amount of detachments you can use in a list. I still feel that 2 is all we should use as otherwise you end up with situations like Adepticon wherein you have 9/16 finalists with Inquisition. I feel that 1 primary only, and then 1 other type of detachment would be fair and fun and allow for a great deal of variety.
a. Disallow “Come the Apocalypse” allies as they create totally bizarre and unfun combos.
3. Limit Warp Charge to prevent the inane psychic spam armies.
a. If that is not enough to stop the worst abuses, also limit powers like Invisibility, Fortune, and some of the Malefic powers.
4. Limit the use of mission cards so that you have a fair chance to potentially score in a game. If you draw a card that is impossible to score throughout the course of the game, you get a free redraw. I think this combined with a layered mission such as a traditional mission primary (Crusade, Scouring, etc.) with cards secondary and bonus points as tertiary can create some really fun, varied missions. You would also have to come up with a way to limit tampering with the mission cards.
5. Limit the stupid 2+ reroll saves that are still going to be so prevalent as we have already done.
jy2 wrote: The idea is that the psykers are forced to spread the warp dice and not allow 1 single psyker to cast all the powers. So if you have 1 psyker with all the good powers, now he has to make a choice as to which power he needs to cast. This will help to limit all the psychic craziness as well. And there shouldn't be such a thing as a psyker with all bad powers. At the very least, they can attempt the Primaris or do something like cast Flickering Fire (for Tzeentch daemons). What it will force you to do is to even out the casting so that all psykers will be able to do something rather than spending 18 dice out of, say 20 dice, on just 1 psyker casting 3 powerful spells whereas everyone else just sits and watches.
I think you're trying to address a specific problem (summoning) with a solution that is too general (all psykers).
If you look at the other end of the spectrum: an army with one Lv2 psyker, trying to cast prescience and misfortune. Getting even one of those spells off will be difficult if he is capped to 4+(D6/2) dice.
No, this is not targeted just at the Summoning (for that, see my Suggestion #2 - Limited Summoning). This "solution" is targeted at all psykers in general. It is actually meant to limit the "super-psyker". Otherwise, you can get situations like this: Fateweaver casts a 3 warp charge Flickering Fire (4D6 shots), a 2 warp charge Bolt of Tzeentch (or whichever power was the 2 warp charge one), 2-WP Invisibility and 2-WP Endurance (or even the 3-WP Summoning depending on how you want to play it). Or how about Eldrad potentially casting 2-WP Fortune, 2-WP Prescience, 2-WP Invisibility and 3-WP Summoning? There's also Be'lakor and basically any of the Level 3 psykers out there.
As for the Lvl 2 psyker, yes, so now you have to make a choice. You don't get to cast all of your psychic powers like you used to back in 6th, so choose wisely. The psychic phase in 7E is not meant to be as reliable as it once was back in 6E.
It would make the game more manageable in terms of Time. In terms of tournament play, which is what this thread is about, overloading the psychic phase with multiple summonings a turn is what will slow the game to a crawl.
/shurgs. There will always be slow armies and players, and players that manage to run the same army in half the time. A tau gunline can spend more time shooting in the opponent's turn than the opponent does doing anything; a tervigon spawning horde will summon roughly the same amount of models as a daemon summoning army (at least in the first turns) and doesn't have the advantage of quick deployment via no scatter deep strike. Deal with slow summoning players the same way that you deal with anyone else in tournaments.
Slow is just part of the problem. The other problem is potentially getting 100's of points worth of units for free. Even the limit of 1 Conjuration per turn can net you 500+ pts of free units throughout the game (if you are just summoning basic troops) or potentially even 1000+ pt per game (if you are summoning Bloodthirsters).
More importantly, the person doing the summoning in tournament play can control the level of his "slow-playing". Oh, need to burn away time? Let's summon 5 units. What, almost out of time? Forget summoning, I'll just move onto this objective here and the game ends!
And if you think that the only way daemons can remain competitive is to overload on Summoning, then you are sorely mistaken. My advice - DON'T RELY ON SUMMONING as your main strategy. Play a more well-rounded....and dare I say, a funner game.
It's nice of you to say that, but the main competitive daemon builds have been severely nerfed. Witchfire powers are now much more costly, much less likely to be cast, more likely to damage the caster, and more likely to be dispelled. A unit can't cast multiples of the same witchfire (so no Screamerstar or Pinkstar with 4 Tzeralds). Screamerstar with Heralds can't Jink if they want to witchfire the next turn. FMCs took a severe nerf to their offensive power (vector strikes toned down and can't charge on the turn they land). The only competitive daemon list that didn't take a severe beating was hound rush, and that was a mid-tier army at best.
Plus now *every non-daemon psyker in the game* has reliable access to Santic - Banishment, which halves the survivability of all Daemon units.
I disagree. There are many good units in the codex that does not have to rely heavily on psychic powers. All the Fast Attacks, many of the Elites and Soulgrinders as well are all under-utilized units that are very good. The problem here is that you are equating competitive daemons to FMC-spam daemons. Well, the meta has changed. Find a new way to win. I guarantee you that it won't be as hard as you think.
Besides, even with the nerfs to FMC-spam, they are still a very good build. Even with 2 base troops and the limit of 1 successful Summoning per turn, you are looking at most likely 7+ Objective Secured scoring units! Mobility is not a problem, as you move before you cast your powers. That means FMC's can get to where they need to (objectives) and then summon. Not to mention Daemons have the Portaglyph to add even more Objectives Secured troops.
You think Santic is reliable enough to stop Daemons? Other than the grey knights, the caster has a high chance to kill himself. Moreover, try casting powers over a daemon army with 30+ Dispel dice. See how reliable that becomes against Level 3 psykers who will be Denying on 4+'s.
This is how it works. Let's say you have a marine army with 1 Lvl 2 psyker (and thus, 2 warp dice) going against a daemon army with 30 dice. There is no way in heck he will ever be able to cast any powers. The intent of this rule is to curb that. So in this case, the marines can use 2+D6 dice to cast his spells, whereas the daemon army can only use 4+D6 dice to deny it. Otherwise, there is almost no way in hell to get off any power against Daemons or the Grey Knights or Tyranids or the Seer Council for a normal army.
I think the mathematics of this don't really end up changing anything much. You have one WC2 spell that you really need to get off with your Lv2 psyker? You use all your dice (say, d6=4 so 6 dice total) and get 3 successes; the daemon player now rolls 16 - which is probably what was going to happen anyway. You just cap the psychic-heavy player at a 50% dispel chance instead of 75% if he used all 22 dice.
The reality of it is: Yes, if one army stacks psykers and the other doesn't, the stacking player is going to dominate the psychic phase. That shouldn't come as a surprise, and preventing it seems arbitrary. Does a player that stacks melee units then get to whinge and nerf shooty armies to D6 shots per unit to make it fair? Does a player with weak melee units get to reduce his opponent's initiative to 3 or attacks to 2 to stop him dominating the assault phase before the weak models get a chance to do anything?
The problem here is that unless you run a psychic-heavy army yourself, you will have almost no chance to get off any powers against an army such as daemons or even the grey knights. Yes, the psychic-heavy army will still dominate the psychic phase, but at least now the "little guys" (i.e. the psychic-lite armies with perhaps 1 psyker) can still have a slight chance for not being utterly useless with my suggestion. As it is right now, you will see armies start to lose some flavor. It is not even worth it anymore to run just 1 psyker. In turn, that will just exacerbate the problem. 1 farseer is useless. He'll never get any powers off against a strong psychic army. Might as well run a full-blown seer council then, right? It's the problem of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
And other armies have thatoption as well. Armies will still be able to win without a psychic phase. And the two nastiest psychic armies are perfectly at odds with each other and keep the crappiest build in 40k (seerstar) in check. Reason 172 to love 7th!
jy2 wrote: m: an army with one Lv2 psyker, trying to cast prescience and misfortune. Getting even one of those spells off will be difficult if he is capped to 4+(D6/2) dice.
No, this is not targeted just at the Summoning (for that, see my Suggestion #2 - Limited Summoning). This "solution" is targeted at all psykers in general. It is actually meant to limit the "super-psyker". Otherwise, you can get situations like this: Fateweaver casts a 3 warp charge Flickering Fire (4D6 shots), a 2 warp charge Bolt of Tzeentch (or whichever power was the 2 warp charge one), 2-WP Invisibility and 2-WP Endurance (or even the 3-WP Summoning depending on how you want to play it). Or how about Eldrad potentially casting 2-WP Fortune, 2-WP Prescience, 2-WP Invisibility and 3-WP Summoning? There's also Be'lakor and basically any of the Level 3 psykers out there.
As for the Lvl 2 psyker, yes, so now you have to make a choice. You don't get to cast all of your psychic powers like you used to back in 6th, so choose wisely. The psychic phase in 7E is not meant to be as reliable as it once was back in 6E.
Casting all those spells with fateweaver will take ~22 power dice (all or close to your entire army's potency for the turn). On average dice you cause one perils, at one will fail, likely one will be denied, and at MOST all you've done is put 20 S4 + 4 S5 shots into one target and buff a model who your opponent was going to ignore anyway. You've used 1850 points to get... 7 dead marines, and maybe summon in one unit. That's not a game winning strategy.
If the marine army can't earn back 7 dead marines in a turn, they deserve to lose.
The aspect of funnelling power dice to one psyker is
a) absolutely vital to casting any powers at all,
b) requires the rest of your psyker-stacked army to sit around for a turn and do nothing other than provide dice
c) Not that big a deal when the psykers you list as being able to 'abuse' it could do exactly the same thing more reliably on their own last edition anyway AND have another 1500pts of army backing them up.
Slow is just part of the problem. The other problem is potentially getting 100's of points worth of units for free. Even the limit of 1 Conjuration per turn can net you 500+ pts of free units throughout the game (if you are just summoning basic troops) or potentially even 1000+ pt per game (if you are summoning Bloodthirsters).
The summoning army is essentially trading the ability to do any damage to summon units. Instead of winning at a points differential of 1500-0 (tabling their opponent) the stratey is to win with a points ratio of 3000-1500 (summon more units). However this relies on a number of vulnerable linchpins - a bunch of T3 W2 models doing the bulk of the work, who will invariably kill themselves during the game from Perils tests. Killing just 1 horror can reduce them by 1 warp charge. Grounding and assaulting fateweaver (which he will likely do to himself once per game with the new Perils rules) will cripple the army.
More importantly, the person doing the summoning in tournament play can control the level of his "slow-playing". Oh, need to burn away time? Let's summon 5 units. What, almost out of time? Forget summoning, I'll just move onto this objective here and the game ends!
Again, that's not a problem specific to summoning armies. Any jerk can play slowly and turbo-boost some jetbikes on to an objective with seconds to spare.
It's nice of you to say that, but the main competitive daemon builds have been severely nerfed. Witchfire powers are now much more costly, much less likely to be cast, more likely to damage the caster, and more likely to be dispelled. A unit can't cast multiples of the same witchfire (so no Screamerstar or Pinkstar with 4 Tzeralds). Screamerstar with Heralds can't Jink if they want to witchfire the next turn. FMCs took a severe nerf to their offensive power (vector strikes toned down and can't charge on the turn they land). The only competitive daemon list that didn't take a severe beating was hound rush, and that was a mid-tier army at best.
Plus now *every non-daemon psyker in the game* has reliable access to Santic - Banishment, which halves the survivability of all Daemon units.
I disagree. There are many good units in the codex that does not have to rely heavily on psychic powers. All the Fast Attacks, many of the Elites and Soulgrinders as well are all under-utilized units that are very good. The problem here is that you are equating competitive daemons to FMC-spam daemons. Well, the meta has changed. Find a new way to win. I guarantee you that it won't be as hard as you think.
Besides, even with the nerfs to FMC-spam, they are still a very good build. Even with 2 base troops and the limit of 1 successful Summoning per turn, you are looking at most likely 7+ Objective Secured scoring units! Mobility is not a problem, as you move before you cast your powers. That means FMC's can get to where they need to (objectives) and then summon. Not to mention Daemons have the Portaglyph to add even more Objectives Secured troops.
Ok then, build me a demon army that can win with the changes that you're proposing. There is a reason that daemon players gravitated towards FMC. Without their power, daemons are reduced to very few options. Soul Grinders are good, and got better. Screamers are the only reliable option to deal with vehicles. Hounds are good. Horrors without summoning got heavily nerfed. Bloodcrushers and Fiends are ok until someone points a missile at them - which is as soon as they show up because those S8+ weapons don't have any other juicy targets.
You think Santic is reliable enough to stop Daemons? Other than the grey knights, the caster has a high chance to kill himself. Moreover, try casting powers over a daemon army with 30+ Dispel dice. See how reliable that becomes against Level 3 psykers who will be Denying on 4+'s.
Banishment - Warp Charge 1. 75% chance to cast it with 2 dice, 16% chance to roll doubles. Don't be stupid and cast it against a lv3 psyker - target a unit of Daemonettes or Bloodletters and he still only gets 6s.
I'm not saying that it is super-reliable in the face of a 30 WC army. But if you reduce that 30WC army to dispelling on 3 dice, then Banishment does become too powerful.
The problem here is that unless you run a psychic-heavy army yourself, you will have almost no chance to get off any powers against an army such as daemons or even the grey knights. Yes, the psychic-heavy army will still dominate the psychic phase, but at least now the "little guys" (i.e. the psychic-lite armies with perhaps 1 psyker) can still have a slight chance for not being utterly useless with my suggestion. As it is right now, you will see armies start to lose some flavor. It is not even worth it anymore to run just 1 psyker. In turn, that will just exacerbate the problem. 1 farseer is useless. He'll never get any powers off against a strong psychic army. Might as well run a full-blown seer council then, right? It's the problem of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Still not seeing any real change between that and Tau/Guard dominating the shooting phase. One turn of them with good target priority can shut down your shooting for the rest of the game just as easily as an army full of psykers can shut down your powers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leth wrote: Where are you getting that summoned units get objective secured? It specifically says they are scoring units.
They are scoring units.
Summoned Horrors/Bloodletters/Plaguebearers/Daemonettes are troops.
There is a strong argument that they thus count as Objective Secured in a battle forged list.
bodazoka wrote: I don't fully understand why people see the need to nerf the psychic phase at all? Why doe's it matter that someone can reliably have 30+ dice per phase?
If it is specifically because of Summoning then address Summoning.. (personally I do not believe it is as broken as people make out) otherwise you stray into the realm of nerfing Tyranids (for example) without meaning too because you are worried about Daemon factory.
Because if someone outnumbers you in wc dice by 6 to 1, which some armies can do in a single detachment easily, they can literally negate all your psychic powers.
You straight up just don't get to play that part of the game.
So? the armies that gain that many dice are built to have a competitive advantage over your build in ONE phase. They are (somewhat) sacrificing other phases to dominate the psychic phase, similar to how a static gun line sacrifices movement to dominate the shooting phase. I also challenge your assumption that the 6 to 1 ratio is something that is "easily" achieved in a viable tournament winning build.
The phase itself also has a number of challenges built into it (small but worth mentioning) which can help to mitigate the damage it can do. Unlike my shooting phase example where there is no penalty during the shooting phase to actually use your weapon (unless it gets hot! )
Yes it may suck that your armies with the 1-2 ML1 psykers will get denied there phase against 30+ power dice but I don't see that as a problem. There are many types of lists in the game that mitigate and/or remove the opponents ability to do things within there own phases, this is just another example of it.
Leth wrote: Except the summoned units are not selected as part of your detachment and it says troop units from this detachment have objective secured
But are units summoned by units in a detachment counted as part of that detachment? There's a question that will come up a lot. I support denying the Objective Secured, even though I'm not sure what the RAW is.
Why are people still moaning about the 2+ re rollable?. Has anyone actually played against it in 7th ed.
Bar the baron or a 2+ character having a 2+ RR its a single model, there are plently of ways to get around this. For units only Screamer council and seer council have the ability to get the 2+ RR off all the time. Are people really trying to say it is as powerful as it was in 6th edition, as it plain well isnt.
MarkyMark wrote: Why are people still moaning about the 2+ re rollable?. Has anyone actually played against it in 7th ed.
Bar the baron or a 2+ character having a 2+ RR its a single model, there are plently of ways to get around this. For units only Screamer council and seer council have the ability to get the 2+ RR off all the time. Are people really trying to say it is as powerful as it was in 6th edition, as it plain well isnt.
I agree with this. The 2++ reroll, while still something that just feels wrong, isn't that much of an issue anymore, I think. The Screamerstar was already far into its last verse, and now being unable to pump out tons of shots, and being unable to split for contesting (to a degree), it's hardly that bad. Especially without HnR. In addition, the Seer Council can no longer steal objectives from troops and doesn't get a 2+ reroll at all times. Especially the former I think is a big deal.
To nerf the psychic phase, make rules that for every 2 mastery more you have than the other player, they get an aditional 1d3 warp charges per psychic phase.
So the powers are now HARDER to cast and there wont be anywhere near as many powers cast as there was before, you now have the ability to stop some blessings (and of course maledications, but there were never as bad as the blessings). But now you also want more chance to stop the powers going off?.
Im not sure people are thinking this through clearly.
Quote from jY2:
"Or how about Eldrad potentially casting 2-WP Fortune, 2-WP Prescience, 2-WP Invisibility and 3-WP Summoning?"
Maximum respect to jY2 for his contributions to this forum, but...
As a rough rule you need to be rolling 3x as many dice as the WC cost of a spell to reliably get it off (3 dice for WC1, 6 for WC2). So in the quoted example Eldrad has chewed through 27 dice and we are ignoring perils, DtW and the good chance that one of those powers failed anyway.
Please show me the game breaking list that features Eldrad and enough mastery levels to generate that many dice.
Also, this whole notion that 7th Edition requires fixing by the comunity is a little odd. Here is my prefered way to play 40k; 1500pts, Battle Forged, single detatchment, no fortifications, no formations, no Lord of War.
I prefer to play this way but this is not fixing the game, this is playing the game- it is entirely consistent with "the spirit of the game" as described in the BRB. People might want the BRB to be a hard and fast competative ruleset but it isnt, its a "framework" that two players can use to play an interesting strategy game the way they like. In a tournament the TO must make these decisions for everyone but I dont see why there needs to be one "fixed" version of the game used at all tournaments. That would not be in the "spirit of the game".
No come the apocalypse allies
No random card objectives
No unbound armies
Limit the number of allied contingents in a tourni to 2
Cap the number of warp charges
No lords of war
As for putting a cap on summoning. Maybe i am biased (since i play daemons) but 3 dice only gives you a 12.5% chance of summoning a daemon for the WC3 abilities. If you have a fair number of dice to throw in response it should be fairly easy to cancel said ability.
If I can throw an opinion out there (I'm not a TO), I don't think there needs to be a ban on come the apocalypse allies. It opens up some fluffy options like chaos knights, traitor guard, and genestealer cults. As has been pointed out before, desperate allies weren't the problem in 6th...it was battle brothers. I think the penalties are stiff enough to not make it a big deal and quite frankly seems to be more a case of people worried about someone running chaos sisters or not liking certain fluff. I personally give the individual player a little more credit than that.
Also, this "problem" is going to be self-regulated: I don't think anyone will win a major event with even a GK-daemons list, but I know that person will be shunned at local events. That army will never get a game in.
Quote from jY2:
"Or how about Eldrad potentially casting 2-WP Fortune, 2-WP Prescience, 2-WP Invisibility and 3-WP Summoning?"
Maximum respect to jY2 for his contributions to this forum, but...
As a rough rule you need to be rolling 3x as many dice as the WC cost of a spell to reliably get it off (3 dice for WC1, 6 for WC2). So in the quoted example Eldrad has chewed through 27 dice and we are ignoring perils, DtW and the good chance that one of those powers failed anyway.
Please show me the game breaking list that features Eldrad and enough mastery levels to generate that many dice.
My example is a little on the extreme side. First of all, Eldrad would have to roll to get all of those powers (well, at least 2 of them anyways). However, it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility, at least not when you run a seer council. You are assuming that we need 3 dice just to cast a 1-WC power, which gives you about a 88% chance for success. I am assuming 2 dice to cast 1-WC (for a 75% chance for success). The original way of casting powers (with a LD test) is about 83% chance for success, so using 2 dice is a little less reliable but not really by much. Thus, for Eldrad to cast all of those powers, he actually only needs 18 dice. In a seer council with Eldrad, farseer and 10 warlocks, that unit alone is generating 17 dice, not including the D6 you get every turn and possibly any other psykers in the army (i.e. allies), so it is entirely possible for Eldrad to hog all of his army's dice just to cast his psychic powers. Moreover, Eldrad has a special rule that, every time he successful passes a psychic test, he has a chance to get 1 warp charge back. Finally, he's got Rules of Witnessing that let's him re-roll 1 failed psychic test as well as a Ghosthelm to negate Perils (as long as he still has Warp Charges remaining). In short, the psychic phase is much more reliable for Eldar, even with just using 2 dice per 1-WC. They can generate more warp charges, can cast more reliably and are not hurt as much by Perils as some of the other armies.
Also, this whole notion that 7th Edition requires fixing by the comunity is a little odd. Here is my prefered way to play 40k; 1500pts, Battle Forged, single detatchment, no fortifications, no formations, no Lord of War.
I prefer to play this way but this is not fixing the game, this is playing the game- it is entirely consistent with "the spirit of the game" as described in the BRB. People might want the BRB to be a hard and fast competative ruleset but it isnt, its a "framework" that two players can use to play an interesting strategy game the way they like. In a tournament the TO must make these decisions for everyone but I dont see why there needs to be one "fixed" version of the game used at all tournaments. That would not be in the "spirit of the game".
A uniform standard is always a good thing. This is so players can go from 1 tournament to another and know relatively what to expect. He doesn't have to "relearn" the rules from tournament to tournament, nor does he have to change up his army, including possibly buying/building/painting new models, just to have the same chance for success from tourney to tourney. If there's one thing that pisses people off, it's when you bring your army to 1 tournament and then bring that same army to another tournament, only to find out that it doesn't work quite the way you expected.
@jy2: So your saying its possible to create a list that has a seer council with Eldrad and another farseer in it and that it is possible that eldrad might roll the perfect set of powers and its possible he might be able to cast all those powers despite having significantly less dice than statistically required to do so..... and this list is going to break 40k so badly that we need to change the rules for an entire phase of the game. Seems like unsubstantiated nonsense to me.
Casting all those spells with fateweaver will take ~22 power dice (all or close to your entire army's potency for the turn). On average dice you cause one perils, at one will fail, likely one will be denied, and at MOST all you've done is put 20 S4 + 4 S5 shots into one target and buff a model who your opponent was going to ignore anyway. You've used 1850 points to get... 7 dead marines, and maybe summon in one unit. That's not a game winning strategy.
If the marine army can't earn back 7 dead marines in a turn, they deserve to lose.
The aspect of funnelling power dice to one psyker is
a) absolutely vital to casting any powers at all,
b) requires the rest of your psyker-stacked army to sit around for a turn and do nothing other than provide dice
c) Not that big a deal when the psykers you list as being able to 'abuse' it could do exactly the same thing more reliably on their own last edition anyway AND have another 1500pts of army backing them up.
It's ok to disagree. You see funneling power dice to 1 "super-psyker" as ok. I don't. Basically, this is the 1st step towards going back to the days of the "super-deathstars" back in 6th. What this one psyker will do is to stack powers upon powers. I'm trying to move away from that. I'm trying to move towards a more uniform approach to the psychic phase where power-stacking is harder to do and where there is more uniformity in power casting. Namely, all the psykers should be there to cast powers rather than to just give dice to their super-saiyan psyker god.
Of course, these are all just suggestions anyways to TO's who want what I feel is a more "balanced" approach to psychic phase. Do with it as you want.
Slow is just part of the problem. The other problem is potentially getting 100's of points worth of units for free. Even the limit of 1 Conjuration per turn can net you 500+ pts of free units throughout the game (if you are just summoning basic troops) or potentially even 1000+ pt per game (if you are summoning Bloodthirsters).
The summoning army is essentially trading the ability to do any damage to summon units. Instead of winning at a points differential of 1500-0 (tabling their opponent) the stratey is to win with a points ratio of 3000-1500 (summon more units). However this relies on a number of vulnerable linchpins - a bunch of T3 W2 models doing the bulk of the work, who will invariably kill themselves during the game from Perils tests. Killing just 1 horror can reduce them by 1 warp charge. Grounding and assaulting fateweaver (which he will likely do to himself once per game with the new Perils rules) will cripple the army.
In this edition, with the exception of Purge the Alien, you don't necessarily have to win by killing your opponent. You win by playing to the objectives and by getting Objective Secured units onto the objectives. That is how you will win in this edition. And psykers don't necessarily have to be T3 2W models. They can come in the form of T6 4-5W flying models that can get to any objective they want. And good luck trying to ground a FMC with the new grounding rules, especially with a re-roll from Fatey. You thought it was hard enough trying to ground them back in 6th? Then you haven't played against 7E Fatey-FMC's yet, buddy.
More importantly, the person doing the summoning in tournament play can control the level of his "slow-playing". Oh, need to burn away time? Let's summon 5 units. What, almost out of time? Forget summoning, I'll just move onto this objective here and the game ends!
Again, that's not a problem specific to summoning armies. Any jerk can play slowly and turbo-boost some jetbikes on to an objective with seconds to spare.
Yes it is. I need to waste time. I'll do some more summoning. I'm pressed for time. Screw the summoning. The problem is that summoning is not easily detectable as stalling. That is because the whole process takes a lot of time, even if you're not deliberately trying to summon slowly.
I disagree. There are many good units in the codex that does not have to rely heavily on psychic powers. All the Fast Attacks, many of the Elites and Soulgrinders as well are all under-utilized units that are very good. The problem here is that you are equating competitive daemons to FMC-spam daemons. Well, the meta has changed. Find a new way to win. I guarantee you that it won't be as hard as you think.
Besides, even with the nerfs to FMC-spam, they are still a very good build. Even with 2 base troops and the limit of 1 successful Summoning per turn, you are looking at most likely 7+ Objective Secured scoring units! Mobility is not a problem, as you move before you cast your powers. That means FMC's can get to where they need to (objectives) and then summon. Not to mention Daemons have the Portaglyph to add even more Objectives Secured troops.
Ok then, build me a demon army that can win with the changes that you're proposing. There is a reason that daemon players gravitated towards FMC. Without their power, daemons are reduced to very few options. Soul Grinders are good, and got better. Screamers are the only reliable option to deal with vehicles. Hounds are good. Horrors without summoning got heavily nerfed. Bloodcrushers and Fiends are ok until someone points a missile at them - which is as soon as they show up because those S8+ weapons don't have any other juicy targets.
Here is my 2K list, involving CSM allies:
Fateweaver
LoC - Lvl 3, Grimoire, Greater Gift
Be'lakor
I used to run a heldrake as well, but with the nerf to them, I've changed up my list slightly. Still, I can sub in the helturkey for the hounds if I wanted.
You think Santic is reliable enough to stop Daemons? Other than the grey knights, the caster has a high chance to kill himself. Moreover, try casting powers over a daemon army with 30+ Dispel dice. See how reliable that becomes against Level 3 psykers who will be Denying on 4+'s.
Banishment - Warp Charge 1. 75% chance to cast it with 2 dice, 16% chance to roll doubles. Don't be stupid and cast it against a lv3 psyker - target a unit of Daemonettes or Bloodletters and he still only gets 6s.
I'm not saying that it is super-reliable in the face of a 30 WC army. But if you reduce that 30WC army to dispelling on 3 dice, then Banishment does become too powerful.
Huh? Why dispelling on 3 dice? If you have 2 dice to cast, there should be at least 4 dice available to dispel (from an 30-WC army), plus the D6 from the warp pool (assuming you are going off of my Deny suggestion). But hey...feel free to use your limited resources/firepower on a unit that I just created for free rather than going after the source of the problem (the psykers that create the free troops) because that is what I prefer you to do.
The problem here is that unless you run a psychic-heavy army yourself, you will have almost no chance to get off any powers against an army such as daemons or even the grey knights. Yes, the psychic-heavy army will still dominate the psychic phase, but at least now the "little guys" (i.e. the psychic-lite armies with perhaps 1 psyker) can still have a slight chance for not being utterly useless with my suggestion. As it is right now, you will see armies start to lose some flavor. It is not even worth it anymore to run just 1 psyker. In turn, that will just exacerbate the problem. 1 farseer is useless. He'll never get any powers off against a strong psychic army. Might as well run a full-blown seer council then, right? It's the problem of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Still not seeing any real change between that and Tau/Guard dominating the shooting phase. One turn of them with good target priority can shut down your shooting for the rest of the game just as easily as an army full of psykers can shut down your powers.
The psychic-heavy army will still dominate the psychic phase as much as Tau/Guard will dominate the shooting phase. There is no denying that. The problem you will see is the death of the psychic-lite armies, at least in tournament play. There's almost no point in even running a psyker if he cannot get any of his powers off, so you either don't run them or you run lots of them. This will further stymie variety in tournament play and swing armies to the more extreme ends. Running Tiguirius? Forget it. He's useless if I'm facing a 30-WC daemon army. Then let's run him with a bunch of Astra Militarum Primaris psykers or as an ally to Grey Knights. My GK's will never be able to cast their powers over a psychic-heavy daemon army so let's spam those MSU henchmen in psybacks to rack up those WC's. Want to run 1 farseer? Forget it. He's going to get shut down as if he never existed. Let's run a full blown seer council instead. That's what I mean by the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. This is no middle-psyker-class anymore. It will become a game of the extremes. Maybe you won't mind, but I'm betting a lot of people aren't going to like it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moosatronic Warrior wrote: @jy2: So your saying its possible to create a list that has a seer council with Eldrad and another farseer in it and that it is possible that eldrad might roll the perfect set of powers and its possible he might be able to cast all those powers despite having significantly less dice than statistically required to do so..... and this list is going to break 40k so badly that we need to change the rules for an entire phase of the game. Seems like unsubstantiated nonsense to me.
No, you don't have to do it. I'm just making a suggestion for the TO's who are looking to trying to balance out the psychic phase. To me, it doesn't really matter which way people want to play it. If you're ok with the rules as is, then that's fine. If you don't like, then this is just 1 suggestion you can consider.
Moosatronic Warrior wrote: @jy2: So your saying its possible to create a list that has a seer council with Eldrad and another farseer in it and that it is possible that eldrad might roll the perfect set of powers and its possible he might be able to cast all those powers despite having significantly less dice than statistically required to do so..... and this list is going to break 40k so badly that we need to change the rules for an entire phase of the game. Seems like unsubstantiated nonsense to me.
I concur. A seer council eldrad and farseer hits 17+d6WC ceiling until you start bringing in more detachments. That wouldn't leave points for anything useful.
I honestly think the best solution to most headaches in here is simply playing lower points. I have no idea why people are SO attached to 1750-1850. Try 1500, it still leaves enough room to take powerful units, but it will come at a cost. Same for spamming. You over due it and your left with a one dimensional army.
As it stands open ended 1850 isn't broken but lets be honest, its boring as feth. Necrons can take 4 night scythe warrior squads and 6 annihilation barges for 1200 on the nose. At 1850 they have enough to round this off with a wraiths/destroyer lords but at 1500 you can squeeze one mini star in. Makes this list much more one dimensional doesn't it? SO people will scale back the spam on their own.
At 1500, good luck squeezing in a LOW and having a balanced list too.
Psychic phase can stay unrestricted because getting the power dice required to break the phase and run the clock will be terrible.
But no, everyone wants to keep playing more and more points while every edition adds more and more time consuming mechanics. The shooting phase got slower as did the psychic phase. This on top of random objectives making players gruel over a mid game decision. Less points people. Will make the events better anyway. This way games will all make T5 on schedule barring extremes.
My personal thoughts on how to "fix" the malefic stuff:
Make possession, incursion, and summoning WC4.
Make Sacrifice either WC2 or WC3 (not sure which).
That should curb *most*, if not all, of the abuse of it.
And then just throw on daemonic instability for summoned units at the start of each friendly turn.
That brings it down to non-ridiculous levels, without destroying the build.
@jy2 -The issue then is with the design of the game and there is no way around that, some armies are designed psyker heavy, and as such will have a good chance to shut down psyker light armies.
Also your math is wrong in 6th you have ~92% chance to cast any power with an LD 10 psyker (most of them) so 75% is almost 20% less likely. I'm not saying never cast on 2 dice, but if a power is extremely important you'll want 3. If for no other reason that it also diminishes the chance that you get denied.
bodazoka wrote: I don't fully understand why people see the need to nerf the psychic phase at all? Why doe's it matter that someone can reliably have 30+ dice per phase?
If it is specifically because of Summoning then address Summoning.. (personally I do not believe it is as broken as people make out) otherwise you stray into the realm of nerfing Tyranids (for example) without meaning too because you are worried about Daemon factory.
Because if someone outnumbers you in wc dice by 6 to 1, which some armies can do in a single detachment easily, they can literally negate all your psychic powers.
You straight up just don't get to play that part of the game.
you might as well argue that because tau can out shoot me 20-1, or can pay for weapons that ignore my armour, and "shut down" my save rolls, so they should be nerfed to never being able to roll more dice then me while shooting.
cause after all, I dont get to play the "save" part of the game anymore...
people paid PTS to use powers, and have the power to deny they, just as they pay pts for guns that ignore armour, or markerlights to ignore cover.
its no more unfair to be shut down in the P phase, then it is to be shut down in the shooting phase because the enemy got 1st turn, wiped out more then half your army, and you dont get saves, or to shoot back.
in fact, compared to shooting aphla strikes, being shut down in the P phase is very small potatoes, as EVERY army gets shut down in the shooting phase, but only a few armies actually care if you shut them down in the P phase.
Breng77 wrote: @jy2 -The issue then is with the design of the game and there is no way around that, some armies are designed psyker heavy, and as such will have a good chance to shut down psyker light armies.
Also your math is wrong in 6th you have ~92% chance to cast any power with an LD 10 psyker (most of them) so 75% is almost 20% less likely. I'm not saying never cast on 2 dice, but if a power is extremely important you'll want 3. If for no other reason that it also diminishes the chance that you get denied.
Yes, the issue is in the design. My "suggestions" is basically a re-design of the fundamental mechanics of the game to try to balance it out. In doing so, it will also discourage gamers in running the extreme armies or at the very least, try to encourage people to still run what they want without feeling it is utterly hopeless.
As for the needing to cast a power, just pump more dice into it. In my example, instead of using 4 dice on Fortune and 4 on Prescience, go 6 on Fortune and 2 on Prescience. But no matter what, psychic powers in this edition is just not as reliable to cast as it was in 6th. Nowadays, you're just going to have to choose/prioritize your psychic powers just as you have to prioritize your shooting.
The other thing is that some of these things that shoot a ton, and ignore cover devalue units that have been paid for and as such are akin to having extra points in particular matchups.
Breng77 wrote: The other thing is that some of these things that shoot a ton, and ignore cover devalue units that have been paid for and as such are akin to having extra points in particular matchups.
exactly...
paying X pts to be able to remove Y pts from the table, is 100% comparable to paying X pts to ADD y pts to your side.
not to mention that you have a far better chance of removing models sucessfully then you do of summoning ones...
+ all the stuff you nerf that doesnt need it if you further nerf psykers then they already are.
Deamons need all those WC dice to "shoot" as well as summon potential friends.
They have an almost zero presence in the actual shooting phase and require the new psychic phase to be able to "shoot" at stuff. Which, due to the new rules, has made said "shooting" much less reliable. The only wait to maintain that reliability, is to chuck dice at it.
So limiting their dice in any way is directly limiting their potential firepower, all because of a potential (and terrible imo) way to play the army.
If they want to spend all their dice summoning extra units for the first two turns, go ahead. It means they aren't doing much if any damage to the opponent army, while basically replacing their own losses they are suffering over the course of those turns with their additional summoned units.
Meanwhile Space Marine Drop Pod armies (specifically looking at you Sentinels of Terra and Salamanders) are landing up to 18 Objective Secured Troops choices all over the board systematically eliminating whatever targets they want, while out scoring you through the first few and likely critical turns.
Between the Deamon player spending all their time summoning and deploying random stuff, and the Marine player, in this example, having to take the time to deploy 60+ marines and vehicles, do you really think that deamon player is going to get much more then 2 turns of gameplay to try and out score/maneuver the Marine player in 2 hours of tournament play?
And then there is Grey Knights, bringing a comparable amount of WC dice as Deamons AND they actually have a presence in the shooting phase.
I think as the game plays out, its not going to be nearly as bad as people thinking.
EDIT TO ADD: Summoning deamons at the right time, right place and of the right type will be what wins games. Not, however, spending all your time trying to spam as many onto the board as you can.
jy2 wrote:
Namely, all the psykers should be there to cast powers rather than to just give dice to their super-saiyan psyker god.
+1 for this comment.
Red Corsair wrote:
As it stands open ended 1850 isn't broken but lets be honest, its boring as feth. Necrons can take 4 night scythe warrior squads and 6 annihilation barges for 1200 on the nose. At 1850 they have enough to round this off with a wraiths/destroyer lords but at 1500 you can squeeze one mini star in. Makes this list much more one dimensional doesn't it? SO people will scale back the spam on their own.
At 1500, good luck squeezing in a LOW and having a balanced list too.
Psychic phase can stay unrestricted because getting the power dice required to break the phase and run the clock will be terrible.
But no, everyone wants to keep playing more and more points while every edition adds more and more time consuming mechanics. The shooting phase got slower as did the psychic phase. This on top of random objectives making players gruel over a mid game decision. Less points people. Will make the events better anyway. This way games will all make T5 on schedule barring extremes.
You might be on to something. Smaller games might be the new norm. Sure people wont like not being able to take all the toys they used to but it could help the problem. The only issue is the lower points you go the better the daemon summoning army will be.
Red Corsair wrote: [quote= I honestly think the best solution to most headaches in here is simply playing lower points. I have no idea why people are SO attached to 1750-1850. Try 1500, it still leaves enough room to take powerful units, but it will come at a cost. Same for spamming. You over due it and your left with a one dimensional army.
As it stands open ended 1850 isn't broken but lets be honest, its boring as feth. Necrons can take 4 night scythe warrior squads and 6 annihilation barges for 1200 on the nose. At 1850 they have enough to round this off with a wraiths/destroyer lords but at 1500 you can squeeze one mini star in. Makes this list much more one dimensional doesn't it? SO people will scale back the spam on their own.
At 1500, good luck squeezing in a LOW and having a balanced list too.
Psychic phase can stay unrestricted because getting the power dice required to break the phase and run the clock will be terrible.
But no, everyone wants to keep playing more and more points while every edition adds more and more time consuming mechanics. The shooting phase got slower as did the psychic phase. This on top of random objectives making players gruel over a mid game decision. Less points people. Will make the events better anyway. This way games will all make T5 on schedule barring extremes.
Preaching to the choir, for some reason folks just want to play with all the toys, thinking they are somehow hamstrung without those extra points, but now with everything scoring you don't need mass troops necessarily to be competitive. The time constraints are really the only way people are going to be forced to play at 1500 points. Besides, point costs for almost every keeps going down with each new codex, so people don't realize they are getting more models for less anyway.
Namely, all the psykers should be there to cast powers rather than to just give dice to their super-saiyan psyker god.
+1 for this comment.
Except this is the antithesis of the rules as written by GW. If psykers were all limited to their own warp charges most powers would be so unrealiable as to render them mostly useless. As written the rules are exactly having multiple psykers around to power up a few of them. The old rules functioned much better for "every psyker casting powers"
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but from what I've seen being posted elsewhere and heard of locally is that The Eldrad seer council jetbike list with the formation of the seer's added to it is going to be even deadlier as it allows no one to suffer perils of the warp. Now to me that's just going to be a huge mess and that list from my experience was broken in 6th and now it sounds even more broken.
If I were to organize a tournament I'd remove...
Escalation/Apoc Rules - essentially removing Formations
Maelstrom Cards ( Don't see the need to try and regulate them )
Limit every army to two detachments
I still don't know how I feel yet about unbound armies, but I don't think they'll be a huge problem if you removed those 3 above. If it becomes a S*** storm in the next weeks then make it battleforged only lists. My 2 Cents.
Well if you are going to limit detachments you probably should ban unbound. As for seer council I don't htink it is really any better, the warlocks still take perils, and it will cast fewer powers. The only difference is invisibility + fortune is broken as heck.
I think you need the baseline on army composition before we can even attempt to balance anything else. That's not to diminish the clusterfeth that is the psychic phase but if we can't even agree on what game we're all playing, it's pretty hard to start.
We all know the apoc stuff is a non-starter (escalation, formations, unbound)
Battle forged sadly isn't much better. Gotta put a stop to unlimited foc's.
Why are Formations a non-starter? Or do you only mean the Apoc ones that are noted as Apoc?
Why is Escalation a non-starter? With the nerf to Strength D is it really the issue it was in 6th?
Unbound I can barely agree with but that's mostly to avoid confusion when I'm playing people. I wouldn't mind trying a source limited Unbound. But at this point I'm probably slightly crazy.
Hulksmash wrote: Why are Formations a non-starter? Or do you only mean the Apoc ones that are noted as Apoc?
Why is Escalation a non-starter? With the nerf to Strength D is it really the issue it was in 6th?
Unbound I can barely agree with but that's mostly to avoid confusion when I'm playing people. I wouldn't mind trying a source limited Unbound. But at this point I'm probably slightly crazy.
The subtext of what I'm saying: You can't balance a sandbox. If we can't agree on a format, good luck fixing anything.
I would axe the apoc stuff because. well, I don't like apoc and this isn't a play date.
Hulksmash wrote: Why are Formations a non-starter? Or do you only mean the Apoc ones that are noted as Apoc?
Why is Escalation a non-starter? With the nerf to Strength D is it really the issue it was in 6th?
Unbound I can barely agree with but that's mostly to avoid confusion when I'm playing people. I wouldn't mind trying a source limited Unbound. But at this point I'm probably slightly crazy.
To me anything that's able to instantly wipe something off the board in regular sized games shouldn't be allowed. They may have been toned down, but 2-5 only grants you cover/invulnerable saves... What if you have none of those. IDK i just find D weapons very stupid and in some cases unfair.
Formations like the seer council one completely removing Perils of the Warp for your army just seems unbalanced for ALL the other armies. And being victim to that list I don't want to play it or let alone imagine it and allow others to play against it.
After thinking about it more I can see how the ability to just blunt force trauma powers through is a significant problem. The problem is there is no way I can see to not gimp the problems without gimping everyone else or being very complicated.
Namely, all the psykers should be there to cast powers rather than to just give dice to their super-saiyan psyker god.
+1 for this comment.
Except this is the antithesis of the rules as written by GW. If psykers were all limited to their own warp charges most powers would be so unrealiable as to render them mostly useless. As written the rules are exactly having multiple psykers around to power up a few of them. The old rules functioned much better for "every psyker casting powers"
It was mainly exalted for the "super-saiyan psyker god" part. lol
Lou_Cypher wrote: We could just wait and see as suggested multiple times.
Just let the tiers form. In 6th, it was basically Eldar, Tau, Chaos reigning supreme.
In 7th, I can see Eldar, Chaos, Grey Knights as masters of the psychic phase.
The fear in this is the in balance in the game could drive an already decreasing player base out of the game. Once that is done it is hard to bring them back in with changes that should of been suggested/implemented from the start.
They are going with battle forged only and a limit of one combined arms detachment.
And unlimited Allie slots. So basically no change from the craziness that currently exists. Remember kids, there is no requirement for a Combined Arms Detachment to take an Allied one now.
Lou_Cypher wrote: We could just wait and see as suggested multiple times.
Just let the tiers form. In 6th, it was basically Eldar, Tau, Chaos reigning supreme.
In 7th, I can see Eldar, Chaos, Grey Knights as masters of the psychic phase.
The fear in this is the in balance in the game could drive an already decreasing player base out of the game. Once that is done it is hard to bring them back in with changes that should of been suggested/implemented from the start.
On a local level I'd agree with you TK. But that's because at a local level most people into tournaments talk to each other and have a pretty solid understanding of what their community wants. I'd disagree heavily with this being the case with larger events. Why? Because they bring in a multitude of areas normally. And likely stand to gain as many as they lose initially based on rule changes or no changes. And most people go to those events to see friends and hangout, not to "win". Changes the dynamic drastically.
Example being I hate Adepticon's obsession with KP's in 6th edition where they didn't belong. But I still played in their events because it was a great overall event and I got to hang with friends and meet new people. At a local level you don't have the extra encouragement generally.
Namely, all the psykers should be there to cast powers rather than to just give dice to their super-saiyan psyker god.
+1 for this comment.
Except this is the antithesis of the rules as written by GW. If psykers were all limited to their own warp charges most powers would be so unrealiable as to render them mostly useless. As written the rules are exactly having multiple psykers around to power up a few of them. The old rules functioned much better for "every psyker casting powers"
I've got no problems with making changes. It's not as if GW rules are all that great/balanced anyways. You'd think that they would have learned from their experience with Fantasy, but it doesn't look that way.
Basically, this is just a suggestion. If you like the rules as they are now, then just stick with it. If you are looking at possible suggestions as to alternative ways on running a more balanced psychic phase, then this is just another possible solution. I do prefer this method over, say, a hard cap/limit.
The fear in this is the in balance in the game could drive an already decreasing player base out of the game. Once that is done it is hard to bring them back in with changes that should of been suggested/implemented from the start.
The player base in tournament play maybe. I don't think rule changes are the main draw in grabbing players in the first place especially in pick up games at the store or just collecting miniatures. Just the pricing really, not the gameplay itself.
Tiers are still going to be all over the place regardless of how OP a faction is because of the mechanics. Morrigan/Doom in MvC3, Meta-Knight in Brawl, Eddie in Guilty Gear. Only one of them has actually been capped/banned but only after multiple tournament results that actually show them dominating the other. Taking UMvC3 as an example, everyone wanted Wesker nerfed and it was only later that they actually saw Morrigan, Doom, Vergil, and Zero as the true top tiers.
Need more results before putting a hard cap or bans on anything.
The player base in tournament play maybe. I don't think rule changes are the main draw in grabbing players in the first place especially in pick up games at the store or just collecting miniatures. Just the pricing really, not the gameplay itself.
I have personally known more than one person who picked up the game, without great knowledge of what armies were "good", and played just a few games, only to realize that they simply couldn't win, and then quit the game. Unbalanced games find it much harder to recruit the sorts of players who eventually get into tournament play.
you mean someone who has no clue about the game, or armies, who built a list based on that lack of knowledge will lose to people who do have that knowledge?
sorry but that isnt a "balance" issue any more then a newbie in COD being constantly owned by people who know all the good spots to hide/shoot or whatever, or a lousy chess player losing to a better chess player.
Cap warp charges at 12 per turn just like fantasy rules
Automatically Appended Next Post: Im a daemons player and i think capping warp charges at 12 is the right thing to do.
As a Blood angels player i personally do not think vechicles should be scoring either.
Or you could just lower the points level and it makes farming WC's WAY riskier. Sure you can hamfist 8 level 3 heralds in, but they won't have anywhere to hide turn 1 any way.
Oh btw people wouldn't need to carry as much crap around and games would probably all finish on time. Heaven forbid.
Every edition lowers points. If you take all your previous edition books and make lists its crazy how many more units have crept in over the years. Yet nobody ever DARES play lower point games.
I'll stop now rather then risk being the broken record guy.
it's already in the relevant other FAQ's. It's not in SM or DA because that's how the rule is actually written in those codexes. Just figured I'd throw that out there.
it's already in the relevant other FAQ's. It's not in SM or DA because that's how the rule is actually written in those codexes. Just figured I'd throw that out there.
really? good to know, it wasnt in there last night when I checked.... actually I just checked again, its not the the SW or any other FAQ besides GK
are you sure its in there, either codex or FAQ, and specifically mentioning that combat squads take up two FOC choices now when split?
It's in the BAFAQ. Not in the SW because they don't combat squad.
As for total number of units in the detachment that doesn't mean they take up 2 FOC slots. It was related to previous 6th and the total number for how many units you had toward keeping units in reserve. It seriously nerfed GK combat squads deepstriking last edition.
easysauce wrote: you mean someone who has no clue about the game, or armies, who built a list based on that lack of knowledge will lose to people who do have that knowledge?
sorry but that isnt a "balance" issue any more then a newbie in COD being constantly owned by people who know all the good spots to hide/shoot or whatever, or a lousy chess player losing to a better chess player.
Not at all. I mean someone who saw the game, and, for example, liked the look of orks. And lost, so asked for help, and was told that the solution was to not play orks because they suck. Well, sure, he's going to buy a second army now, right? It's one thing to lose due to a lack of knowledge. It's another thing to seek knowledge and be told that you're out of luck because you made the wrong choice of faction initially. That's where the lack of balance costs new players.
Hulksmash wrote: Why are Formations a non-starter? Or do you only mean the Apoc ones that are noted as Apoc?
From a personal perspective, I don't like formations because they're literally "take X units (that you might otherwise be taking anyway), get Y special rules & abilities for free" often with the addendum of "because GW happens sell these particular things together in one box".
Essentially they get bonus abilities and rules, they get to do so outside of any sort of FoC, and pay nothing for the privilege.
As for escalation stuff, at this point with the nerfing to D weapons and relatively low power amongst most common superheavies, I really don't have a problem with it.
Cap warp charges at 12 per turn just like fantasy rules
Automatically Appended Next Post: Im a daemons player and i think capping warp charges at 12 is the right thing to do.
As a Blood angels player i personally do not think vechicles should be scoring either.
It's worth noting that the author of that article really jumped to a unsound conclusion on stating a cap of 12 WC, the daemons player did not win the game despite the 38 WC a turn into summoning and was rolling well above average, so obviously it can't be omg the sky is falling if it resulted in a non win. We aren't talking about giving a unit a 2++ rerollable save, we are talking about adding a few hundred points of lesser daemons to the table. Most people do not fear lesser daemons. Reason being, its a lot easy to clear 2 units of 10 lesser daemons that just got summoned, than it is to clear a unit of 10 models that just gained a rerollable 2++. The daemons that were summoned were obviously not the deciding factor in the game since it was a draw, and the space marine list was pretty tame. It was 2 squads of legion of the damned, tigurius, 10 scouts with telion, 7 devestators 4 with lascannon, contemptor dread, and a single knight.
easysauce wrote: you mean someone who has no clue about the game, or armies, who built a list based on that lack of knowledge will lose to people who do have that knowledge?
sorry but that isnt a "balance" issue any more then a newbie in COD being constantly owned by people who know all the good spots to hide/shoot or whatever, or a lousy chess player losing to a better chess player.
Not at all. I mean someone who saw the game, and, for example, liked the look of orks. And lost, so asked for help, and was told that the solution was to not play orks because they suck. Well, sure, he's going to buy a second army now, right? It's one thing to lose due to a lack of knowledge. It's another thing to seek knowledge and be told that you're out of luck because you made the wrong choice of faction initially. That's where the lack of balance costs new players.
I would argue this example was handled wrong on so many levels. When you are playing someone new you play differently. Your goal isnt to crush them, your goal is to have a fun game and introduce them to the hobby as well as help them get better with the tools they have. If they dont have the tools to destroy your list, then change it.
I just played a 1000 point game against someone new who was feeling down about the game after his last game his opponents cheesed out to the max. I sat down with him and helped talk him through his list, gave him some pointers and then played a 1000 point game. Over the course of the game I pointed out mistakes he was making, helped point out alternatives he could have done as well as fill in knowledge gaps that would help him be better playing. After wards he messaged me thanking me for the help and he was feeling better about the game. Almost everytime I meet someone who is feeling down about it, usually either A.someone was being a dick to them, or B. They just dont know how to play or make use of the tools they have.
The person should not have told someone that the orks suck. They should have said something like "Orks are a bit of an old book, but talk to me about what you like and lets see if we can make something work". That is not GWs fault that is the groups fault. Even if the books were balanced in that environment the same thing would have happened.
If you know someone is not capable of toning down their game play for new players then steer them away from them and steer them towards the people who are more interested in getting people playing than winning. I got a tournament coming up with some serious cash prizes on the line. I still toned down my list because people were just not having fun against it. I am finding that I am still winning my games but now people feel like they have a chance, they are removing models again and feel like they can hurt it.
Cap warp charges at 12 per turn just like fantasy rules
Automatically Appended Next Post: Im a daemons player and i think capping warp charges at 12 is the right thing to do.
As a Blood angels player i personally do not think vechicles should be scoring either.
It's worth noting that the author of that article really jumped to a unsound conclusion on stating a cap of 12 WC, the daemons player did not win the game despite the 38 WC a turn into summoning and was rolling well above average, so obviously it can't be omg the sky is falling if it resulted in a non win. We aren't talking about giving a unit a 2++ rerollable save, we are talking about adding a few hundred points of lesser daemons to the table. Most people do not fear lesser daemons. Reason being, its a lot easy to clear 2 units of 10 lesser daemons that just got summoned, than it is to clear a unit of 10 models that just gained a rerollable 2++. The daemons that were summoned were obviously not the deciding factor in the game since it was a draw, and the space marine list was pretty tame. It was 2 squads of legion of the damned, tigurius, 10 scouts with telion, 7 devestators 4 with lascannon, contemptor dread, and a single knight.
It's worth noting that the author of that article wasn't the one who suggested a cap of 12 WC. Rather, it was one of the readers who commented on his article.
The person should not have told someone that the orks suck. They should have said something like "Orks are a bit of an old book, but talk to me about what you like and lets see if we can make something work". That is not GWs fault that is the groups fault.
Except, "the group" is the internet. The player sought advice outside of the closed environment of his friends, who had tried to help him, but let's be honest, 6th edition is so horribly unbalanced if you're playing an infantry assault army like orks, and 7th hasn't changed that fact. And, by the time most people are adults, they can tell when they're being coddled. Here, let me take the least competent units I own, so you can learn to play the game, isn't a long-term strategy for recruiting new players.
Cap warp charges at 12 per turn just like fantasy rules
Automatically Appended Next Post: Im a daemons player and i think capping warp charges at 12 is the right thing to do.
As a Blood angels player i personally do not think vechicles should be scoring either.
It's worth noting that the author of that article really jumped to a unsound conclusion on stating a cap of 12 WC, the daemons player did not win the game despite the 38 WC a turn into summoning and was rolling well above average, so obviously it can't be omg the sky is falling if it resulted in a non win. We aren't talking about giving a unit a 2++ rerollable save, we are talking about adding a few hundred points of lesser daemons to the table. Most people do not fear lesser daemons. Reason being, its a lot easy to clear 2 units of 10 lesser daemons that just got summoned, than it is to clear a unit of 10 models that just gained a rerollable 2++. The daemons that were summoned were obviously not the deciding factor in the game since it was a draw, and the space marine list was pretty tame. It was 2 squads of legion of the damned, tigurius, 10 scouts with telion, 7 devestators 4 with lascannon, contemptor dread, and a single knight.
It's worth noting that the author of that article wasn't the one who suggested a cap of 12 WC. Rather, it was one of the readers who commented on his article.
The person should not have told someone that the orks suck. They should have said something like "Orks are a bit of an old book, but talk to me about what you like and lets see if we can make something work". That is not GWs fault that is the groups fault.
Except, "the group" is the internet. The player sought advice outside of the closed environment of his friends, who had tried to help him, but let's be honest, 6th edition is so horribly unbalanced if you're playing an infantry assault army like orks, and 7th hasn't changed that fact. And, by the time most people are adults, they can tell when they're being coddled. Here, let me take the least competent units I own, so you can learn to play the game, isn't a long-term strategy for recruiting new players.
Yep, and the internet is full of dicks and donkey-caves. In fifth whenever anyone offered advice it was either play a completely different army, or buy 500 dollars worth of new stuff.
There is a difference between being coddled and being supportive. If I tried to teach you chess by beating you at the 7th move every game that is not helping you learn, that is being a dick. However if you go through the game helping them learn, a few times and getting the hang of the nuances that is not coddling that is teaching. After a few games you let them learn for themselves and play for real
Whoever said anything about the least competent units? I just said bring an army where you both can enjoy the game while they are learning. This is your opportunity to bring those units you wouldn't normally play, or bring that older army out of retirement.
Another thing I learned was that for myself at least if I felt it was a significant uphill battle or that I was unlikely to win I set different win conditions for myself. It enabled me to still be invested in the game but not feel bad about losing. Hell we were at a tournament, facing orks and not at the top table. This guy clearly really enjoyed playing his orks as orks so I could have just run away all game and won, but that wouldnt be any fun so I said screw it, lets get in combat. He said at the end of the game that it was the most combat his orcs had seen and he had a lot of fun. We got to get into challenges and just all around have a good time. Was I coddling him? No, I was just aiming to have a fun time, I still won but we both walked away feeling better.
What if every model that knew a malefic power can only use that power once in the game. They still keep all their other powers, they just can't use the malefic ones more than once.
Combine this with pink horrors not knowing summoning, and you're good.
Truthfully, I think all blessings and malefic powers should be one use only.
@Darkwynn) I don't see a gigantic need to cap warp charges. Why not bring back the unlimited range Psyker Hood?
Make it a general upgrade, for 30 points available to all armies. Adds some depth to the strategies plus isn't crazy OP.
I should mention though Demons are a 3rd tier list ATM, Ive tabled them last 5 playtests. They don't even get close
lololol
Never_Ever_Talk_Again wrote: @Leth) Your shitposting way to much on Dakka. Nobody is going to listen to somebody who writes autistic garbage.
@Darkwynn) I don't see a gigantic need to cap warp charges. Why not bring back the unlimited range Psyker Hood?
Make it a general upgrade, for 30 points available to all armies. Adds some depth to the strategies plus isn't crazy OP.
I should mention though Demons are a 3rd tier list ATM, Ive tabled them last 5 playtests. They don't even get close
lololol
Sure, these were just ideas and issues that I collected and heard about from other groups. Plus possible solutions to the problems.
Personally, I think the underlying factor is with deny the witch. If you can pull the chance in to deny the witch more successfully I think it brings back a balance to the game. For example if you gave bonuses like they talked about towards Blessings and conjurations such as AW adds +1 or higher level psyker add's +1 to a max of 5+ to deny the witch. The casting player still has a edge over the person who has to deny along with the ability to throw as many dice as they want. The person Denying has a chance to cast those key spells and there is little more room for tactical decisions around the dice mechanic.
Plus if an army doesn't have any psykers but has AW or just one Psyker they can save up and stop that Key power from going off if they choose. unlike now which is a hell mary to stop Blessings or Conjurations which are by far the worst outleighers.
If there was going to be any change to the psychic phase I'd be most willing to consider deny going to a 5+ if you've got a higher psyker, A. Will, or wargear bonus on the table.
That said I'm still pretty heavily on the side of the psychic phase not needing a change..
Hulksmash wrote: If there was going to be any change to the psychic phase I'd be most willing to consider deny going to a 5+ if you've got a higher psyker, A. Will, or wargear bonus on the table.
That said I'm still pretty heavily on the side of the psychic phase not needing a change..
I am also on the no change side.
I would love to see the results of the next biggish tournament though, I really want to know how the top guys shake these rules out.
I am heading out to play a game or two tomorrow. I can do a report on the game. Would you all want to see what I can do with the new psychic phase? LMK what you all would like to see.
Tomb King wrote: I am heading out to play a game or two tomorrow. I can do a report on the game. Would you all want to see what I can do with the new psychic phase? LMK what you all would like to see.
Honestly I'd like to see you play open ended, pure 40k 7th at 1500 and see how it goes. I don't think you can do much to break 40k at that point range that hasn't been done in any other edition. Would give a good idea what lists would look like and how much a time difference it is if you keep track. Try one game at 1850 and one at 1500 for control.
Hulksmash wrote: If there was going to be any change to the psychic phase I'd be most willing to consider deny going to a 5+ if you've got a higher psyker, A. Will, or wargear bonus on the table.
That said I'm still pretty heavily on the side of the psychic phase not needing a change..
That is where my head is Hulk. The big issue is really you can't stop or have a way to control blessings or conjurations. If your opponent wants to get them off, well they will.
If you bring that in and god forbid A. Will gets a buff not like anyone ever uses it. Then it pulls that power curve back and you don't have to mess too much with the psychic phase.
I think that leaves the only other elephant in the room... Invisibility...
Invisibility is only really bad in combination with Fortune to me. Without it it's like shooting an FMC. I put a lot of hits on FMC's and would put a ton more wounds on them if they were t3-t4
People pay points for psychers. They should do things in the game. People looking to cap psychers would be like people demanding that artillery be capped back when leaf blower was all the rage. But somehow, its ok to limit psychic powers for some reason....?
Second, Hulk is right. Take a year to actually play the edition before taking a correcting pencil to it. Overreaction is how things spiraled over the last year or so.
The 40k community as a whole dug itself into its current predicament in two steps. First, the internet celebrities pushed hard to abolish all soft scores from the scene, enabling douche lists to be taken with zero consequences, where before there was incentive not to zero in on the most extreme combos in the game. Second, the same group of people pushed hard to modify the game heavily, often the day new editions hit.
If you could ding jackwagons who bring 20+ warp charge armies or 2++ rerolling deathstars, then you would probably see a lot less of them being played. It used to be that guys who took broken combos and unfun lists were the antisocial miscreants the community used to make fun of, but now we are at a point where you get openly mocked if you are not taking the most broken list imaginable. People warned this would happen and they were ignored, and now we are at a point where the game at the tournament level has devolved to a couple of army builds and rock paper scissors.
I have seen this cycle in the fantasy community and there is a marked difference in the variety of armies and the atmosphere between soft scored events and the ones where are zero soft scores. If you want the game to be something more than a rock paper taudar circlejerk, then the community is going to have to seriously re-evaluate its stance on soft scores.
Hulksmash wrote: Invisibility is only really bad in combination with Fortune to me. Without it it's like shooting an FMC. I put a lot of hits on FMC's and would put a ton more wounds on them if they were t3-t4
I would agree if it wasn't able to be combo to toughness 5 or higher models or models with a 2+ save. With them moving the set value to the of the damage equation it gets silly.
Bs 4 bolters firing at a target with invis.
Strength 4 shot vs toughness 4 with 2++ reroll save (1/6)(1/2)(1/36)=1/432
With a 2+ 4+ reroll (1/6)(1/2)(1/12)= 144
Without a reroll strength 4 toughness 4 +2 save = (1/6)(1/2)(1/6)= 1/72
Without invisibility BS 3 firing at 2+ save (1/2)(1/2)(1/6)= 1/24
Invis is kind of silly.
Right now if I wanted to abuse the game I would take advantage of the following mechanics.
Invis, psykers, hit and run and 2+ reroll. See how many bodies I can mass and advanced to produce enough damage to kill 100 models in 5 turns.
People pay points for psychers. They should do things in the game. People looking to cap psychers would be like people demanding that artillery be capped back when leaf blower was all the rage. But somehow, its ok to limit psychic powers for some reason....?
Second, Hulk is right. Take a year to actually play the edition before taking a correcting pencil to it. Overreaction is how things spiraled over the last year or so.
The 40k community as a whole dug itself into its current predicament in two steps. First, the internet celebrities pushed hard to abolish all soft scores from the scene, enabling douche lists to be taken with zero consequences, where before there was incentive not to zero in on the most extreme combos in the game. Second, the same group of people pushed hard to modify the game heavily, often the day new editions hit.
If you could ding jackwagons who bring 20+ warp charge armies or 2++ rerolling deathstars, then you would probably see a lot less of them being played. It used to be that guys who took broken combos and unfun lists were the antisocial miscreants the community used to make fun of, but now we are at a point where you get openly mocked if you are not taking the most broken list imaginable. People warned this would happen and they were ignored, and now we are at a point where the game at the tournament level has devolved to a couple of army builds and rock paper scissors.
I have seen this cycle in the fantasy community and there is a marked difference in the variety of armies and the atmosphere between soft scored events and the ones where are zero soft scores. If you want the game to be something more than a rock paper taudar circlejerk, then the community is going to have to seriously re-evaluate its stance on soft scores.
Soft scores don't work. Army painting judging is subjective. Sportsmanship is the biggest joke of an award as I have seen it gone to so many "family and friends" it's pathetic, let alone friends gaming it across a tournament. And comp systems all have their own meta.
I have seen the Fantasy community die. The try to balance the meta, but everywhere I've been, it's always reduced to "that other game we might play from time to time."
Games Workshop is responsible for this mess. Human behavior will continue being human behavior; balance the game and limit the damage "TFG" can do and the community would be a better place.
I'm not envious of TOs right now. I wish them luck in their endeavors. I see them following the strategy that has been doing well to keep 6E going; offer multiple event types with different rules and restrictions and let the players decide what kind of event they'd like to attend.
@Darkwynn) I don't see a gigantic need to cap warp charges. Why not bring back the unlimited range Psyker Hood?
Make it a general upgrade, for 30 points available to all armies. Adds some depth to the strategies plus isn't crazy OP.
I should mention though Demons are a 3rd tier list ATM, Ive tabled them last 5 playtests. They don't even get close
lololol
Besides playing at 1500 giving access to all armies "dispel scrolls" even just one use, one per army would fix things. It would stop fortune that one turn or invisibility when need it stopped.
@Darkwynn) I don't see a gigantic need to cap warp charges. Why not bring back the unlimited range Psyker Hood?
Make it a general upgrade, for 30 points available to all armies. Adds some depth to the strategies plus isn't crazy OP.
I should mention though Demons are a 3rd tier list ATM, Ive tabled them last 5 playtests. They don't even get close
lololol
Ouch, my brother is autistic and I am hurt by your comments. May I ask what I have said that has offended you so much?
Phazael wrote: First, the internet celebrities pushed hard to abolish all soft scores from the scene, enabling douche lists to be taken with zero consequences, where before there was incentive not to zero in on the most extreme combos in the game.
You know why that happened? Because soft scores suck. They're always hopelessly subjective, painting and sportsmanship are little more than "my friend gets 10/10, everyone else gets 0/10" while comp systems are inevitably just a bunch of TOs with more ego than common sense banning everything that beats them or has a fluff theme that they don't approve of. The solution to balance issues is to change the rules to fix the issues, not to go back to the bad old days of soft scores and tournaments where winning the event has very little to do with who wins the actual games.
If you could ding jackwagons who bring 20+ warp charge armies or 2++ rerolling deathstars, then you would probably see a lot less of them being played.
If you add a rule that invulnerable saves can never be re-rolled (ancient technology and bizarre warp magic doesn't like to be modified) and you can never generate more than 10 warp charge per turn you won't see those armies either, and you don't have to deal with the problem of TOs with long ban lists full of every unit they've ever lost a game against, or comp systems that are essentially "if I don't like your fluff you get a 0/10 and can't win my event". Those two solutions aren't necessarily the best ones, but you always deal with the specific rule instead of screwing around with arbitrary comp systems that allow you to bring the overpowered army but impose a penalty for being a bad person.
Tomb King wrote: IF someone wanted to get funny the sacrifice power in the rulebook leaves it vague enough that someone could summon Skulltaker or other named heralds.
Hulksmash wrote: Invisibility is only really bad in combination with Fortune to me. Without it it's like shooting an FMC. I put a lot of hits on FMC's and would put a ton more wounds on them if they were t3-t4
You mean in 6th? When everyone used prescience on everything? Also fliers are hit by other fliers and skyfire. Invis is stupid as there are no counters once up.
Hulksmash wrote: Invisibility is only really bad in combination with Fortune to me. Without it it's like shooting an FMC. I put a lot of hits on FMC's and would put a ton more wounds on them if they were t3-t4
You mean in 6th? When everyone used prescience on everything? Also fliers are hit by other fliers and skyfire. Invis is stupid as there are no counters once up.
Technically, you could use certain weapons like Deathrays, but rest assured, those are extremely rare.
Hulksmash wrote: Invisibility is only really bad in combination with Fortune to me. Without it it's like shooting an FMC. I put a lot of hits on FMC's and would put a ton more wounds on them if they were t3-t4
You mean in 6th? When everyone used prescience on everything? Also fliers are hit by other fliers and skyfire. Invis is stupid as there are no counters once up.
Technically, you could use certain weapons like Deathrays, but rest assured, those are extremely rare.
Not to mention an argument at the table that's sure to end with your deathray not working. IDC what YMDC technicality or lack of language there is, I'd be shocked to see that work at a table without a major huff.
People pay points for psychers. They should do things in the game. People looking to cap psychers would be like people demanding that artillery be capped back when leaf blower was all the rage. But somehow, its ok to limit psychic powers for some reason....?
People also pay points for Howling Banshees, with no expectation that they'll do anything in the game.... but to address your comment, and why this expectation should be different for shooting/assault versus psykers.
Assume, for a brief moment (and try not to die laughing at this next statement), that GW actually got the costs for all the shooty units right, and that they were balanced. You'd pay your points for your shooty guys, and they'd pay their points for their shooty guys, and the game would be wonderful.
Now, realize that it's impossible for this to be the case with random psyker tables. You may pay your 75 points for a level 3 psyker, and your opponent may also, but where you get powers that force multiply your army, he rolls nothing but witchfires.
If you're cool with tournaments being decided by random dice rolls early in the game, this may be seen as reasonable. I don't like it though. In fact, as I write this, I've got another idea for tournament play.
What if we had non-random psykers. What if each mastery level you got earned you spell points to put towards buying your powers. And we, as a community, came up with costs associated with the various powers. Could be a lot of work, but it would remove another source of watching someone get bounced from an event by rolling dud powers for a game.
It wouldn't be the first time that the community decided to get rid of some of the more random aspects of the game. We already provide set missions, rather than rolling for them. We often provide set numbers of objectives, rather than rolling for those as well.
The 40k community as a whole dug itself into its current predicament in two steps. First, the internet celebrities pushed hard to abolish all soft scores from the scene, enabling douche lists to be taken with zero consequences, where before there was incentive not to zero in on the most extreme combos in the game. Second, the same group of people pushed hard to modify the game heavily, often the day new editions hit.
If you could ding jackwagons who bring 20+ warp charge armies or 2++ rerolling deathstars, then you would probably see a lot less of them being played. It used to be that guys who took broken combos and unfun lists were the antisocial miscreants the community used to make fun of, but now we are at a point where you get openly mocked if you are not taking the most broken list imaginable. People warned this would happen and they were ignored, and now we are at a point where the game at the tournament level has devolved to a couple of army builds and rock paper scissors.
I have seen this cycle in the fantasy community and there is a marked difference in the variety of armies and the atmosphere between soft scored events and the ones where are zero soft scores. If you want the game to be something more than a rock paper taudar circlejerk, then the community is going to have to seriously re-evaluate its stance on soft scores.
I mostly agree with this, with the exception that there should be some sort of control to avoid the opposite jackwagon who simply dings anyone who beats him (or worse, anyone outside his circle of friends). Soft-scores have been abused in the past.
If you're cool with tournaments being decided by random dice rolls early in the game, this may be seen as reasonable. I don't like it though. In fact, as I write this, I've got another idea for tournament play.
so you want the game determined by non random rolls early on? or later on?
shooting rolls in 1st turn alpha strikes or leaf blows, are also random, and also early on.
its no fun to see tau/eldar make some good rolls first turn and see half my army just dissapear, thats random, thats early, just like getting a lucky invis or two... but where as I can use tactics to over come invisibility (tar pit, or ignore the unit ect) I cant do anything about you randomly rolling first turn then getting to shoot up my army with impunity.
in fact, just as random as the phychic power rolls... its a game of dice for petes sake... you can loose because you rolled a 1 for your save, or the game didnt go on, or your reserves didnt show up, and so on...
Tomb King wrote: IF someone wanted to get funny the sacrifice power in the rulebook leaves it vague enough that someone could summon Skulltaker or other named heralds.
No, not it's not.
I tried to understand your comment but not its not throws me for a loop. What did you mean?
Instead of rolling d66, each player is given a deck of mission objective cards. Whenever the player would be required to roll a d66, instead shuffle the deck and draw a card. Immediately prior to deployment or at any time thereafter (perhaps after a certain unit got killed), players may search for, reveal to the other players and remove the following cards under the following conditions:
You may remove
-If you have no units in your army capable of shooting- Overwhelming Firepower
-If you have no units in your army capable of charging- Blood and Guts
-If you don't have any characters or if your opponent has no characters- Hungry for Glory
-If your opponent has no units capable of making/failing a morale, pinning or fear test- Psychological Warfare
-If you have no psykers in your army- Harness the Warp
-If the enemy never began the game with a warlord- Kingslayer
-If your enemy has no psykers in their army- WitchHunter
-If your enemy has no flyers/FMCs in their army- Scour the Skies
-If your enemy has no characters in their army- Assassinate
-If your enemy has no gun emplacements or buildings in their army- Demolitions
-If the enemy has no tanks, MCs (including super heavies/gargs)- Big Game Hunter
Charge through cover
If only a single model in the charging unit must force a difficult terrain test for the unit, and this could not have easily been anticipated before the unit's models had already been moved, then the model does not force the rest of the unit to take a difficult terrain test. Judge required whenever a charge is needed to determine what counts as 'easily anticipated'. (I am listing this because there might be occasions where you declare a charge, your dice roll means you 'just make it'. You move your models into position, and then discover that the last one or two models cant move into position properly without wrapping around the enemy unit and going through difficult terrain, which was only really foreseeable once all the other models in the unit had been placed. There's far too much argument to be had if you then need to remember where each model when you 'reset the whole units position').
FOC
Models from no more than 2 codexes may be included in your army.
A maximum of 2 combined arms detachments, 1 allied detachment, 1 fortification and 2 formations may be included as part of a battle-forged army.
In unbound armies, with the exception of troops choices, no unit may be selected more than 3 times per army. (An army may still include more than normal numbers of slots for each combat role; for example an unbound space marine army may include 3 thunderfire cannons and 3 predators, they may not however take 4 or more thunderfire cannons).
Psychic Abilities Out of Hand (looking at you invisibility)
The number of warp charge points needed to cast a psychic ability is equal to it's warp charge cost + 1 warp charge for each time the psychic ability has already been cast this turn.
Conjuration Shenanigans
Any force wishing to use conjuration psychic abilities must pick a selection of models (up to 1 full sized units worth, with no model mixing) that they may summon, this step follows the psychic power selection step during pregame. Any psykers wishing to conjure a unit may only use models from the selected pool. If there are not enough models available to form a unit then the psychic ability resolves without any models being placed on the table. If there are enough models to form a unit of the minimum size needed to create the unit they may come into play, even if this means 2 conjured units from the same starting selection are on the table at once as separate units.
Love the irony that daemon summoning needs to go, and Gw put it in the game is not a good enough reason....but that same reason is good enough for unbound armies....lol.
I was going to post this almost word for word. I found it amusing as well.
Love the irony that daemon summoning needs to go, and Gw put it in the game is not a good enough reason....but that same reason is good enough for unbound armies....lol.
I was going to post this almost word for word. I found it amusing as well.
You meant Yarrick and Gazghull leading a unit of guardians isn't reason enough?
niv-mizzet wrote: Sort of. Except those armies don't actually pay any points towards it, and have no expectations of participating in the psychic phase.
But armies that have the option to pay points towards it and choose not to do so, or to do so only to a small degree should have the same capability as the armies that are geared towards being psychic-heavy?
I'm not sure summoning armies are worth tooling against in an official tournament environment, to be honest. They take far too long to accomplish things due to the rolls for summoning, deepstriking, keeping a horde style army moving, etc. An aggressive time clock limit in tournaments ought to be enough to curb the more abusive summoning lists.
Love the irony that daemon summoning needs to go, and Gw put it in the game is not a good enough reason....but that same reason is good enough for unbound armies....lol.
I was going to post this almost word for word. I found it amusing as well.
You meant Yarrick and Gazghull leading a unit of guardians isn't reason enough?
No it's not. I really don't care too much about the fluff in this game other than knowing the bare bones of it. IMO most of the fluff in the various army books comes across like bad fan fiction to me. I've always thought that there are three parts (at least) to this hobby:
- Appreciation and knowledge of the fluff (in codex, BRB and various Black Library novels)
- Modeling, Painting and Converting
- Gameplay and List Building
I love the gameplay and listbuilding part. I love the modeling, painting and conversion stuff almost as much. However, the fluff takes a distant third place for me. I know people that will only play a given army if they can 'get behind' the fluff. They'll switch armies when a new book comes out if they don't like the changes to the fluff. For me, I won't put a model on the table if I don't like how it looks. I want to run a Nurgle Daemon army, but I can't stand the current GUO model so I'll wait until a new one comes out.
And we're talking about tournament rules here, fluff shouldn't even be a consideration.
Back to the discussion of Warp Charge caps. In 6E I ran a Tzeentch Flying Circus consisting of Fateweaver, one Nurgle Prince, two Tzeentch Princes two troops (usually 1x Horrors and 1x Plaguebearers) and added other units as needed to hit various point limits. Fatweaver was usually casting a buff (Endurance, Iron Arm or Invis) then shooting at least two PSAs per turn. The Nurgle Prince (rolling heavy Biomancy) would usually cast a buff and one or two PSAs. The two Tzeentch Princes would generally cast at least one PSA sometimes two depending on what powers they got. Not including the Horrors who didn't shoot a lot unless stuff wandered into range, thats about 13 Warp Charge worth of spells in 6E. In 7E, assuming each Tzeentch Prince and Fateweaver each cast a single WC2 Flickering Fire, that's 15 power dice to have a reasonable chance of all that going off. Those three units only generate 10 dice between them.
As has already been mentioned, for an army who's shooting is almost entirely psychic, the currently published rules are a huge nerf. Fewer powers will be going off even without the ability to deny blessings. Limiting Warp Charge just to balance out Summoning (which I still haven't seen a demonstrated need for) is like cutting off someone's hands to prevent them from smoking. If you have a problem with Summoning it should be addressed to that specific problem instead of hamstringing any other army that uses Psychic powers.
40K (even tournaments) are not serious business. We can afford to take more than a week that some have taken to decide if our tournament rules need sweeping changes.
Love the irony that daemon summoning needs to go, and Gw put it in the game is not a good enough reason....but that same reason is good enough for unbound armies....lol.
I was going to post this almost word for word. I found it amusing as well.
You meant Yarrick and Gazghull leading a unit of guardians isn't reason enough?
No it's not. I really don't care too much about the fluff in this game other than knowing the bare bones of it. IMO most of the fluff in the various army books comes across like bad fan fiction to me. I've always thought that there are three parts (at least) to this hobby:
- Appreciation and knowledge of the fluff (in codex, BRB and various Black Library novels)
- Modeling, Painting and Converting
- Gameplay and List Building
I love the gameplay and listbuilding part. I love the modeling, painting and conversion stuff almost as much. However, the fluff takes a distant third place for me. I know people that will only play a given army if they can 'get behind' the fluff. They'll switch armies when a new book comes out if they don't like the changes to the fluff. For me, I won't put a model on the table if I don't like how it looks. I want to run a Nurgle Daemon army, but I can't stand the current GUO model so I'll wait until a new one comes out.
And we're talking about tournament rules here, fluff shouldn't even be a consideration.
Back to the discussion of Warp Charge caps. In 6E I ran a Tzeentch Flying Circus consisting of Fateweaver, one Nurgle Prince, two Tzeentch Princes two troops (usually 1x Horrors and 1x Plaguebearers) and added other units as needed to hit various point limits. Fatweaver was usually casting a buff (Endurance, Iron Arm or Invis) then shooting at least two PSAs per turn. The Nurgle Prince (rolling heavy Biomancy) would usually cast a buff and one or two PSAs. The two Tzeentch Princes would generally cast at least one PSA sometimes two depending on what powers they got. Not including the Horrors who didn't shoot a lot unless stuff wandered into range, thats about 13 Warp Charge worth of spells in 6E. In 7E, assuming each Tzeentch Prince and Fateweaver each cast a single WC2 Flickering Fire, that's 15 power dice to have a reasonable chance of all that going off. Those three units only generate 10 dice between them.
As has already been mentioned, for an army who's shooting is almost entirely psychic, the currently published rules are a huge nerf. Fewer powers will be going off even without the ability to deny blessings. Limiting Warp Charge just to balance out Summoning (which I still haven't seen a demonstrated need for) is like cutting off someone's hands to prevent them from smoking. If you have a problem with Summoning it should be addressed to that specific problem instead of hamstringing any other army that uses Psychic powers.
40K (even tournaments) are not serious business. We can afford to take more than a week that some have taken to decide if our tournament rules need sweeping changes.
And your tzeetnch army also followed this thing that used to exist, it was called the foc. I'm with you, I don't want to hear about warp caps, that is, I don't want to hear about them until we know what game we're playing. FOC = Job #1
Most important thing I want answered is what the FOC limitations will be. It's a bit difficult to draw up lists without first having an idea of what models I can use.
For example, currently armies can take an extra detachment from their own codex, but I am skeptical of this staying around.
Especially important due to how soon the ATC/NOVA are.
Played a 1500 point game tonight using the maelstrom missions.
First takes:
I took 4 level 2 psykers into the game and only 3 had maelfic (I rolled very poorly on my powers though so could not really summon more units that could summon. (I summoned 1 LOC, 10 plague bearers, 10 daemonettes, 3x3 flamers, 3x2 screamers). It could of been a lot worse but I had powers 3 and 5 on every psyker after the LOC was brought in. Either way its nice to sit and camp with my IG while I send wave after wave of daemons at my opponent to keep him occupied and score objectives.
The maelstrom missions drastically slow the game down. You have to draw them and then read them and then try to think up your strategy on the fly to execute them. Are 1500pt game lasted for 4 1/2 hours.
Jink is ridiculous now unless you can ignore cover. Was facing off against necrons who dont mind snap shooting. 5 AV 13 vehicles with a 4+ to ignore damage really hurts.
I will try and post a battle report later and provide a link.
I played my first game tonight too, also with Maelstrom missions. My biggest takeaway was that Maelstrom is all about who can churn cards more efficiently. We played at 1k, and I had an unfocused eldar Biel-tan list. Swooping Hawks are awesome in Maelstrom missions because you can put them where you need, score a point, draw a new card, and repeat. Jetbikes, too, have the mobility to get places and keep churning cards.
We deliberately were not trying to break the game, just a couple of casual lists. No crazy summoning or invisibility - he had a libby, I had a farseer and a lone warlock with a jetbike unit. Doom and Guide were the powers with the most impact. Knowing you get the primaris power free if you stick to a discipline is nice.
On topic: I don't think Maelstrom has any place in a tournament. It's too easy for someone to draw into easily scored cards and just churn their objectives quickly, while the other player has to move his men to a specific place, or be stuck discarding only one card/turn.
LValx wrote: Most important thing I want answered is what the FOC limitations will be. It's a bit difficult to draw up lists without first having an idea of what models I can use.
For example, currently armies can take an extra detachment from their own codex, but I am skeptical of this staying around.
Especially important due to how soon the ATC/NOVA are.
This.
Personally, I agree with Hulksmash and think double CADs should be given a chance. I know there is some potential for abuse, but I think that potential is minor compared to the options it opens up for players. I was also hardcore against LoWs in 40k, but after the D-weapon Nerf, I am less concerned. However, that may change the first time I see a LoW pick up the Relic...
LValx wrote: Most important thing I want answered is what the FOC limitations will be. It's a bit difficult to draw up lists without first having an idea of what models I can use.
For example, currently armies can take an extra detachment from their own codex, but I am skeptical of this staying around.
Especially important due to how soon the ATC/NOVA are.
This.
Personally, I agree with Hulksmash and think double CADs should be given a chance. I know there is some potential for abuse, but I think that potential is minor compared to the options it opens up for players. I was also hardcore against LoWs in 40k, but after the D-weapon Nerf, I am less concerned. However, that may change the first time I see a LoW pick up the Relic...
I'm also in favor of allowing double FOC with yourself so you got 3 possibilites:
a) Use 1 FOC.
b) Use 1 FOC from your codex and take 1 allied detachment (no CtA)
c) Use 1 FOC from your codex and "ally with yourself" thus take an additional detachment from your codex
That's the absolute maximum though, no 3 detachments or more. Fortifications and Lords of War may be taken on top of each of these detachments; LoW requires explicit consent.
We have already made 7th playable for ATC, and it is a bonkers smoother of a ride. I love it. We had 4 teams threaten to quite the ATC if we did not go to 7th ed and no one was defending 6th.
maelstrom missions can be used in a tourny... TO decides on 10 cards ahead of event, player puts them in any order they want, each card achieved is worth 1 VP
This removes the random and adds a layer of strategy to the game. It also removes the dumb "blow up a building" if your opponent has no buildings... or "Kill a monstrous creature!" if your opponent has none...
As I said multiple times, heralds are very expensive and them along with horrors are extremely fragile (T3 5++). Use the other powerful thing in 7th edition, barrage, TFCs/Biovores/Wyverns etc all will pour wounds and kill them really quickly, and you can't avoid barrage under a roof anymore.
This edition is about mobility/MSU, a really all out summoning army won't have much offense for 1-2 turns. Pod armies, scouting armies, fast armies aka alpha striking armies will utterly decimate a full psychic summoning demon list.
And/or just throw a walker at them, there isn't much demons have to clear AV13 walkers easily.
Bringing down a herald or two early, or bringing horror units down a warp charge ( 15 horrors to 9 horrors -> 1 ML instead of 3), drastically reduces their power levels. With way less psykers and mastery levels, their chance at failing Malefic and/or risking perils increases a lot.
Unless they're having Godly dices, they're not gonna spawn 500 points on Turn 1.
OR, treat it as if you were fighting the old Tervigon-birthing spam army.
if you run a sit back immobile shooting army that doesn't have barrage/arty, and there are LoS-blocking terrain, that's really too bad for you especially given the changes in this edition.
I think lowering the point cost is a must. We have a new phase that at a minimum will take 30 minutes. New missions that have random objectives requires more thinking time lowering the points is a must in my opinion.
Currently working on the comp for the tournament I am running inAugust, what do you guys think of the following
1650 Pts (This is fairly standard for UK tournaments)
FOC Armies must contain the following
1 Primary CAD detachment
Armies may include up to 1 of the following
1 Allied Detachment (all codexes may ally with themselves)
1 Supplement codex I.e Iyanden, Farsight, Crimson Slaughter.
1 Imperial Knights or Inquistion detachment
1 Formation*
1 LOW
If a formation is from the same army as the Primary CAD this does not take up your additional choice slot.
Psychic Phase
Deny the Witch dice pool - A players deny pool may never exceed more than 3 times the number of dice than their opponents warp charge pool.
A player may never have more than 25% of his original points in summoned or spawned units, on the board at any one time. (413 points rounded up)
Save modifiers
Any 2+ save can only ever be re rolled as a 4+.
Eldercaveman wrote: Currently working on the comp for the tournament I am running inAugust, what do you guys think of the following
1650 Pts (This is fairly standard for UK tournaments)
FOC Armies must contain the following
1 Primary CAD detachment
Armies may include up to 1 of the following
1 Allied Detachment (all codexes may ally with themselves)
1 Supplement codex I.e Iyanden, Farsight, Crimson Slaughter.
1 Imperial Knights or Inquistion detachment
1 Formation*
1 LOW
If a formation is from the same army as the Primary CAD this does not take up your additional choice slot.
Psychic Phase
Deny the Witch dice pool - A players deny pool may never exceed more than 3 times the number of dice than their opponents warp charge pool.
A player may never have more than 25% of his original points in summoned or spawned units, on the board at any one time. (413 points rounded up)
Save modifiers
Any 2+ save can only ever be re rolled as a 4+.
LOW
Lord of Wars are never scoring.
I think most of that sounds grand but since the 'free formation' is basically a third ally, you should just make it 3 detachments no more than 2 CAD, counting formations as a detachment. In that way your not catering to certain armies that have access to formations while others do not (well in the same way anyhow).
Conjuring should just be a unit can never have more than one summoned unit on the table at a time, doesn't really matter the points.
1500 to keep it under control and quick.
Oh yeah and feth all 'first blood', dumbest vp ever....
Just as an idea, how would escalating warp charges work for limiting summoning?
For example, the summoning powers work as written when you have no summoned units on the board. For each summoned unit you have on the board, the warp charge cost increases by one. Thus, it is normal to have a summoned unit of daemons, but increasing hordes of daemons become very difficult.
On the other hand, if your summoned daemons get banished, it's not as hard to summon more, as the 'counter' resets.
I'm not doing enough with 40K to be able to test this, but it would be a bit of a 'soft nerf' to summoning, and would leave warp charges alone otherwise. The player who summons a squad of daemons wouldn't be much affected, but the player who bases his build around summoning would need to re-evaluate his strategy (but not be forced to abandon it).
Eldercaveman wrote: Currently working on the comp for the tournament I am running inAugust, what do you guys think of the following
1650 Pts (This is fairly standard for UK tournaments)
FOC Armies must contain the following
1 Primary CAD detachment
Armies may include up to 1 of the following
1 Allied Detachment (all codexes may ally with themselves)
1 Supplement codex I.e Iyanden, Farsight, Crimson Slaughter.
1 Imperial Knights or Inquistion detachment
1 Formation*
1 LOW
If a formation is from the same army as the Primary CAD this does not take up your additional choice slot.
Psychic Phase
Deny the Witch dice pool - A players deny pool may never exceed more than 3 times the number of dice than their opponents warp charge pool.
A player may never have more than 25% of his original points in summoned or spawned units, on the board at any one time. (413 points rounded up)
Save modifiers
Any 2+ save can only ever be re rolled as a 4+.
LOW
Lord of Wars are never scoring.
I think most of that sounds grand but since the 'free formation' is basically a third ally, you should just make it 3 detachments no more than 2 CAD, counting formations as a detachment. In that way your not catering to certain armies that have access to formations while others do not (well in the same way anyhow).
Conjuring should just be a unit can never have more than one summoned unit on the table at a time, doesn't really matter the points.
1500 to keep it under control and quick.
Oh yeah and feth all 'first blood', dumbest vp ever....
To be honest I'll probably go the other way and just make it one CAD plus one other thing, this makes putting Inquistion in an actual choice you have to think about. And still allows armies like Nids to either use their formations or extra FOC slots.
Yeah I'm going to be having a play around with the missions, we actually play a lot of Last Blood which works quite nicely. I'm working on some randomised secondary objectives, that players will roll at the start of the game if they achieve it at the end of the game they recieve 2Vps stuff like 'Kill the most expensive enemy unit', 'Kill the Most expensive Heavy support' etc that's all very WIP though.
From my experience so far I see no need to cap warp charges.
The entire psychic phase is very different and should be played as is unless at some point we'll feel it required to make some changes.
IF there is a feeling that something specific is over powered then clearly this needs to be play tested to identify any issues which I'm sure T.O's of big events are doing just that.
My belief is that we will find that although initial thought is OMG/WTF it won't be as crazy as we first thought.
Like anything armies must adapt to the new edition and that in itself will create a new meta which I think is a pretty fun ride to be on.
The FOC though needs some control.
I would imagine Tournaments will go with one FOC + one Ally or one Formation.
If we forget the rest of the FOC rules and just use page 122 which is exactly what the Throne of Skulls GW events will be using I think that will create the tournament balance we need.
Blackmoor wrote: Why fix summoning when we do not even know if it is broken?
Do you want to know what is broken? Wave serpent spam! How about TOs limit Eldar to only 2 wave serpents? That will help fix 7th edition.
Not to mention that there are other codices that can easily spawn free units (Spyders generating 135 pts worth of Scarabs a turn, Tervigons, respawning Gants/Gargoyles) and do it without as much of a risk to themselves/building an entire list around it.
It is very difficult to cast summonings, it'll require 7-8 warp charges to do so. It is also fairly easy to remove things like horrors and heralds, especially when they go second and you've got things such as barrage. Marines with Shrike/Khan can scout up and do early damage. I think this mass paranoia all stems from hearsay. The one battle report that Frontline put out is no evidence or proof of a broken mechanic, there was a lot of luck involved in that game. If we apply extreme circumstances to almost any mechanic we could conclude that it is broken (i.e. a game where every Serpent rolls a 5-6 for the shield, or a game with Wraithknights rolling 6's all day).
The numbers suggest that summoning isn't a particularly broken mechanic, i'll trust that more than some anecdotal evidence.
If you limit Warp Charges you will severely limit the effectiveness of Daemons as they rely on them heavily. The codex has almost no traditional shooting and limiting Warp Charges will mean that Daemons become far less survivable and far less damaging. Picking on one codex doesn't seem like a particularly good idea.
I earlier posted that the warp charges should be limited to 12 cards.
As a marine player i was wrong.
Daemons are supposed to have hordes of them coming through
part of the game.
Its what makes it fun shooting hordes of guys.
Like fighting nids and orks.
Assign kill team to go after psykers Also part of the new rules are escalation models and lots of shooting models. New imperial armour tamk variants to shoot them with.
I have no issues.
I have big shooting phases while they may not.
Psychics is fine for now.
Invisibilty is an issue, Where are the auspecs lol?
Taking one primary detachment and not double force org makes sense
Eldercaveman wrote: Armies may include up to 1 of the following
1 Supplement codex I.e Iyanden, Farsight, Crimson Slaughter.
This is a bad rule. Those supplement codices can be taken as primary detachments, not just allies. So you seem to be saying that if you play Farsight Tau as your primary detachment you're not allowed to take any LOW/allies/etc. Just remove this from the list, the other FOC limits already cover taking an allied detachment regardless of whether it's a "main" codex or supplement codex ally and your choice of primary detachment shouldn't have any impact on your other choices.
If a formation is from the same army as the Primary CAD this does not take up your additional choice slot.
This is a really bad rule. You shouldn't get free formations based on which codex they come from. A formation is a formation, count it the same for all armies.
Lord of Wars are never scoring.
I don't really see the point of this. I can take 3x scoring LRBTs and it will be almost as hard to kill as my scoring Baneblade, so why does my Baneblade need to be turned into a non-scoring unit when all the other durable units don't?
@Blackmoor: Wasn't the game Frankie played with the daemons more about the random cards?
#1. I don't play demons.
#2. There was a lot of luck on both sides. Frankie got really lucky by not periling, and the amount of powers that he got off. His opponent got lucky with the cards that he drew.
#3. There is not much to be learned by the first game of 7th edition other than both players did not know what they are doing.
#4. There are a lot of people that point to that game to show how powerful the summoning demon army is, and I just find it ironic that they did not even win.
#5. Everyone talks about how broken demon summoning is, but we have yet to see that on the table top. If they can beat Eldar reliably, then we can start to have the conversation. Until that happens (and it won't) then there is no point in discussing it.
Thing is psychic daemons lack everything you need for a solid tournament army.
For a solid tournament army to consistantly place you need to limit variables as much as possible. The psychic daemon army is banking 100% basically on randomness to see it through. Not something I am worried about.
I'll toss out my opinions on the big contention points...
Unbound: Honestly, in competitive play mobile Objective Secured armies are going to manhandle Unbound Armies. I really don't think they will be winning many tournaments and most players will view them as a liability. Limiting to Battle Forged could be done and would be fine, but an unnecessary limitation isn't needed if Unbound armies okay out like I believe they will.
Battle Forged and the FOC: Dual Combined Arms detachments are just fine and required for Eldar/Iyanden, Tau/Farsight etc as you cannot ally with yourself. With the allies changes and extremely limited Battle Brothers choices outside of the Imperium we aren't going to see as much abuse as Taudar or Taurines, or Eldar/SM. Allowing Battle Forged as written is just fine.
Daemon Factory: It is too early to tell, but I do not believe that Daemon Factory is goi to be as destructive as our initial doom and gloom predictions made it out to be. There are many points of failure and it takes six dice to pull a 2/3 chance of successful casting on Summoning. Perils chances are there, Deny is a thing, albeit a rare thing, but there. A solid Daemon factory may bring fourth four units in a turn, it isn't hard to kill solo heralds or knock horrors down to limit warp charges. Going second especially against good Aloha strike lists can be absolutely brutal. Time will tell, and if we see Daemon factory dominate like Tau/Eldar or Eldar in 6th we will have a problem, but not an unbeatable one.
Limit Warp Per Turn: No. See above. The Physchic phase should govern itself and brings enough randomness to cost players tournaments. Relying on it may prove a bad strategy and be self limiting. Also, time limits will potentially limit excessive reliance on Daemon Factory. Last turn objective grabs by mobile Objective Secured opponents will cost Daemon Facotry players games.
Invisibility: Is broken. Losing the ability to target the unit with blasts, templates, and ignores Cover is huge and game breaking. Belakor getting it by default is the worst offender. A flat -2 to hit would have been appropriate, or making it WC3, or limiting to the Psycher and it's Unit, or revert to the 6th edition power.
In summary my only real complaint is Invisibility, I feel everything else will prove to be self limiting as this will not be the edition if Unbound Madness and Psychic Domination, but the edition of mobile, preferably mechanized, Objective Secured Scoring. We need more time and to view some tournament results before we can to any concrete conclusions about most of what is on the offenders list.
Leth wrote: Thing is psychic daemons lack everything you need for a solid tournament army.
For a solid tournament army to consistantly place you need to limit variables as much as possible. The psychic daemon army is banking 100% basically on randomness to see it through. Not something I am worried about.
I have to 100% disagree with this statement. When Tau dropped a while back we coined a phrase, "There is a Tau for that!" Mainly because they could do just about anything you needed them to do. Now the new phrase, "There is a daemon for that!' However, anyone can coin that phrase because a good majority of the armies can run malefic. You can spawn screamers for armor, flamers for horde control, plaguebearers for objective camping, even greater daemons for that offensive flying threat. My biggest concern isnt so much the daemon summoning factory. Personally if the lore was reduced to daemons only it would be more tolerable. When I can play a heavy shooting army with cheap psyker support I could essentially summon/conjure whatever I need in the fight. Sure you still have to get the powers off and 66% of the perils results have you taking a wound no matter what but honestly its seriously worth the risk. Plus you dont mind the wound if you just turned your psyker into a GD. I payed 75pts for a lord of change . Also it needs FAQ'd what happens when you perils but turn into something else when you do. Does the wound carry over... do all wounds that have been previously suffered also carry over? There is no example for this.
The issue is sure you got a Lord of Change, with 2 powers? no Gifts, etc. FMCs are not that great this edition (MCs in General got worse). Changing your psyker into a lord of change unless he has no other good powers, simply isn't that great, otherwise turning your chaos sorcerer into a Daemon prince on the boon table would be awesome too. It isn't. Generally you end up with an MC with a 5+ save, sitting on the ground(can you deepstrike swooping?)....where it dies pretty quick.
Cap the psychic dice to 12
No duplicate powers in an army except primaris powers.
Summoned units cannot summon
Dont use tactical objectives/maelstrom of war
Soteks Prophet wrote: Cap the psychic dice to 12
No duplicate powers in an army except primaris powers.
Summoned units cannot summon
Dont use tactical objectives/maelstrom of war
So then we ban Daemons, just so we are clear on that.
The psycich phase just isn't reliable enough to warrant a cap (certainly not to 12 dice, at which point you are casting 2 or 3 powers a turn, really that should be the cap?)
Soteks Prophet wrote: Cap the psychic dice to 12
No duplicate powers in an army except primaris powers.
Summoned units cannot summon
Dont use tactical objectives/maelstrom of war
You really shouldn't list requests to help form a Tournament standard without at least play testing and if you had you should add evidence to backup your input.
Leth wrote: Thing is psychic daemons lack everything you need for a solid tournament army.
For a solid tournament army to consistantly place you need to limit variables as much as possible. The psychic daemon army is banking 100% basically on randomness to see it through. Not something I am worried about.
I have to 100% disagree with this statement. When Tau dropped a while back we coined a phrase, "There is a Tau for that!" Mainly because they could do just about anything you needed them to do. Now the new phrase, "There is a daemon for that!' However, anyone can coin that phrase because a good majority of the armies can run malefic. You can spawn screamers for armor, flamers for horde control, plaguebearers for objective camping, even greater daemons for that offensive flying threat. My biggest concern isnt so much the daemon summoning factory. Personally if the lore was reduced to daemons only it would be more tolerable. When I can play a heavy shooting army with cheap psyker support I could essentially summon/conjure whatever I need in the fight. Sure you still have to get the powers off and 66% of the perils results have you taking a wound no matter what but honestly its seriously worth the risk. Plus you dont mind the wound if you just turned your psyker into a GD. I payed 75pts for a lord of change . Also it needs FAQ'd what happens when you perils but turn into something else when you do. Does the wound carry over... do all wounds that have been previously suffered also carry over? There is no example for this.
And I could theoretically make 10 5+ saves in a row on one guy sitting on an objective. Just because it is POSSIBLE does not mean that is is probable nor a smart idea. Second you are assuming for some other army that you will have enough dice and rolls to reliably summon units which will just not be the case. What makes Daemons/Eldar scary is the large number of dice and large number of rolls on the tree that they will likely have multiples of each of the conjuring powers so they can reliably get them off.
We have not had enough time to know if it is going to be an actual problem instead of an imaginary one and what the actual mechanic that is the problem is, if there is one. Just because the check engine light is on doesn't mean that you need a new alternator. You need to investigate and find the exact problem. Which takes time, practice, and feedback from everyone else. We dont even know how all the little rules interactions in the edition will workout. Give people time to learn to play armies and play against armies before we decide to be some overlord like individuals taking away peoples ability to play with their toys because we say so.
You paid 75 points for a GD POTENTIALLY, I can also pay 5 points for a guardsman with a lasgun that causes a wound on your riptide drones and he runs off the board, what is your point? If you are saying that I can spend points to get something and it gives me more of a return than I spent. Well yea, that is the goal for most units. Also even if what you are saying is true and common place most FMC have been limited in useability.
As to the perils/wounds thing, the order of operations is clear on perils/wounds. Perils is completed before manifesting the power. As to the wounds it is 100% clear that the initial model is removed as a casualty and a new model is put on the table.
Breng77 wrote: The issue is sure you got a Lord of Change, with 2 powers? no Gifts, etc. FMCs are not that great this edition (MCs in General got worse). Changing your psyker into a lord of change unless he has no other good powers, simply isn't that great, otherwise turning your chaos sorcerer into a Daemon prince on the boon table would be awesome too. It isn't. Generally you end up with an MC with a 5+ save, sitting on the ground(can you deepstrike swooping?)....where it dies pretty quick.
And we can't forget that a Summoned FMC arrives from reserves via deepstrike, cannot change movement modes or charge the turn it arrives, can only change movment modes the following turn, and cant actually charge anything until the second turn after it's summoned. Makes summoning a Bloodthirster kind of pointless. I think we need to get past the "OMG a Greater Daemon!" and really look at it.
Summon FMC T2, it can Charge T4.
IMO you are better off summoning a GUO or KOS because they can affect the board much more quickly and it isn't like your LOC is going to be casting Witchfires anyway, you need those dice for more Summoning.
Leth wrote: Thing is psychic daemons lack everything you need for a solid tournament army.
For a solid tournament army to consistantly place you need to limit variables as much as possible. The psychic daemon army is banking 100% basically on randomness to see it through. Not something I am worried about.
I have to 100% disagree with this statement. When Tau dropped a while back we coined a phrase, "There is a Tau for that!" Mainly because they could do just about anything you needed them to do. Now the new phrase, "There is a daemon for that!' However, anyone can coin that phrase because a good majority of the armies can run malefic. You can spawn screamers for armor, flamers for horde control, plaguebearers for objective camping, even greater daemons for that offensive flying threat. My biggest concern isnt so much the daemon summoning factory. Personally if the lore was reduced to daemons only it would be more tolerable. When I can play a heavy shooting army with cheap psyker support I could essentially summon/conjure whatever I need in the fight. Sure you still have to get the powers off and 66% of the perils results have you taking a wound no matter what but honestly its seriously worth the risk. Plus you dont mind the wound if you just turned your psyker into a GD. I payed 75pts for a lord of change . Also it needs FAQ'd what happens when you perils but turn into something else when you do. Does the wound carry over... do all wounds that have been previously suffered also carry over? There is no example for this.
And I could theoretically make 10 5+ saves in a row on one guy sitting on an objective. Just because it is POSSIBLE does not mean that is is probable nor a smart idea. Second you are assuming for some other army that you will have enough dice and rolls to reliably summon units which will just not be the case. What makes Daemons/Eldar scary is the large number of dice and large number of rolls on the tree that they will likely have multiples of each of the conjuring powers so they can reliably get them off.
We have not had enough time to know if it is going to be an actual problem instead of an imaginary one and what the actual mechanic that is the problem is, if there is one. Just because the check engine light is on doesn't mean that you need a new alternator. You need to investigate and find the exact problem. Which takes time, practice, and feedback from everyone else. We dont even know how all the little rules interactions in the edition will workout. Give people time to learn to play armies and play against armies before we decide to be some overlord like individuals taking away peoples ability to play with their toys because we say so.
You paid 75 points for a GD POTENTIALLY, I can also pay 5 points for a guardsman with a lasgun that causes a wound on your riptide drones and he runs off the board, what is your point? If you are saying that I can spend points to get something and it gives me more of a return than I spent. Well yea, that is the goal for most units. Also even if what you are saying is true and common place most FMC have been limited in useability.
As to the perils/wounds thing, the order of operations is clear on perils/wounds. Perils is completed before manifesting the power. As to the wounds it is 100% clear that the initial model is removed as a casualty and a new model is put on the table.
10 saves on a 5+ model has a probability of 00.17%
Have you played with the malefic powers yet? I sincerely recommend playing with them before throwing out further statistics. You will find it is easier then you think to summon these daemons. You dont care about perils of you can turn into a herald or a GD with your last cast. Throw enough dice at it and it will go off. As I said summon heavy deamons wont be the problem. A army tiered toward shooting auch as AM will be the main offenders. I can legally bring 12 WC from primaris psykers alone at 1500 points and still have plenty of shooty things to win the game. Even if you roll bad on malefic the primaris is the best power.
Im okay with leaving the psychic phase untouched though. So far only correction im going to suggest is WC 3 invisibility. However I would not ve surprised if tournaments limit malefic.
and I never said you were wrong. I am saying we don't have enough data yet to know A.What the main offending mechanic is:
Is it the powers themselves?
Is it the number of dice an army can get?
Is it the missions?
For all I know it could be the most busted brutal broken POS mechanic in the game. I am completely open to that possibility, but I am not going to declare the rules guilty until there is a significant burden of evidence.
Also as to summoning the greater daemon, since perils is 100% resolved before you actually start the power, if you cant complete a pre-requisite part of the power(remove the model as a causalty) then you cant place a daemon and it for all intents and purposes will fail.
Peronally I think santic is way more busted than malific, but that is just me. Like by focusing on the summoning aspect of daemonology you are completely missing other busted combos that might actually cause problems and are much more prevalent. Santic+Malific in the same daemon army is WAY more powerful than summoning
Leth wrote: and I never said you were wrong. I am saying we don't have enough data yet to know A.What the main offending mechanic is:
Is it the powers themselves?
Is it the number of dice an army can get?
Is it the missions?
For all I know it could be the most busted brutal broken POS mechanic in the game. I am completely open to that possibility, but I am not going to declare the rules guilty until there is a significant burden of evidence.
Also as to summoning the greater daemon, since perils is 100% resolved before you actually start the power, if you cant complete a pre-requisite part of the power(remove the model as a causalty) then you cant place a daemon and it for all intents and purposes will fail.
Peronally I think santic is way more busted than malific, but that is just me. Like by focusing on the summoning aspect of daemonology you are completely missing other busted combos that might actually cause problems and are much more prevalent. Santic+Malific in the same daemon army is WAY more powerful than summoning
Emphasis mine.
I have to agree with this.
We already have for example, the ability for the likes of Ahriman to take Santic and potentially fire off 3x "Vortex of Fun!" in a single turn.
- Or how about casting Sanctuary on a unit of Hammernators or Nurgle Oblits or GK Termies w/swords, or a CSM Tzeentch DP, etc... Then add-in an IG Preacher for added lolz where possible! (here go Marine players, you have the most busted re-rolled 2++ ability now - happy?!!)
- Or maybe a Rhino popping it's top hatch so those Purifyers/Libby can fire off a Cleansing Flame?
- Maybe Hammerhand on any kind of mini-star unit incorporation any model or ability that gives re-rolls to-hit?
- Gate of Infinity that unit out of a no-win position, or else drop a Deathstar/big nasty right in your opponent's face T1...
But apparently it's only Daemons who are naughty this edition!
Vaktathi wrote: How does one get a tank with a 2+ invul save just out of curiosity? I may be missing something, but I haven't come across that one.
2+ Invul termi's are a fair point of contention, though they're also much more expensive per model than something like a unit of Horrors are.
Only way i see it happening is forewarning and then two separate +1 to invuls..?
For the record a 2+ invul isnt bad. Sure it sucks but its no better then a 2+ armor if I am using dakka to bring them down. It is the re-roll that give the 2++ that broken edge. Santic has some good powers but if you roll bad then your hosed. The primaris only affects daemons.
I guess that would work, though it's not something I'd guess would be terribly common. Hadn't thought of that.
Personally I'm still very much horrified by 2+ invul saves in general, much less rerollable 2+ saves, I don't think anything should have a 5/6 chance of blocking even the most fearsome weaponry in the game, it makes investments in such weapons a joke, though that's a matter for another thread.
Sorry when I said tank commander I meant for Space marines with the storm shield/shield eternal.
I need to change the terminology now....
My point is that in regards to Invisibility I can see many more potential combinations where the goal is to actually win the game rather than frustrate your opponent. Invisibility is FRUSTRATING, but it is not game breaking IMO. In the old rulebook missions 2+ re-rolls were game breaking. How ever in this edition with objective secured as well as other things they are simply frustrating at best.
Honestly objective secured alone solves like 90% of the problem with deathstar units.
Leth wrote: Thing is psychic daemons lack everything you need for a solid tournament army.
For a solid tournament army to consistantly place you need to limit variables as much as possible. The psychic daemon army is banking 100% basically on randomness to see it through. Not something I am worried about.
I have to 100% disagree with this statement. When Tau dropped a while back we coined a phrase, "There is a Tau for that!" Mainly because they could do just about anything you needed them to do. Now the new phrase, "There is a daemon for that!' However, anyone can coin that phrase because a good majority of the armies can run malefic. You can spawn screamers for armor, flamers for horde control, plaguebearers for objective camping, even greater daemons for that offensive flying threat. My biggest concern isnt so much the daemon summoning factory. Personally if the lore was reduced to daemons only it would be more tolerable. When I can play a heavy shooting army with cheap psyker support I could essentially summon/conjure whatever I need in the fight. Sure you still have to get the powers off and 66% of the perils results have you taking a wound no matter what but honestly its seriously worth the risk. Plus you dont mind the wound if you just turned your psyker into a GD. I payed 75pts for a lord of change . Also it needs FAQ'd what happens when you perils but turn into something else when you do. Does the wound carry over... do all wounds that have been previously suffered also carry over? There is no example for this.
And I could theoretically make 10 5+ saves in a row on one guy sitting on an objective. Just because it is POSSIBLE does not mean that is is probable nor a smart idea. Second you are assuming for some other army that you will have enough dice and rolls to reliably summon units which will just not be the case. What makes Daemons/Eldar scary is the large number of dice and large number of rolls on the tree that they will likely have multiples of each of the conjuring powers so they can reliably get them off.
We have not had enough time to know if it is going to be an actual problem instead of an imaginary one and what the actual mechanic that is the problem is, if there is one. Just because the check engine light is on doesn't mean that you need a new alternator. You need to investigate and find the exact problem. Which takes time, practice, and feedback from everyone else. We dont even know how all the little rules interactions in the edition will workout. Give people time to learn to play armies and play against armies before we decide to be some overlord like individuals taking away peoples ability to play with their toys because we say so.
You paid 75 points for a GD POTENTIALLY, I can also pay 5 points for a guardsman with a lasgun that causes a wound on your riptide drones and he runs off the board, what is your point? If you are saying that I can spend points to get something and it gives me more of a return than I spent. Well yea, that is the goal for most units. Also even if what you are saying is true and common place most FMC have been limited in useability.
As to the perils/wounds thing, the order of operations is clear on perils/wounds. Perils is completed before manifesting the power. As to the wounds it is 100% clear that the initial model is removed as a casualty and a new model is put on the table.
10 saves on a 5+ model has a probability of 00.17%
Have you played with the malefic powers yet? I sincerely recommend playing with them before throwing out further statistics. You will find it is easier then you think to summon these daemons. You dont care about perils of you can turn into a herald or a GD with your last cast. Throw enough dice at it and it will go off. As I said summon heavy deamons wont be the problem. A army tiered toward shooting auch as AM will be the main offenders. I can legally bring 12 WC from primaris psykers alone at 1500 points and still have plenty of shooty things to win the game. Even if you roll bad on malefic the primaris is the best power.
Im okay with leaving the psychic phase untouched though. So far only correction im going to suggest is WC 3 invisibility. However I would not ve surprised if tournaments limit malefic.
Wait, wait, wait. WC3 Invis? If that happens, I better see WC3 Fortune too. They are equally broken. Invisibility can be curbed by armies that have a lot of twin-linking, especially non psychic TL. I think if you start increasing costs of powers, you're going to start a slippery slope. There are a bunch of powers you could argue are undercosted (Ignores Cover, the 4++), just as there are a lot of units and random abilities/units that are undercosted (Buffmander, Serpents).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: How does one get a tank with a 2+ invul save just out of curiosity? I may be missing something, but I haven't come across that one.
2+ Invul termi's are a fair point of contention, though they're also much more expensive per model than something like a unit of Horrors are.
Draigo + Sanctuary (or whatever the +1 invuln power on sanctic is).
Vaktathi wrote: How does one get a tank with a 2+ invul save just out of curiosity? I may be missing something, but I haven't come across that one.
2+ Invul termi's are a fair point of contention, though they're also much more expensive per model than something like a unit of Horrors are.
Only way i see it happening is forewarning and then two separate +1 to invuls..?
For the record a 2+ invul isnt bad. Sure it sucks but its no better then a 2+ armor if I am using dakka to bring them down. It is the re-roll that give the 2++ that broken edge. Santic has some good powers but if you roll bad then your hosed. The primaris only affects daemons.
There's only a single combination in the entire game that I'm aware of where that works:
1. Psyker w/Forewarning from the Divination tree
2. Psyker w/Sanctuary from the Santic Daemonology tree
3. Psyker w/Cursed Earth from the Malefic Daemonology tree
And that combo will only work on a Daemonic model. (Forewarning to 4++, Cursed Earth to 3++, Sanctuary to 2++)
And due to the nature of how IC's cannot join a unit with the Daemonic Instability rule, you're limiting that combo to just the daemonic units from the CSM codex.
Mostly you'll just say feth-it and put Sanctuary on a unit that already has a 4++ or better yet a 3++ save, since you can't stack the same Blessing for repeated bonuses. Or else cast one of the above powers and then slap a Daemonic unit with The Good Book in the case of Chaos players.
Dozer Blades wrote: It always cracks me to see what people suggest how to make the game better and more balanced. WC2 is actually pretty stiff now in my opinion.
I know. The amount of times "simple and elegant solution" appears after some ill-considered change that has massive secondary effects is depressing and comical at the same time.
Dozer Blades wrote:I am hoping ATC lets us play raw40k... we will all be able to draw some good conclusions.
Tsilber wrote:
Dozer Blades wrote: I am hoping ATC lets us play raw40k... we will all be able to draw some good conclusions.
I concur
FROM ATC PAGE:
Spoiler:
1 - We will have a first draft FAQ to you by Tuesday May 2nd. We have a fully dedicated Judge staff of 6-8 people who are already working on this. The GWFAQs located at http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html will be used.
2 - ORGANIZATION CHANGES
A - No Unbound Armies and no Formations will be allowed.
B - Battle forged Armies MUST be used, with a mandatory, maximum, ONE Combined Arms Detachment that will NOT use Lords of War and a Maximum ONE Allied Detachment that is optional.
C - Tactical Objectives will NOT be used.
D - Legal Fortifications list will be decided and announced later today. The rules from Stronghold Assault will be used for any that we decide to allow.
E - NO terrain data slates.
I ask the people please stop pretending that this is the only location where this movement towards balance is happening. Its happening across the country with a lot of the same changes being implented. However, I am not sure if its happening overseas or not.
Dozer Blades wrote:I am hoping ATC lets us play raw40k... we will all be able to draw some good conclusions.
Tsilber wrote:
Dozer Blades wrote: I am hoping ATC lets us play raw40k... we will all be able to draw some good conclusions.
I concur
FROM ATC PAGE:
Spoiler:
1 - We will have a first draft FAQ to you by Tuesday May 2nd. We have a fully dedicated Judge staff of 6-8 people who are already working on this. The GWFAQs located at http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html will be used.
2 - ORGANIZATION CHANGES
A - No Unbound Armies and no Formations will be allowed.
B - Battle forged Armies MUST be used, with a mandatory, maximum, ONE Combined Arms Detachment that will NOT use Lords of War and a Maximum ONE Allied Detachment that is optional.
C - Tactical Objectives will NOT be used.
D - Legal Fortifications list will be decided and announced later today. The rules from Stronghold Assault will be used for any that we decide to allow.
E - NO terrain data slates.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I ask the people please stop pretending that this is the only location where this movement towards balance is happening. Its happening across the country not sure if its happening overseas or not.
Those restrictions sound reasonable and are about what I would expect a TO to do. I think as long as it doesnt mess with the main core rules to much I am not seeing a problem. Excited to see how the GT at the end of this month rules things.
I can understand most of what they did by restricting Unbound, but limiting to one Combined Arms Detatchment with single ally really does screw over some armies like Iyanden, Farsight Encoave, Black Legion, Sentinals, etc which are meant to be able to ally with themselves and are given permission to via Battle Forged rules with Dual Combined Arms Detatchments.
1 - We will have a first draft FAQ to you by Tuesday May 2nd. We have a fully dedicated Judge staff of 6-8 people who are already working on this. The GWFAQs located at http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html will be used.
2 - ORGANIZATION CHANGES
A - No Unbound Armies and no Formations will be allowed.
B - Battle forged Armies MUST be used, with a mandatory, maximum, ONE Combined Arms Detachment that will NOT use Lords of War and a Maximum ONE Allied Detachment that is optional.
C - Tactical Objectives will NOT be used.
D - Legal Fortifications list will be decided and announced later today. The rules from Stronghold Assault will be used for any that we decide to allow.
E - NO terrain data slates.
So, reflexive bans on anything that isn't the 5th edition FOC, regardless of whether or not there is any good reason for the ban. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Dozer Blades wrote:I am hoping ATC lets us play raw40k... we will all be able to draw some good conclusions.
Tsilber wrote:
Dozer Blades wrote: I am hoping ATC lets us play raw40k... we will all be able to draw some good conclusions.
I concur
FROM ATC PAGE:
Spoiler:
1 - We will have a first draft FAQ to you by Tuesday May 2nd. We have a fully dedicated Judge staff of 6-8 people who are already working on this. The GWFAQs located at http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html will be used.
2 - ORGANIZATION CHANGES
A - No Unbound Armies and no Formations will be allowed.
B - Battle forged Armies MUST be used, with a mandatory, maximum, ONE Combined Arms Detachment that will NOT use Lords of War and a Maximum ONE Allied Detachment that is optional.
C - Tactical Objectives will NOT be used.
D - Legal Fortifications list will be decided and announced later today. The rules from Stronghold Assault will be used for any that we decide to allow.
E - NO terrain data slates.
I ask the people please stop pretending that this is the only location where this movement towards balance is happening. Its happening across the country with a lot of the same changes being implented. However, I am not sure if its happening overseas or not.
It's a step in the right direction, it looks much more like 40k than apoc, and that's good
So, reflexive bans on anything that isn't the 5th edition FOC, regardless of whether or not there is any good reason for the ban. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Speaking for myself, I'd rather play 40k than apoc, pretending apoc is 40k is what's killing 40k.
Crablezworth wrote: Speaking for myself, I'd rather play 40k than apoc, pretending apoc is 40k is what's killing 40k.
Then I guess we have a fundamental disagreement about what the role of a TO is in modifying the game. My position is that the TO should do the minimum required to fix any game-breaking balance issues, and otherwise leave the game as-is. You seem to be ok with the TO making changes to enforce a specific style of play that you prefer. I just hope that people on your side of this divide don't end up driving the game back to the bad old days of comp-heavy "tournaments" where you were effectively banned from winning if the TO didn't like the fluff of your army.
Crablezworth wrote: Speaking for myself, I'd rather play 40k than apoc, pretending apoc is 40k is what's killing 40k.
Then I guess we have a fundamental disagreement about what the role of a TO is in modifying the game. My position is that the TO should do the minimum required to fix any game-breaking balance issues, and otherwise leave the game as-is. You seem to be ok with the TO making changes to enforce a specific style of play that you prefer. I just hope that people on your side of this divide don't end up driving the game back to the bad old days of comp-heavy "tournaments" where you were effectively banned from winning if the TO didn't like the fluff of your army.
If I am putting 10k+ on the line for a tournament your damn right I am going to ban things that might make it so people dont want to come. I will play it safe anyday when serious money is on the line rather than take risks.
Crablezworth wrote: Speaking for myself, I'd rather play 40k than apoc, pretending apoc is 40k is what's killing 40k.
Then I guess we have a fundamental disagreement about what the role of a TO is in modifying the game. My position is that the TO should do the minimum required to fix any game-breaking balance issues, and otherwise leave the game as-is. You seem to be ok with the TO making changes to enforce a specific style of play that you prefer. I just hope that people on your side of this divide don't end up driving the game back to the bad old days of comp-heavy "tournaments" where you were effectively banned from winning if the TO didn't like the fluff of your army.
Adepticon did a tournament with all the crazy apoc stuff, 17 people likely had a good time. If you think TO's on the hook for thousands are going to be less conservative with their main gt events, I would say you're being a bit naïve.
1 - We will have a first draft FAQ to you by Tuesday May 2nd. We have a fully dedicated Judge staff of 6-8 people who are already working on this. The GWFAQs located at http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html will be used.
2 - ORGANIZATION CHANGES
A - No Unbound Armies and no Formations will be allowed.
B - Battle forged Armies MUST be used, with a mandatory, maximum, ONE Combined Arms Detachment that will NOT use Lords of War and a Maximum ONE Allied Detachment that is optional.
C - Tactical Objectives will NOT be used.
D - Legal Fortifications list will be decided and announced later today. The rules from Stronghold Assault will be used for any that we decide to allow.
E - NO terrain data slates.
So, reflexive bans on anything that isn't the 5th edition FOC, regardless of whether or not there is any good reason for the ban. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.
IMHO unbound isnt even 40k. If i wanted to play apocalypse i would. If you go with unbound then whats the point in buying an army. Just buy all the random models you want and throw them on the board.
1 - We will have a first draft FAQ to you by Tuesday May 2nd. We have a fully dedicated Judge staff of 6-8 people who are already working on this. The GWFAQs located at http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html will be used.
2 - ORGANIZATION CHANGES
A - No Unbound Armies and no Formations will be allowed.
B - Battle forged Armies MUST be used, with a mandatory, maximum, ONE Combined Arms Detachment that will NOT use Lords of War and a Maximum ONE Allied Detachment that is optional.
C - Tactical Objectives will NOT be used.
D - Legal Fortifications list will be decided and announced later today. The rules from Stronghold Assault will be used for any that we decide to allow.
E - NO terrain data slates.
So, reflexive bans on anything that isn't the 5th edition FOC, regardless of whether or not there is any good reason for the ban. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.
IMHO unbound isnt even 40k. If i wanted to play apocalypse i would. If you go with unbound then whats the point in buying an army. Just buy all the random models you want and throw them on the board.
Im fairness tomb king, pure "battle forged" is abour 3/4 as bad as unbound. Both of them barely regulate anything. Which is exactly what apoc is, crazy give no quarter pure market 40k.
1 - We will have a first draft FAQ to you by Tuesday May 2nd. We have a fully dedicated Judge staff of 6-8 people who are already working on this. The GWFAQs located at http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html will be used.
2 - ORGANIZATION CHANGES
A - No Unbound Armies and no Formations will be allowed.
B - Battle forged Armies MUST be used, with a mandatory, maximum, ONE Combined Arms Detachment that will NOT use Lords of War and a Maximum ONE Allied Detachment that is optional.
C - Tactical Objectives will NOT be used.
D - Legal Fortifications list will be decided and announced later today. The rules from Stronghold Assault will be used for any that we decide to allow.
E - NO terrain data slates.
So, reflexive bans on anything that isn't the 5th edition FOC, regardless of whether or not there is any good reason for the ban. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.
IMHO unbound isnt even 40k. If i wanted to play apocalypse i would. If you go with unbound then whats the point in buying an army. Just buy all the random models you want and throw them on the board.
Im fairness tomb king, pure "battle forged" is abour 3/4 as bad as unbound. Both of them barely regulate anything. Which is exactly what apoc is, crazy give no quarter pure market 40k.
Yea I am with you on that assessment. Just trying to win one battle a time. I cant fathom why people cant see the issues with unbound. I miss the games were one persons army fought another persons army on the table. When do we draw the line.
In 5th edition there was army vs army
In 6th edition there were army(possible double force org at higher point levels) = ally vs army.
In 7th edition there are whatever you feel like playing to include double force orgs, any combo of models in the game, titans, data slates, formations, forgeworld. Its all now legal if you let it play as is. smh.
Crablezworth wrote: Adepticon did a tournament with all the crazy apoc stuff, 17 people likely had a good time. If you think TO's on the hook for thousands are going to be less conservative with their main gt events, I would say you're being a bit naïve.
Of course this was also with pre-nerf D-weapons, so I don't think that's a fair representation of a 7th edition game under the standard rules. And I certainly don't think that those balance issues are things that require blanket bans on everything from superheavies to multiple FOCs to fix them. If titans are a problem and drive people away then increase their point cost or ban D-weapons or whatever, don't ban everything vaguely related to Apocalypse just because someone might not show up if you don't play 6th edition.
Leth wrote: If I am putting 10k+ on the line for a tournament your damn right I am going to ban things that might make it so people dont want to come. I will play it safe anyday when serious money is on the line rather than take risks.
Except by banning stuff without good reason (and no, "I don't like your army" isn't a good reason) you're excluding the people who use that stuff. Plus, by giving in to the people who will ragequit if someone gets to use an army they don't like you continue to support the idea that people are entitled to have veto power over their opponent's army choices.
Of course it's 40k, it's right there in the 7th edition rules. It might not be in your own personal game which kind of resembles 40k, but that's not the game everyone else is playing.
If you go with unbound then whats the point in buying an army. Just buy all the random models you want and throw them on the board.
So let me get this straight: your opposition to unbound armies isn't based on a clear game balance issue, it's based on your personal dislike of unbound armies (poor theme, whatever)? Your reason for banning them is nothing more than unhappiness that someone is having fun in a way that you don't enjoy?
Leth wrote: If I am putting 10k+ on the line for a tournament your damn right I am going to ban things that might make it so people dont want to come. I will play it safe anyday when serious money is on the line rather than take risks.
Except by banning stuff without good reason (and no, "I don't like your army" isn't a good reason) you're excluding the people who use that stuff. Plus, by giving in to the people who will ragequit if someone gets to use an army they don't like you continue to support the idea that people are entitled to have veto power over their opponent's army choices.
And that would make sense if YOU are willing to risk your own money to runa tournament like that feel free. Until then I have no problems with them imposing whatever restrictions they want and people will vote with their money. If I don't like it I wont go.
We don't have a right to be in tournaments, it is a choice we can make. Neither are we forced, if you are not satisfied with the rules people are presenting you are free to take on the risks yourself, however to demand that someone else takes the risk because of what you want speaks of a level of entitlement I cant describe.
Their house, their rules.
Now am I a fan of some of the restrictions? No, but they do not outweigh my desire to keep playing in the events.
Of course it's 40k, it's right there in the 7th edition rules. It might not be in your own personal game which kind of resembles 40k, but that's not the game everyone else is playing.
Leth wrote: We don't have a right to be in tournaments, it is a choice we can make. Neither are we forced, if you are not satisfied with the rules people are presenting you are free to take on the risks yourself, however to demand that someone else takes the risk because of what you want speaks of a level of entitlement I cant describe.
Their house, their rules.
Err, lol? Since when does any of that mean that we shouldn't criticize events that we don't like? In fact, why even have a forum for discussing tournaments if you think that we're obligated to just accept the events that are provided to us and never dare to criticize their sacred wisdom?
Except by banning stuff without good reason (and no, "I don't like your army" isn't a good reason) you're excluding the people who use that stuff. Plus, by giving in to the people who will ragequit if someone gets to use an army they don't like you continue to support the idea that people are entitled to have veto power over their opponent's army choices.
Without good reason? I have to ask and it is relevant. What armies do you currently own? Before I say anything further I will need this information so I can understand how you are not seeing the possibilities that would totally wreck this game.
Tomb King wrote: Before I say anything further I will need this information so I can understand how you are not seeing the possibilities that would totally wreck this game.
How about just listing those possibilities without having to make this about me and my personal armies. If the game-breaking balance problems are so obvious then you shouldn't have any problems doing it.
Leth wrote: We don't have a right to be in tournaments, it is a choice we can make. Neither are we forced, if you are not satisfied with the rules people are presenting you are free to take on the risks yourself, however to demand that someone else takes the risk because of what you want speaks of a level of entitlement I cant describe.
Their house, their rules.
Err, lol? Since when does any of that mean that we shouldn't criticize events that we don't like? In fact, why even have a forum for discussing tournaments if you think that we're obligated to just accept the events that are provided to us and never dare to criticize their sacred wisdom?
There is a difference between criticizing them because of their choices and feeling entitled to your choices and being upset because they dont do what you want.
If they made something random like "We are banning fire warriors in this event" then I could see that being an odd banning, but when you are dealing with a community like 40k(as we have seen from the internet) is not the most accepting of change, your job is not to make it some competitive event or stick your banner in the ground and make a stand for the complete rules, your job is to make it as enjoyable for a large number of people as possible so you don't lose money on it.
Complaining about someone doing something for irrational reasons is one thing. Complaining about people making good personal decisions and not putting themselves at risk because of what you want is not criticizing its entitlement.
Leth wrote: Complaining about people making good personal decisions is not critisizing its entitlement.
IOW, "complaining about things I don't like is fine, complaining about things I think are reasonable decisions is entitlement". How about instead of derailing this into a tangent about whether or not the poor TOs are being criticized too harshly we stick to discussing the merits of various rule options?
Leth wrote: Complaining about people making good personal decisions is not critisizing its entitlement.
IOW, "complaining about things I don't like is fine, complaining about things I think are reasonable decisions is entitlement". How about instead of derailing this into a tangent about whether or not the poor TOs are being criticized too harshly we stick to discussing the merits of various rule options?
You were the one saying what someone else should do, not I. Being a TO is largely a thankless job, they get a lot of gak from people, they have to invest a lot of personal time and money. Having a little understanding for their position is and what they are investing for the enjoyment of others. Being grateful is something I prioritize and am thankful for everyday because they take on the tasks most people are not willing to do. They are fellow people, hobbyists, and should be treated with a certain level of dignity(IMO). But from the way you talk about people on here, I HOPE that you have forgotten that instead of knowingly talking about our fellow hobbyists the way you do. I remember that there is another human on the other end of any communications I make, I now have you blocked so I am not going to see anything else you post, not because I disagree but because you are a donkeycave about it.
But I will give you the last point since I am not going to respond, explain to me how taking a huge personal financial risk to play the complete rules is a reasonable decision?
Tomb King wrote: Before I say anything further I will need this information so I can understand how you are not seeing the possibilities that would totally wreck this game.
How about just listing those possibilities without having to make this about me and my personal armies. If the game-breaking balance problems are so obvious then you shouldn't have any problems doing it.
Having few restrictions on what you can take in your army is not even close to making 40k a "sandbox" instead of a game.
Firstly there is a difference in a few restrictions and no restrictions.
As for the question I only asked because I wanted it to show you what could be done with just the models you currently have i.e. more relevant to you. However, judging by your link in your signature you like super heavies and are probably an avid Apoc player. Not judging you for that and I can partly understand your motives. IF these changes actually came through it might significantly improve your player base. More people playing with the big toys the more people that you can get games with. Only problem is even though it might help get a few more apoc players the long term would see less players as a whole.
My personal reasons for not playing Apocolypse:
$$$$ = Winner (The person who is willing to spend the cash on the big bad toys is going to win)
Uber units that can kill an army (Please see a Revenant Titan as an example) The other day they allowed them into a tournament and I was unfortunate enough to take nids up against a stormsword with extra las cannons. It ate my army and was totally fun. Games can be over before they start (Seen people completely destroy an opponents army before they even got to move a model)
Too much hero hammer
That feeling of helplessness when you know no matter what your army cant win this fight or even harm the enemies crazy uber unit (picture tier I-II vs Tier 5+ in world of tanks )
Games can be over before they start (Seen people completely destroy an opponents army before they even got to move a model)
Too much hero hammer
That feeling of helplessness when you know no matter what your army cant win this fight or even harm the enemies crazy uber unit (picture tier I-II vs Tier 5+ in world of tanks )
I think we need to make sure to differentiate between losing because it is super unbalanced, or losing because you have a bad list, or you are bad at the game. A skilled player can usually overcome a power difference with a decent list IF the missions create an environment where multiple avenues to victory are present.
I have played in missions against these deathstars where they have a huge problem because they cant contest every turn all the objectives I can claim every turn.
Deathstars don't have the wiggle room to adjust to missions because so many points are spoken for.
Tomb King wrote: $$$$ = Winner (The person who is willing to spend the cash on the big bad toys is going to win)
Uber units that can kill an army (Please see a Revenant Titan as an example) The other day they allowed them into a tournament and I was unfortunate enough to take nids up against a stormsword with extra las cannons. It ate my army and was totally fun. Games can be over before they start (Seen people completely destroy an opponents army before they even got to move a model)
Too much hero hammer
That feeling of helplessness when you know no matter what your army cant win this fight or even harm the enemies crazy uber unit (picture tier I-II vs Tier 5+ in world of tanks )
These things already exist in the restricted game that you're advocating.
$$$$ = winner: everything about this game. Riptide spam at $80 each, demon summoning armies that require you to buy a whole second army worth of models, etc.
Uber units: re-rollable 2++ death stars (now with invisibility!), tons of MCs/tanks, etc. Honestly, the Stormsword is usually a lot less point-efficient than the best "normal" units.
Games that can be over before they start: Tau or IG gunline against BA or similar assault-focused army.
Too much hero hammer: every death star list. In fact, your restrictions make this worse since a single FOC still allows the expensive HQs but removes things that would kill them.
Helplessness: showing up with a "normal" list against re-rollable 2++. I wouldn't even bother deploying my army in that case.
Tomb King wrote: $$$$ = Winner (The person who is willing to spend the cash on the big bad toys is going to win)
Uber units that can kill an army (Please see a Revenant Titan as an example) The other day they allowed them into a tournament and I was unfortunate enough to take nids up against a stormsword with extra las cannons. It ate my army and was totally fun. Games can be over before they start (Seen people completely destroy an opponents army before they even got to move a model)
Too much hero hammer
That feeling of helplessness when you know no matter what your army cant win this fight or even harm the enemies crazy uber unit (picture tier I-II vs Tier 5+ in world of tanks )
These things already exist in the restricted game that you're advocating.
$$$$ = winner: everything about this game. Riptide spam at $80 each, demon summoning armies that require you to buy a whole second army worth of models, etc.
Uber units: re-rollable 2++ death stars (now with invisibility!), tons of MCs/tanks, etc. Honestly, the Stormsword is usually a lot less point-efficient than the best "normal" units.
Games that can be over before they start: Tau or IG gunline against BA or similar assault-focused army.
Too much hero hammer: every death star list. In fact, your restrictions make this worse since a single FOC still allows the expensive HQs but removes things that would kill them.
Helplessness: showing up with a "normal" list against re-rollable 2++. I wouldn't even bother deploying my army in that case.
$$$$ = winner: everything about this game. Riptide spam at $80 each, demon summoning armies that require you to buy a whole second army worth of models, etc.
Riptides are one of the most efficient points-per-dollar Tau units you can get. At 220pts with standard loadout, compared to $55 for 110pts of Firewarriors or Kroot. $80 for ~160pts of Crisis Suits, $85 for 150pts of Hammerhead....
Yes, you need to buy models to play the game. But if you're worried about people buying an entire second army of daemons with an additional 200 horrors and 10 bloodthirsters... those people are going to buy the biggest power list no matter what. If not daemons, then GK henchmen/razorback spam...
Helplessness: showing up with a "normal" list against re-rollable 2++. I wouldn't even bother deploying my army in that case.
This is the big problem. The tournament winning lists are all 'trick' lists that generally can't be taken on with a naive 'TAC' - 'take one of everything' army list. The problem is that it's getting easier and easier to 'accidentally' build a trick list. Tzeentch Daemon factory (though of unproven tournament worth) can be considered a quite fluffy mono-tzeentch daemon build. AV14 spam is just a fluff-driven armoured company. Etc, etc.
Of course not, but that's not the point. The relevant question is whether or not those things are so much worse under the standard 7th edition rules that we have to house rule everything back to 5th edition to fix the problem. So far there doesn't seem to be much evidence that unbound lists/superheavies/etc are really that bad.
Trasvi wrote: But if you're worried about people buying an entire second army of daemons with an additional 200 horrors and 10 bloodthirsters... those people are going to buy the biggest power list no matter what. If not daemons, then GK henchmen/razorback spam...
Well yeah, that's exactly my point: 40k is still "pay to win" regardless of whether or not unbound lists/superheavies/etc are included. Banning them doesn't remove the cost factor, it just changes which models are included in the best list.
1. Distributed Casting. No unit can use more dice than 2x his Mastery level, plus 1/2 of the D6 pooled dice (unless there is only 1 psyker in that army, which can then use all of the D6 pooled dice).
Here’s the problem that this is trying to fix. Say you have a Lvl 3 Daemon Prince with Invisibility, the Summoning and Iron Arm. On average, it’ll take 2 dice to cast a Warp Charge 1 power with any reliablity (75% chance). Thus, to cast Summoning somewhat reliably, you need 6 dice, 4 dice for Invisibility and 2 dice for Iron Arm. Now he’s only got 6 (Level 3) +D3 dice so he needs to choose carefully which power he wants to cast.
The problem with the underlined is that previously, A PML3 Daemon Prince could easily cast 2-3 powers a turn (depending on whether they were WC1 or WC2). NOW you're talking about A SINGLE POWER! And you even want to make that single power difficult for him to get off by limiting his dice! Of course Pink Horrors should be able to donate their psychic presence to their Warlord.
Maybe we should have pools of WC that can only be used by the Faction (or, even stricter, detachment) that generated it. No Coteaz Batteries powering a Daemon army (or any other army).
Of course not, but that's not the point. The relevant question is whether or not those things are so much worse under the standard 7th edition rules that we have to house rule everything back to 5th edition to fix the problem. So far there doesn't seem to be much evidence that unbound lists/superheavies/etc are really that bad.
Trasvi wrote: But if you're worried about people buying an entire second army of daemons with an additional 200 horrors and 10 bloodthirsters... those people are going to buy the biggest power list no matter what. If not daemons, then GK henchmen/razorback spam...
Well yeah, that's exactly my point: 40k is still "pay to win" regardless of whether or not unbound lists/superheavies/etc are included. Banning them doesn't remove the cost factor, it just changes which models are included in the best list.
Do you play in tournaments? I can't help but have the feeling that you are only in here to rabble-rouse. We get it, you think the game ought to be played as is out of the book, great. This thread is clearly about "comping" 40k, why even bother to post in the thread if you aren't going to be constructive at all?
but lets be realist here. The only way I could see unbound working is if list were turned in for approval in advance or there were some sort of comp system put in place.
)
but it's probably more S6 than anyone would ever want (especially with the likely arms race up to AV13-14 vehicles given the change to the armor penetration table).
but how many I cram in is something I'm considering in light of tournaments, since I like to build towards events. Obviously there's no way to know what will be allowed yet... so really just bouncing ideas around here.
all Daemon players" just for choosing to play Daemons?
